Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Craterkhan_1

Questionable Hatred?

61 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

32
[WTAF]
Members
30 posts
11,688 battles

As expected, the discussion is quite lively between the sub-haters and the sub-supporters. I can say I am a Pro-Submarine person, and as I was browsing the forums, I realized that the single complaint about submarines was their citadel-damaging torpedoes that pretty much make their high-risk high-reward playstyle. People do not seem to like the Alpha that these things can do. Now for me, I see it as necessary. How else are these subs going to get good damaging games like other ships can?

But anyway, this isn't what the thread is about.

What it's about is, why is it that people whine and moan and complain about large alpha strikes, but then at the same time absolutely despise the DOT killers (CV's) and the HE Spammers that slowly whittle away at your health? Sounds counterintuitive to me. Everyone hears it all the time. "Ohhh no that BB deleted me from full HP!" "Ohhh no that Smolensk burned me down and I couldn't do anything!" "Ohhh that DD torpwalled me too much skill!" Are we trying to find like a middle ground across all spectrums of vessel? If that were the case there would be no diversity between classes or nations when it came to how the damage was obtained, and it would be boring as hell.

Just curious as to thoughts on this.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 3
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,208
[-RNG-]
Supertester
2,825 posts
3,795 battles

Simply put, people dont like losing... so they complain. :Smile_child:

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,111
[PEED2]
Beta Testers
4,799 posts
13,839 battles
8 minutes ago, _BBaby said:

Simply put, people dont like losing... so they complain. :Smile_child:

this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,072
[HYDRO]
Members
3,682 posts
5,280 battles

The cruiser main whines about the BB deleting him/her.

The BB main whines about HE and torpedoes.

The DD main whines about Radar, high dpm HE and CVs.

The CV main whines about too strong AA and lack of alpha.

Only by  spreading misery among all players will we achieve balance :fish_boom:.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,592
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,523 posts
3,895 battles

People hate being on the receiving end of large alpha strikes, regardless of where it comes from. Massive/fatal burst damage is anti-fun in any PVP context.

Pre-rework carrier hammer strikes. Battleship AP citadel hits. Destroyer torpedoes. Rapid-fire HE cruisers are not quite as sudden but still fit the description.

Submarines are just bringing more of what players are already sick of.

And it's not going to have a positive effect on this game's lifespan.

Edited by KiyoSenkan
  • Cool 6
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
182
[B_Z]
Members
311 posts
2,305 battles
22 minutes ago, _BBaby said:

Simply put, people dont like losing... so they complain. 

yeap.  These types play a team game and outright refuse to play as a team.  It's solo legend elite gamer all teh way, and they will try to change the game to suit them at all times.  It's getting boring really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,879
[ARGSY]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,580 posts
23,577 battles

As long as people complain, there is something you can take away from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[-GOD-]
Members
789 posts
17 minutes ago, Snarky_Wombat said:

yeap.  These types play a team game and outright refuse to play as a team.  It's solo legend elite gamer all teh way, and they will try to change the game to suit them at all times.  It's getting boring really.

Just the way the WeeGee HOLY SPREADSHEET wants LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
488
[O7]
Beta Testers
1,575 posts
9,542 battles

Well for one, these low health ships are going to take away from the damage farm I could potentially have. Haven't seen much else related to subs but they seem to be like a real hassle to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,997
[_-_]
Members
2,653 posts
7,592 battles
1 hour ago, warheart1992 said:

Only by  spreading misery among all players will we achieve balance :fish_boom:.

In Soviet Russia, game hates you!. :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
414
[MPIRE]
Beta Testers
1,777 posts
9,567 battles
2 hours ago, warheart1992 said:

The cruiser main whines about the BB deleting him/her.

The BB main whines about HE and torpedoes.

The DD main whines about Radar, high dpm HE and CVs.

The CV main whines about too strong AA and lack of alpha.

And everyone whines about change!

I honestly think it's just the lifecycle of a game.  Past a certain point everything upsets somebody, and everybody is harkening back to a different "good ol days" when the things that kill them now were introduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
862 posts
3,931 battles
2 hours ago, Craterkhan_1 said:

As expected, the discussion is quite lively between the sub-haters and the sub-supporters. I can say I am a Pro-Submarine person, and as I was browsing the forums, I realized that the single complaint about submarines was their citadel-damaging torpedoes that pretty much make their high-risk high-reward playstyle. People do not seem to like the Alpha that these things can do. Now for me, I see it as necessary. How else are these subs going to get good damaging games like other ships can?

But anyway, this isn't what the thread is about.

What it's about is, why is it that people whine and moan and complain about large alpha strikes, but then at the same time absolutely despise the DOT killers (CV's) and the HE Spammers that slowly whittle away at your health? Sounds counterintuitive to me. Everyone hears it all the time. "Ohhh no that BB deleted me from full HP!" "Ohhh no that Smolensk burned me down and I couldn't do anything!" "Ohhh that DD torpwalled me too much skill!" Are we trying to find like a middle ground across all spectrums of vessel? If that were the case there would be no diversity between classes or nations when it came to how the damage was obtained, and it would be boring as hell.

Just curious as to thoughts on this.

Actually, I thought the most vocalized complaint was about the Submarine speed issue?  Has that changed since the test server started?  Since you ask for thoughts, how's this.  The points you made about player responses to large alpha strikes, DOT (DDs?) killers, and the HE spamming tactics all lead to the comment "and I couldn't do anything about it!"  I'd guess it's a normal response to a perception of unfairness.  Humans (and some other primates) are pretty sensitive about "fairness".  Note: it doesn't have to actually be unfair just perceived to be unfair to trigger this kind of reaction.  I'm not sure how that sounds counter intuitive.  In fact, you make the "fairness" point yourself when you said "How else are these subs going to get good damaging games like other ships can?"  In an ideal development cycle counters for the high alpha strike of sub torpedoes will eventually become known and if they cannot be found the alpha strike damage would be reduced.  Just as sub players will become more skilled at surviving long enough in a match to score more hits.  "In an ideal development cycle" that is, and I get the feeling the WG is going to try hard to develop this addition to the game.  How successful that will be remains to be seen.

Anyway if you want to watch a hilarious "fairness" study there's video you can search for with a couple of monkeys performing a task for a reward.  Starts with fresh cucumber slices for both. Then one monkey starts getting yummy grapes while the other continues to get cucumber.  He huffs a bit on the first cumber with a wth expression, drops the cucumber the second time and holds out a hand wanting a grape, the third time he throws the cucumber right into the researcher's face!  It was a perfect shot!

 

2 hours ago, _BBaby said:

Simply put, people dont like losing... so they complain. :Smile_child:

Apologies, but I'd go so far as to say this is too simply put.  Many people DO seem to find it easier to look for an external source for failure.  The first question out of many people's mouth isn't "what did I do wrong?"  And while it is true that people do not like losing (I'd worry about a person that did prefer losing to winning), there is one thing I don't quite grasp about this hostility to the concept of losing in WoWS.  If we 'assume' the average WG forum poster has played hundreds, if not thousands of battles, with an average WR of somewhere near 50%, then that means they may have also LOST hundreds, if not thousands of battles.  So why aren't players becoming a little more accepting to the concept of losing matches in this game?  Is good sportsmanship no longer a common thing with humans?

 

Edited by surratus
spelling
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,326 posts
13,078 battles

While people complain about what kills them, so many don't realise the game has been dumbed down so that people don't have to learn, they simply want to play shooty boats, which is fine if that what you want out of this game, those that look for something more dynamic and challenging will find the addition of subs will give them more diversity.

Any decent player will learn what they should do, to avoid the alpha strike on them as best as they can, but unfortunately the player base has been watered down with so many below average players, this will be the norm for them, mainly because they do not watch what is going on around them.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,475
[H_]
Members
2,917 posts
13,374 battles

I hated Carriers because they added a "layer of complication" on a small, time compressed map: too much too fast too small.  Put them on a map 5 times as large, they might just work !

Subs add yet another "complication" to those maps.  Which means, everything else is "pushed off to the side" as the meta's work themselves out.  Too much yet again with an automated ASW...  Too complicated and I just can't see how DD's will perform ASW.........and not get CV'd to death since they will be alone !

It's not that subs are bad.  Carriers were out of control at the release of update 8.0 and had to be nerf'd to obsolescence...  Now, add subs to those same small maps, with semi guided torps and what will happen?  Absolute confusion.  Add planes to that mix and it gets geometrically worse....  At some point, the game ceases to be any fun. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
687 posts
8,432 battles

Remember, DDs will be able to do to subs what subs can do to BBs.  I expect the outcry from sub captains to equal that of BB's

Edited by Malamute_Kid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
889
[DPG]
Members
1,725 posts
7,455 battles

I can't really blame people that have concerns or apprehensions about subs.  We just spent almost an entire year dealing with a fundamental change to aspects of the game.  They're probably a bit worn out, and have little hope that subs will be any different.  It's yet to be seen.   Unfortunately, people aren't really concerned about why others are worried.  It's more fun to completely dismiss them as "whiners."  Which pops up on this forum about 80 bajillion times a week.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
325
[TOAST]
Members
1,121 posts
9,512 battles

No other class in the game gets a weapon that you get to lock on and have it do some tracking for you after you fire it.

Subs get homing torps

BB and Cruisers should get radar guided main gun fire

All DD should get hydro that works like radar for subs.

Yup... balanced now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
182
[B_Z]
Members
311 posts
2,305 battles
4 hours ago, bosco1111 said:

WeeGee HOLY SPREADSHEET wants LOL 

All hail the spreadsheet!  Spreadsheet says fun, you fun now!

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,878 posts
11,515 battles
9 hours ago, Craterkhan_1 said:

As expected, the discussion is quite lively between the sub-haters and the sub-supporters. I can say I am a Pro-Submarine person, and as I was browsing the forums, I realized that the single complaint about submarines was their citadel-damaging torpedoes that pretty much make their high-risk high-reward playstyle. People do not seem to like the Alpha that these things can do. Now for me, I see it as necessary. How else are these subs going to get good damaging games like other ships can?

But anyway, this isn't what the thread is about.

What it's about is, why is it that people whine and moan and complain about large alpha strikes, but then at the same time absolutely despise the DOT killers (CV's) and the HE Spammers that slowly whittle away at your health? Sounds counterintuitive to me. Everyone hears it all the time. "Ohhh no that BB deleted me from full HP!" "Ohhh no that Smolensk burned me down and I couldn't do anything!" "Ohhh that DD torpwalled me too much skill!" Are we trying to find like a middle ground across all spectrums of vessel? If that were the case there would be no diversity between classes or nations when it came to how the damage was obtained, and it would be boring as hell.

Just curious as to thoughts on this.

It really doesn't matter if it has high alpha or not. As long as it it is not a dd, bb, or ca the community will not be able to accept it because sadly these forums have become a regressive haven for tribalistic ideology. DD main, BB main, Cruiser main etc.

You can look at the CV debacle to see proof of this. CVs use to be APLHA strike number 1. Then came the rework. All these examples are based in t10. Cv's became kinda a chimaera. For US cv's the Rockets were similar to a Worchester firing 2.25 salvos at near point-blank range of HE, The DB became a conqueror at 2/3rd the power with a massive drop off per miss, and the torpedo planes became a t5 dd. The biggest complaint about this whole system is that players didn't feel they could fight back, even though aa builds and grouping up for aa cover were proven to be effective. The fact they couldn't shoot back instantly and punish the attack was a huge problem, even though this is a majority of how dds operate. Many ignored the fact that killing any plane in the sky did, in fact, weaken the damage potential a cv had. Now once a cv was spotted they generally didn't last long. Wg took a weapon system that changed warfare for 80 years and turned it into something the performs worse then ships it antiquated, all in the name of balance and making people stop complaining.

No matter how balanced it is people will argue and try to make their opinion seem like facts. Subs will get the same treatment by this community as cv still do. And WG is trying to just keep peace and push out more things to sell rather than making a good game. Now some people won't like what I wrote. I accept this. I don't generally care for much of the anti-this class or pro that class fallacy that many try to peddle so I kinda expect the backlash, but it does tend to prove my point.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,664
[PVE]
Members
8,706 posts
22,017 battles

I didn't really care about submarines one way or the other. Then I watched a Jingles video showing sub play and counter play... It just looks boring but what pushed me into the "anti-sub" column was the homing torpedoes. That seems a bit much IMHO. I also didn't like the idea that only DDs and CVs were the only credible threats to subs. 

Do I want to play subs? No, looks tragically sad and boring. Do I care if subs are put into the game in their own mode? Not one bit. Do I want to see subs in PvP or PvE? Nope. 

This isn't hatred by any means, that would indicate I cared. I don't. Pretty indifferent and I expect that it won't make me quit the game. What I believe is that adding subs into the game won't make it more fun to play the game save for those players who want to play submarines.  

Edited by Taylor3006
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,475
[H_]
Members
2,917 posts
13,374 battles
3 hours ago, The_Chiv said:

It really doesn't matter if it has high alpha or not. As long as it it is not a dd, bb, or ca the community will not be able to accept it because sadly these forums have become a regressive haven for tribalistic ideology. DD main, BB main, Cruiser main etc.

You can look at the CV debacle to see proof of this. CVs use to be APLHA strike number 1. Then came the rework. All these examples are based in t10. Cv's became kinda a chimaera. For US cv's the Rockets were similar to a Worchester firing 2.25 salvos at near point-blank range of HE, The DB became a conqueror at 2/3rd the power with a massive drop off per miss, and the torpedo planes became a t5 dd. The biggest complaint about this whole system is that players didn't feel they could fight back, even though aa builds and grouping up for aa cover were proven to be effective. The fact they couldn't shoot back instantly and punish the attack was a huge problem, even though this is a majority of how dds operate. Many ignored the fact that killing any plane in the sky did, in fact, weaken the damage potential a cv had. Now once a cv was spotted they generally didn't last long. Wg took a weapon system that changed warfare for 80 years and turned it into something the performs worse then ships it antiquated, all in the name of balance and making people stop complaining.

No matter how balanced it is people will argue and try to make their opinion seem like facts. Subs will get the same treatment by this community as cv still do. And WG is trying to just keep peace and push out more things to sell rather than making a good game. Now some people won't like what I wrote. I accept this. I don't generally care for much of the anti-this class or pro that class fallacy that many try to peddle so I kinda expect the backlash, but it does tend to prove my point.

Carriers did change history......  The era of the Battleship came to an end in real life.  But, that is not what the game's "value proposition" is about !  It is about ships fighting ships !  Not airplanes ending the rule of the battleship.  There is no game in that at all as Update 8.0 showed us.  WHY?   That is simple: this is a small map, time compressed, arcade FPS.   Which infers First-Person-Shooter is the concept of one player and one weapon.  Carriers aren't "first person" because they use "aircraft".........and, the real down side is that to mitigate the use of aircraft, that have no distance restraints; no speed restraints; and had DD level power.   AA was "automated" to not over extend the player ability to multitask.....  There is no skill in AA and we were held hostage by the developers whom were only interested in making money.....  This means the entire game changed how it was played....   Carriers are a "dissimilar weapon" and can't exist on small, time compressed maps without taking over.........and, our host 'had to nerf them" to save the core game itself; because, HISTORY had carriers causing the extinction of BB's........and, if you extend that historical reality, cause the game to fail.....

Submarines are "dissimilar weapons" yet again.  No they aren't too fast, they have environmental restraints (water depth and oxygen levels) and yet, their meta issue is that they can't be seen !  Here again, unlike ships, they become the boogie man earlier DD's were to everyone else,  because of stealth....  And, you guessed it, to mitigate their advantages, ASW is automated.....  Sonar is the new radar....  Guided torpedoes are the planes without AA buffing and the meta will go on till the community screams their lips off that they refuse to live through another Update 8.0.   This is what will happen.   Till aluminum ships, the electronic era, guided missiles and computer controlled fire control come next....  Where else can the game go, eh?!  Space?  That won't work.  Sailing ships?  That won't work. 

Games have to change to remain relevant in the mature game market.  What we are seeing are primitive attempts to innovate.  And, we reap what they sow........or, fight back by just stop paying and playing.  A cycle.  A ruinous cycle.

You, what I have underlined, are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,878 posts
11,515 battles
1 hour ago, Asym_KS said:

Carriers did change history......  The era of the Battleship came to an end in real life.  But, that is not what the game's "value proposition" is about !  It is about ships fighting ships !  Not airplanes ending the rule of the battleship.  There is no game in that at all as Update 8.0 showed us.  WHY?   That is simple: this is a small map, time compressed, arcade FPS.   Which infers First-Person-Shooter is the concept of one player and one weapon.  Carriers aren't "first person" because they use "aircraft".........and, the real down side is that to mitigate the use of aircraft, that have no distance restraints; no speed restraints; and had DD level power.   AA was "automated" to not over extend the player ability to multitask.....  There is no skill in AA and we were held hostage by the developers whom were only interested in making money.....  This means the entire game changed how it was played....   Carriers are a "dissimilar weapon" and can't exist on small, time compressed maps without taking over.........and, our host 'had to nerf them" to save the core game itself; because, HISTORY had carriers causing the extinction of BB's........and, if you extend that historical reality, cause the game to fail.....

Submarines are "dissimilar weapons" yet again.  No they aren't too fast, they have environmental restraints (water depth and oxygen levels) and yet, their meta issue is that they can't be seen !  Here again, unlike ships, they become the boogie man earlier DD's were to everyone else,  because of stealth....  And, you guessed it, to mitigate their advantages, ASW is automated.....  Sonar is the new radar....  Guided torpedoes are the planes without AA buffing and the meta will go on till the community screams their lips off that they refuse to live through another Update 8.0.   This is what will happen.   Till aluminum ships, the electronic era, guided missiles and computer controlled fire control come next....  Where else can the game go, eh?!  Space?  That won't work.  Sailing ships?  That won't work. 

Games have to change to remain relevant in the mature game market.  What we are seeing are primitive attempts to innovate.  And, we reap what they sow........or, fight back by just stop paying and playing.  A cycle.  A ruinous cycle.

You, what I have underlined, are correct.

Games do need to innovate and player bases need to grow as well. Yet what we have seen is a reluctance to any sort of change. The arguments given are circular in logic and tend to be either confirmation bias or a fallacy of some degree and never are supported by facts. And when this is pointed out then comes the ultimate cop-out. "Its unfun to play against".  The irony is that the statement is so open-ended it can be used against any class from another class main perspective. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,344
[SBS]
Members
4,799 posts
2,408 battles
17 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

Games do need to innovate and player bases need to grow as well.

No, games need to stay competitive in the market.  There are lots of ways to do that.  Making big changes to the games isn't the only way to stay relevant.  In fact, change comes with very big risks that can do more harm than good.

17 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

The arguments given are circular in logic and tend to be either confirmation bias or a fallacy of some degree and never are supported by facts.

Sure, there have been poor arguments, but there have also been very good arguments supported by facts.  You just dismissed them.

17 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

And when this is pointed out then comes the ultimate cop-out. "Its unfun to play against".  The irony is that the statement is so open-ended it can be used against any class from another class main perspective. 

You are only right in that fun is subjective.  Where you couldn't be more wrong is that fun isn't a cop out, it's the ultimate standard in which we measure games.  Dismissing fun as a valid standard is just flat out disingenuous.

Edited by Slimeball91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,592
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,523 posts
3,895 battles

It boggles my mind when people make statements akin to "Games aren't supposed to be fun".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
206 posts
1,751 battles
13 hours ago, surratus said:

Anyway if you want to watch a hilarious "fairness" study there's video you can search for with a couple of monkeys performing a task for a reward.  Starts with fresh cucumber slices for both. Then one monkey starts getting yummy grapes while the other continues to get cucumber.  He huffs a bit on the first cumber with a wth expression, drops the cucumber the second time and holds out a hand wanting a grape, the third time he throws the cucumber right into the researcher's face!  It was a perfect shot!

Pretty much describes most conversations here or on any gaming forum.  :Smile_trollface: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×