Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT

Fem / Sub Octav Community Q/A replay video

33 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
4,302 posts

for those that missed it on Friday. If you did submit a question on the official Q/A forum thread, your answer may be in this video. If your question is not answzered on the video, check your original Q/A submission (buried soemwhere on the forum!), it may have been edited with a reply by Sub Octavian. No guarantee you will like the reply, however.:Smile_glasses:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,240
[WORX]
Members
11,364 posts
19,166 battles

May number one concern was, the changing of the concealment meta instead of eliminating it.

At this point in time... I think I rather have the concealment meta eliminated then changed to something the player base is against (ala CV rework)

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
1 minute ago, Navalpride33 said:

May number one concern was, the changing of the concealment meta instead of eliminating it.

At this point in time... I think I rather have the concealment meta eliminated then changed to something the player base is against (ala CV rework)

or just remove the t8+ concealment upgrade slot, and the 10 pt concealment skill. Replace both with dynamic concealment based on the environment. (Polar bears, raining bananas, or whatever..)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,673
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,735 posts
7,019 battles
18 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

May number one concern was, the changing of the concealment meta instead of eliminating it.

At this point in time... I think I rather have the concealment meta eliminated then changed to something the player base is against (ala CV rework)

you will not trash my ships just because you are angry with the clouds.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,145
[ARGSY]
Members
10,326 posts
16,093 battles

it takes skill to really use concealment to effectiveness.  For many botes,  concealment is what makes them playable.   may be it is the skill gap that is the problem with player base that is becoming less skilled.   After a year off, I do see that skil gap has increased instead of decreased.     throwing in  more CV into the mix has made it worse as well.  Now, certain botes have silly concealment.    BB/CVs should not be allowed to have conceal module for example.

otherwise,  conceal has been part of the game since the beginning and part of skill player need to acquire to either play  or counter it. 

 

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,771
[DEV_X]
Alpha Tester
2,464 posts
24,728 battles
1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said:

May number one concern was, the changing of the concealment meta instead of eliminating it.

At this point in time... I think I rather have the concealment meta eliminated then changed to something the player base is against (ala CV rework)

I agree with you so much. If the game wasnt so balanced around concealment we wouldnt have half the issues we have. Better ballistics and armor models would be much better for the game to be based off of. I feel Concealment is a leftover from WoTs that doesnt belong. Tanks hide using defelade and the environment and ships do not. I know it's not a simulation but the idea a ship can disappear right in front of you is silly.

 

1 hour ago, LoveBote said:

or just remove the t8+ concealment upgrade slot, and the 10 pt concealment skill. Replace both with dynamic concealment based on the environment. (Polar bears, raining bananas, or whatever..)

Exactly. You can park behind and island and be unseen but a ship doesnt magically disappear because it didnt shoot.

 

47 minutes ago, centarina said:

 otherwise,  conceal has been part of the game since the beginning and part of skill player need to acquire to either play  or counter it

It has been a fundamental mechanic of the game but perhaps it was the wrong one to base the game around. I'll post a link to the article where the WarGaming president said he pressed all their games to be WoT clones because it was so successful. I honestly think concealment is the biggest issue we have. Players are afraid to take any damage even in battleships, so they hide to avoid it. When invisi-firing was a thing it was too powerful but when ships that used it are stripped of concealment they die too easily.

"

Kislyi blames himself, and his top-down creative demands on the game.

“I was pushing all those teams to literally copy World of Tanks,” Kislyi said. “That was wrong.”"

https://www.polygon.com/2017/3/7/14834044/wargaming-ceo-interview-world-of-tanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
284
[DOG]
Members
1,168 posts
12,352 battles

SubOctavian said secondaries are working as intended, and there is no delay.  They turn and fire normally.  However, they don't start turning toward the target until after it comes into range, even if the ship already had the target spotted and/or was already engaging it with main guns.  That's what makes it appear to have a delay.  Players expect, logically, that secondary gun crews would anticipate an already spotted target coming into range and already have the guns pointed in the right direction beforehand.  I haven't played that much with MFCSA, so I'm not sure if this skill eliminates the delay or not.

Edited by zubalkabir
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[-VT-]
Members
781 posts
9,352 battles
9 minutes ago, zubalkabir said:

SubOctavian said secondaries are working as intended, and there is no delay.  They turn and fire normally.  However, they don't start turning toward the target until after it comes into range, even if the ship already had the target spotted and/or was already engaging it with main guns.  That's what makes it appear to have a delay.  Players expect, logically, that secondary gun crews would anticipate an already spotted target coming into range and already have the guns pointed in the right direction beforehand.  I haven't played that much with MFCSA, so I'm not sure if this skill eliminates the delay or not.

It doesn’t remove the delay, if anything, it makes it more noticeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,292
[A-I-M]
Members
3,502 posts
23,195 battles

Best moment: Sub's weary and sardonic "Thank you, Mouse". 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,289 posts
2,399 battles
55 minutes ago, Pugilistic said:

Best moment: Sub's weary and sardonic "Thank you, Mouse". 

He and WG only have themselves to blame. They knew there were people like mouse and Ichase who really get their heads under the hood of the game engine and would find out such mechanics.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,352 posts
32,360 battles
3 hours ago, centarina said:

BB/CVs should not be allowed to have conceal module for example.

Now what would that encourage BB's to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,578 posts
22,927 battles
22 minutes ago, slokill_1 said:

Now what would that encourage BB's to do?

     Honestly not being a [edited] like most people when they say this but that would be a matter of adapting. You can play non concealment BB, but it takes a change in playstyle and you risk everything seeing you sooner or first. A complete overhaul of the spotting mechanics could change that, of course, but I am talking about what is, not what isn't. As it stood pre rework most of my BB builds were cookie cutter survival with concealment because why run anything else? The CV rework has largely not changed that, but its more due to the fact I largely feel that boosting AA nor secondary guns as nearly as effective as survivability/concealment rather than the fact spotting or how much I am spotted has changed. Most BBs already sit back at high tiers so changing concealment probably will not change playstyle.

Edited by Alabamastan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,352 posts
32,360 battles

So tired of these videos.  I don't have time to sit through them.  Just post a transcript so the literate among us can spent one min. on that instead of whatever time sponge a video is.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,715
[SALVO]
Members
25,426 posts
27,339 battles
4 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

May number one concern was, the changing of the concealment meta instead of eliminating it.

At this point in time... I think I rather have the concealment meta eliminated then changed to something the player base is against (ala CV rework)

 

3 hours ago, LoveBote said:

or just remove the t8+ concealment upgrade slot, and the 10 pt concealment skill. Replace both with dynamic concealment based on the environment. (Polar bears, raining bananas, or whatever..)

I would love to see the current concealment upgrade module removed and then have all ships, but particularly DDs, have their concealment values rebalanced against each other.  I think that the Concealment module really screws up the progressive balance of concealment values as you progress upwards through the tiers.  I've suggested it before and I'll suggest it again here.  Replace it with a Camouflage Module that gives the ship an incoming shell dispersion bonus, in the same way that camo paint does.  The upside here is that camo is not an all or nothing kind of thing like concealment (i.e. either you're concealed or you're not).  With a Camo dispersion bonus, your ship is just a little harder to hit, but not impossible to hit.

I also wouldn't mind seeing the Concealment Expert skill removed, though the fact that any ship of any tier can use it makes it less of an issue to me.  Regardless, it could be replaced by a Camouflage Expert skill that gives a camouflage dispersion bonus to make your ship a little harder to hit (and would stack on top of a Camouflage upgrade module's dispersion bonus).

I guess I just think that the game would be better and more balanced if every ship's concealment was only based on basic concealment value (and any camo paint you might mount).    Let the devs  rebalance all ships' concealment values and I think we'd be good to go.

 

Side note: I would like to see the devs add another possible upgrade module for slot 5.  Right now, BBs only have the choice between concealment and target acquisition, and TA doesn't seem very popular.  DDs and cruisers have access to a rudder shift module in slot 5, but BBs do not.  It'd be nice if BBs had another option as well, whether it was something new or the same rudder module that DDs and CA/CLs get.  That said, so long as the Concealment module exists, it will always seem like a must have due to how important concealment is.

 

 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
4 minutes ago, slokill_1 said:

So tired of these videos.  I don't have time to sit through them.  Just post a transcript so the literate among us can spent one min. on that instead of whatever time sponge a video is.

A volunteer to write up a transcript would be nice. Thankyou.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,715
[SALVO]
Members
25,426 posts
27,339 battles
5 minutes ago, slokill_1 said:

So tired of these videos.  I don't have time to sit through them.  Just post a transcript so the literate among us can spent one min. on that instead of whatever time sponge a video is.

slokill, I get where you're coming from on this.  A lot of the time when it comes to short informational videos, I'd rather just read an article.  However, I think that it's asking a LOT for someone, particularly just a player, to sit down and write up a transcript of a 2 hour video.  Maybe a WG employee might do it though.  Still, a 2 hour video would make for a rather long transcript to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
3 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I think that the Concealment module really screws up the progressive balance of concealment values as you progress upwards through the tiers.  I've suggested it before and I'll suggest it again here. 

t7 vs t8 dds is the most obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,299
[WOLF1]
Members
5,763 posts
9 minutes ago, slokill_1 said:

So tired of these videos.  I don't have time to sit through them.  Just post a transcript so the literate among us can spent one min. on that instead of whatever time sponge a video is.

Have right at it.  No one's stopping you.

Or you can wait patiently for someone else to do it if you can't be arsed to get the answers yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,715
[SALVO]
Members
25,426 posts
27,339 battles
1 minute ago, LoveBote said:

t7 vs t8 dds is the most obvious.

Particularly for older DDs.  It's painful to be in a tier 7 Mahan going up against a tier 8 Benson or tier 9 Fletcher.  

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,145
[ARGSY]
Members
10,326 posts
16,093 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

Particularly for older DDs.  It's painful to be in a tier 7 Mahan going up against a tier 8 Benson or tier 9 Fletcher.  

its funny, but I played lot of Sims and it has never bothered me being a t7.     sims was at one time considered to be very poor DD, but I never agreed at the time.    Heck, I've killed my share of  bensons and fletcher with it .     mahan is a bit of turd though being so big.    I would take farragut over mahan  lol

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
993
[NSC]
Members
2,333 posts
2 minutes ago, centarina said:

its funny, but I played lot of Sims and it has never bothered me being a t7.     sims was at one time considered to be very poor DD, but I never agreed at the time.    Heck, I've killed my share of  bensons and fletcher with it .     mahan is a bit of turd though being so big.    I would take farragut over mahan  lol

 

 

Even with the MB buff that reduced reload time to 3.33 sec?

Edited by henrychenhenry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,578 posts
22,927 battles
1 minute ago, centarina said:

its funny, but I played lot of Sims and it has never bothered me being a t7.     sims was at one time considered to be very poor DD, but I never agreed at the time.    Heck, I've killed my share of  bensons and fletcher with it .     mahan is a bit of turd though being so big.    I would take farragut over mahan  lol

 

 

I generally feel comfortable in T7 DD as well, I think its all what you are used to. Mahan has gotten several buffs though fairly recently, I liked it and still think it is strong at tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,292
[A-I-M]
Members
3,502 posts
23,195 battles
10 hours ago, Krupp_Sabot said:

He and WG only have themselves to blame. They knew there were people like mouse and Ichase who really get their heads under the hood of the game engine and would find out such mechanics.

He explained for a bit that it was a feature rather than a bug, but then talked about fixing it IIRC. So, who knows?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,724 posts
11,839 battles
8 hours ago, Crucis said:

Particularly for older DDs.  It's painful to be in a tier 7 Mahan going up against a tier 8 Benson or tier 9 Fletcher.  

i remember playing the mahan before the captain skills rework.  You needed a 15 point captain to get CE at the time.   Which meant that you had something like 7.9km concealment(7.6 with camo) at the time.  I still did very well in it despite being very new to the game.   Somehow managed a near 70% WR in it when i finished grinding it.  It was a true gem in the line for me.  The benson after it, was a wake up call.   The game changes drastically at tier 8 and up.  Being new, captain skill changes, and tons of new ships and gimmicks made for a rough time at first.  IDK if i even had a 10 point captain at the time. 

 

 

but yea, the concealment meta has been entrenched more or less since i started playing.   So many ships were balanced around that over the years.  When something like CE changes + CV rework happens, it can drastically change what ships are fun playing and which ones are port queens.  WG only has themselves to blame for it.   Years and years of CVs being meh and becoming more and more rare, just enforced that meta.  Years of people getting use to not playing with CVs.  Years of concealment being king and learning to play around your concealment being one of the biggest differences between good and great players.  I would guess part of the reason we have seen so many radar ships to counter DDs/smoke is due to the lack of CVs to fill that spotting deficiency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×