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

Subs, META, and overall balance

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,389
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles

Some key points:

1.) Worthy applause to WG departments involved in making Sub models, and related visual as well as audio mechanics are quite great.

2.) As far as Sub balance, they are nearly there. Even in their current iteration, they are 100x more balanced than CVs ever have been. 

3.) Most people don't know that there are two types of META. A hard META and a soft META. 



Now to the meat and potatoes:

-Subs-

They are close to being just right. However, a step back needs to be taken for that to be achieved. First of all, Battery power needs to be a better balancing factor for time submerged and less about pings. If a sub runs out of battery, it should immediately and automatically proceed to periscope depth where it is vulnerable to attack. This should be the key feature that ensures that subs will never have free-reign in cases where their direct counters are already destroyed.

As for spotting, subs should NOT be able to share active spotting data (full render spotting / lock-on spot). Outgoing spot sharing from subs should be minimap ONLY. This means if a Sub spots an enemy ship, the ONLY information that should be passed on to allies of that sub is on the minimap.  However, incoming spot sharing should proceed as normal, i.e. if an ally DD spots an enemy BB the sub will get a full active spot render of that BB.

Next, offensive capability. Slightly rework the entire torpedo - ping - homing function. Subs should be able to load two different types of torpedoes on the fly, dependent on reload, just as you do with HE / AP on surface ship guns. One set of torpedoes (Set A) would be dummy, they would not have the homing capability, but would be much higher velocity and range. If you achieve two successful pings on a target that is subsequently struck by Set A torpedoes, they would not only ignore TDS but automatically cause two stacks of flooding and have a high chance at destroying components/guns/steering/etc for each torpedo struck.  Now Set B torpedoes would be more like what Subs have now in testing. The difference is, the sub would be unable to fire these until at least one successful ping was already on the target. Set B torpedoes should have lower velocity and range compared to Set A. Subs would also be able to benefit from the "Expert Loader" captain skill.


Lastly, ASW.  Since the spotting changes above would give DDs an actual chance at countering Subs, the on-hit damage of depth charges should be reduced. The primary effect of depth charges should be DoTs, temporary torp launcher or engine component destruction, and some battery charge automatically drained. The on-hit damage itself should be very minimal.



-Separate game mode and CVs-

If any ship type needs to be restricted to a separate game mode it is CVs. They do not fit in a functioning balance model of the current WoWs format, whereas subs as they are now, do. Why? It all has to do with Risk vs. Reward.  The primary factor dictating this fundamental is that the game is absent a respawn system. All ships should have counterplay and that counterplay itself as well as the roles a ship type is designed for must ALL directly impact the match based on the win conditions. The win conditions being things like... first team to reach 1,000 points... sinking enemies automatically begets points for your team and subtracts from the enemy team... sink all enemies to automatically win...etc.  With CVs, they present no risk for the vast majority of a match barring a few "meme" div comps like 899, and even then that is just using multiple ships of which each of them are overpowered to counter another overpowered ship. That is not balance.

For CVs to fit in the balance model, and to a valid inclusion to not only the primary game mode but also competitive modes, CVs would need to be changes to have risk that matches their reward, both effective and potential. CVs should NOT be able to sit unspotted all the way across the map and spot...damage...or even kill enemy ships. The ONLY exception to this would be if either shooting down planes directly caused HP damage to the CV --OR-- if shooting down planes automatically gained points for the team and subtracted from the enemy team just like sinking a ship does (but obviously for a lesser amount in the case of planes).  Subs are far more balanced because at any given time they still present FAR more risk than a CV does. Weapon range limitation plays a large part in this. The amusing part is that the ship types which the data confirms as being overpowered, are both the same ship types that are also limited the most in the team-based competitive mode. Simply icing on the cake as far as substantiating those facts. If they did not cause an imbalanced interaction, you wouldn't need to limit them so much.

I suggest the following combination of changes:
1.) Shooting down planes automatically grants 5 match points for the team that shot down the planes, and -5 to the team of the CV that lost the planes.
2.) the AA values of ships should be completely dependent on the inherent risk of the ship. The game is almost 100% arcade, it is NOT a sim. If a ship type is High risk, like DDs.. with lesser combat effectiveness... especially low effective weapon range on average... they should have the absolute highest AA values on average for all types. I am talking No-Fly zone with priority sector. Whereas larger ships, like BBs, which have the EHP to effectively survive lots of CV runs.. should have the least effective AA capability.
3.) Next, AP bombs, need to have an additional limitation applied, a maximum % of the victim's HP. They are currently are either an extreme overpowered feast... or famine.
4.) Lastly, a new mechanic should be added to CVs. Planes/squadrons that are damaged to a certain extent that return to the carrier, should automatically damage the CV slightly when they complete landing. If you need some sort of descriptive justification, just consider them like planes on fire or heavily damaged with potentially live ordinance landing on a CV deck.. things are bound to go wrong.

Until both Subs and CVs are completely balanced, like the above suggestions would enact, they BOTH should be restricted to a separate game mode. In this new game mode, it would be just like Randoms but with a few changes. For one, CVs would be soft capped at (1) per team and hard capped at (2) per team. Subs would be soft capped at (2) per team and hard capped at (3) per team. The only battle type in this mode would be "Standard", as in only 1 objective for each team. That way, this mode can serve as a controlled environment for balancing ship/type interactions. When Subs/CVs are more balanced, they can then be moved to the primary game mode (randoms) and then to competitive modes. TO entice participation in this game mode, the XP and credit rewards should be higher than Randoms, perhaps with daily missions that offer flags and Coal.



- META -

Just a little educational tidbit here for those who do not know. There are two types of META. A Hard META and a Soft META. In a Hard META, there is a specific set of archetypes/tactic that presents a large advantage over any other option. In a Hard META, skill plays the least part in impacting result unless a team is using non-META choices. A Hard META is also a clear symbol that your game is very imbalanced, well beyond any reasonable deviation. A Soft META on the other hand, even if there is a specific set of archetypes/tactics that present an advantage over other options, the advantage is minimal, and said advantage can only be exploited given high skill and synergy of the components. A Soft META is much better for the health of a game.

Edited by Varknyn12
  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,343
[WORX]
Members
13,225 posts
20,086 battles

Subs need A LOT of revision in order to be integrated to the live server... The underwater mechanical interface/interaction aspects need to be reviewed and revamped... 

Its not easy to attack or aim underwater.. I tried to take the silhouette  of the sub out of my POV when shooting or aiming... It was very annoying. .

The art, the underwater environment, the visuals, bravo guys... Visual/art department always shines...

Now, if only the programming side would get its act together, Subs is almost ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,361
Members
2,681 posts
4,301 battles

Translation:  "WAAAAA,  PUT CV'S IN THEIR OWN MODE!"  God,  you guys never quit whining, do you?

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,389
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
Just now, Palladia said:

Translation:  "WAAAAA,  PUT CV'S IN THEIR OWN MODE!"  God,  you guys never quit whining, do you?

I see you are lacking a coherent and concise argument and have resorted to an emotional and fallacious outburst. You have been found wanting.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
569
[T-R-F]
Banned
677 posts
19,142 battles
3 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

I see you are lacking a coherent and concise argument and have resorted to an emotional and fallacious outburst. You have been found wanting.

and sop are you. SUbs are very unbalanced and game breaking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,361
Members
2,681 posts
4,301 battles

Blah blah blah,  whatever,  man.  You're just doing what you always do,  trying to disguise your hatred of CV's behind the idea of 'balance' and now you're using subs and their separate mode in an attempt at making an excuse for it.  Just stop.  Its long past the point of having gotten old.  Also theres no need for a 'coherent and concise argument' since you haven't provided something that deserves or even warrants one.  Found wanting indeed,  kiddo.

Edited by Palladia
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,177 posts
6,478 battles

I am not to worried about subs when they are on the live server the minute you hear Action Stations, every ship in the game will be hunting subs down there life expectancy will be 5 Minutes.......:etc_red_button:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,389
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
11 minutes ago, AdmiralQ said:

and sop are you. SUbs are very unbalanced and game breaking

 

11 minutes ago, Palladia said:

Blah blah blah,  whatever,  man.  You're just doing what you always do,  trying to disguise your hatred of CV's behind the idea of 'balance' and now you're using subs and their separate mode in an attempt at making an excuse for it.  Just stop.  Its long past the point of having gotten old.  Also theres no need for a 'coherent and concise argument' since you haven't provided something that deserves or even warrants one.  Found wanting indeed,  kiddo.

If you have a coherent and concise argument, present it. More logic, less emotion please.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
726
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
1,221 posts
5,378 battles

No fly zones for a ship type with already the lowest concealment? Why? 

There are other ways to make CVs less focused on killing DDs, like giving all squads less accuracy but more alpha. Here, they'll be more focused on capital ships 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,389
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
7 minutes ago, PotatoMD said:

No fly zones for a ship type with already the lowest concealment? Why? 

There are other ways to make CVs less focused on killing DDs, like giving all squads less accuracy but more alpha. Here, they'll be more focused on capital ships 

Because of inherent risk. The lowest risk ship type should not be countering the highest risk ship type. Additionally, DDs already have nerfed combat effectiveness compared to all other types so their utility including things like AA and imho Radar+hydro should be far more standard compared to non-DDs.

CVs are also the embodiment of OWSF, which WG themselves claimed was broken and added the bloom system to non-CVs.

https://devtrackers.gg/world-of-warships/p/fec4a8ff-why-were-owsf-and-2km-smoke-firing-removed-from-the-game

Either it is broken or it isn't. You don't get both

Edited by Varknyn12
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,021
[HINON]
Members
8,978 posts
13,136 battles
1 hour ago, Varknyn12 said:

As far as Sub balance, they are nearly there. Even in their current iteration, they are 100x more balanced than CVs ever have been. 

hes not wrong on this account people, at least subs have forms of counterplay that arent "lemming train into a huge blob that still doesnt guarantee your safety from being nuked by the CV"

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,524
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,493 posts
6,356 battles
42 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

Because of inherent risk. The lowest risk ship type should not be countering the highest risk ship type. Additionally, DDs already have nerfed combat effectiveness compared to all other types so their utility including things like AA and imho Radar+hydro should be far more standard compared to non-DDs.

CVs are also the embodiment of OWSF, which WG themselves claimed was broken and added the bloom system to non-CVs.

https://devtrackers.gg/world-of-warships/p/fec4a8ff-why-were-owsf-and-2km-smoke-firing-removed-from-the-game

Either it is broken or it isn't. You don't get both

Blah blah blah blah DDs should dominate all aspects of the game or it isn't fair blah blah blah blah.

Do you ever get tired of whining?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,000 posts

I am having a blast playing Subs. They are BB nukers and I am loving it. Pinging a ships lets the torps ignore the torp belt and man do the BB feel pain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
95
[K0]
Members
216 posts
5,157 battles
4 hours ago, Varknyn12 said:

Some key points:

1.) Worthy applause to WG departments involved in making Sub models, and related visual as well as audio mechanics are quite great.

2.) As far as Sub balance, they are nearly there. Even in their current iteration, they are 100x more balanced than CVs ever have been. 

3.) Most people don't know that there are two types of META. A hard META and a soft META. 



Now to the meat and potatoes:

-Subs-

They are close to being just right. However, a step back needs to be taken for that to be achieved. First of all, Battery power needs to be a better balancing factor for time submerged and less about pings. If a sub runs out of battery, it should immediately and automatically proceed to periscope depth where it is vulnerable to attack. This should be the key feature that ensures that subs will never have free-reign in cases where their direct counters are already destroyed.

As for spotting, subs should NOT be able to share active spotting data (full render spotting / lock-on spot). Outgoing spot sharing from subs should be minimap ONLY. This means if a Sub spots an enemy ship, the ONLY information that should be passed on to allies of that sub is on the minimap.  However, incoming spot sharing should proceed as normal, i.e. if an ally DD spots an enemy BB the sub will get a full active spot render of that BB.

Next, offensive capability. Slightly rework the entire torpedo - ping - homing function. Subs should be able to load two different types of torpedoes on the fly, dependent on reload, just as you do with HE / AP on surface ship guns. One set of torpedoes (Set A) would be dummy, they would not have the homing capability, but would be much higher velocity and range. If you achieve two successful pings on a target that is subsequently struck by Set A torpedoes, they would not only ignore TDS but automatically cause two stacks of flooding and have a high chance at destroying components/guns/steering/etc for each torpedo struck.  Now Set B torpedoes would be more like what Subs have now in testing. The difference is, the sub would be unable to fire these until at least one successful ping was already on the target. Set B torpedoes should have lower velocity and range compared to Set A. Subs would also be able to benefit from the "Expert Loader" captain skill.


Lastly, ASW.  Since the spotting changes above would give DDs an actual chance at countering Subs, the on-hit damage of depth charges should be reduced. The primary effect of depth charges should be DoTs, temporary torp launcher or engine component destruction, and some battery charge automatically drained. The on-hit damage itself should be very minimal.



-Separate game mode and CVs-

If any ship type needs to be restricted to a separate game mode it is CVs. They do not fit in a functioning balance model of the current WoWs format, whereas subs as they are now, do. Why? It all has to do with Risk vs. Reward.  The primary factor dictating this fundamental is that the game is absent a respawn system. All ships should have counterplay and that counterplay itself as well as the roles a ship type is designed for must ALL directly impact the match based on the win conditions. The win conditions being things like... first team to reach 1,000 points... sinking enemies automatically begets points for your team and subtracts from the enemy team... sink all enemies to automatically win...etc.  With CVs, they present no risk for the vast majority of a match barring a few "meme" div comps like 899, and even then that is just using multiple ships of which each of them are overpowered to counter another overpowered ship. That is not balance.

For CVs to fit in the balance model, and to a valid inclusion to not only the primary game mode but also competitive modes, CVs would need to be changes to have risk that matches their reward, both effective and potential. CVs should NOT be able to sit unspotted all the way across the map and spot...damage...or even kill enemy ships. The ONLY exception to this would be if either shooting down planes directly caused HP damage to the CV --OR-- if shooting down planes automatically gained points for the team and subtracted from the enemy team just like sinking a ship does (but obviously for a lesser amount in the case of planes).  Subs are far more balanced because at any given time they still present FAR more risk than a CV does. Weapon range limitation plays a large part in this. The amusing part is that the ship types which the data confirms as being overpowered, are both the same ship types that are also limited the most in the team-based competitive mode. Simply icing on the cake as far as substantiating those facts. If they did not cause an imbalanced interaction, you wouldn't need to limit them so much.

I suggest the following combination of changes:
1.) Shooting down planes automatically grants 5 match points for the team that shot down the planes, and -5 to the team of the CV that lost the planes.
2.) the AA values of ships should be completely dependent on the inherent risk of the ship. The game is almost 100% arcade, it is NOT a sim. If a ship type is High risk, like DDs.. with lesser combat effectiveness... especially low effective weapon range on average... they should have the absolute highest AA values on average for all types. I am talking No-Fly zone with priority sector. Whereas larger ships, like BBs, which have the EHP to effectively survive lots of CV runs.. should have the least effective AA capability.
3.) Next, AP bombs, need to have an additional limitation applied, a maximum % of the victim's HP. They are currently are either an extreme overpowered feast... or famine.
4.) Lastly, a new mechanic should be added to CVs. Planes/squadrons that are damaged to a certain extent that return to the carrier, should automatically damage the CV slightly when they complete landing. If you need some sort of descriptive justification, just consider them like planes on fire or heavily damaged with potentially live ordinance landing on a CV deck.. things are bound to go wrong.

Until both Subs and CVs are completely balanced, like the above suggestions would enact, they BOTH should be restricted to a separate game mode. In this new game mode, it would be just like Randoms but with a few changes. For one, CVs would be soft capped at (1) per team and hard capped at (2) per team. Subs would be soft capped at (2) per team and hard capped at (3) per team. The only battle type in this mode would be "Standard", as in only 1 objective for each team. That way, this mode can serve as a controlled environment for balancing ship/type interactions. When Subs/CVs are more balanced, they can then be moved to the primary game mode (randoms) and then to competitive modes. TO entice participation in this game mode, the XP and credit rewards should be higher than Randoms, perhaps with daily missions that offer flags and Coal.



- META -

Just a little educational tidbit here for those who do not know. There are two types of META. A Hard META and a Soft META. In a Hard META, there is a specific set of archetypes/tactic that presents a large advantage over any other option. In a Hard META, skill plays the least part in impacting result unless a team is using non-META choices. A Hard META is also a clear symbol that your game is very imbalanced, well beyond any reasonable deviation. A Soft META on the other hand, even if there is a specific set of archetypes/tactics that present an advantage over other options, the advantage is minimal, and said advantage can only be exploited given high skill and synergy of the components. A Soft META is much better for the health of a game.

Check out the definition of 'Meta': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta

Original Greek meaning[edit]

In Greek, the prefix meta- is generally less esoteric than in English; Greek meta- is equivalent to the Latin words post- or ad-. The use of the prefix in this sense occurs occasionally in scientific English terms derived from Greek. For example: the term Metatheria (the name for the clade of marsupial mammals) uses the prefix meta- in the sense the Metatheria occur on the tree of life adjacent to the Theria (the placental mammals).

Epistemology[edit]

In epistemology, and often in common use, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in and so on). In a database, metadata are also data about data stored in a data dictionary and describe information (data) about database tables such as the table name, table owner, details about columns, – essentially describing the table. Also, metamemory in psychology means an individual's knowledge about whether or not they would remember something if they concentrated on recalling it. The modern sense of "an X about X" has given rise to concepts like "meta-cognition" (cognition about cognition), "meta-emotion" (emotion about emotion), "meta-discussion" (discussion about discussion), "meta-joke" (joke about jokes), and "metaprogramming" (writing programs that manipulate programs).[citation needed]

In a rule-based system, a metarule is a rule governing the application of other rules.[2]

On higher level of abstraction[edit]

Any subject can be said to have a metatheory, a theoretical consideration of its properties, such as its foundations, methods, form and utility, on a higher level of abstraction. In linguistics, a grammar is considered as being expressed in a metalanguage, language operating on a higher level to describe properties of the plain language (and not itself).

Etymology[edit]

The prefix comes from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-), from μετά,[3] which meant "after", "beside", "with", "among" (with respect to the preposition, some of these meanings were distinguished by case marking). Other meanings include "beyond", "adjacent" and "self", and it is also used in the form μητα- as a prefix in Greek, with variants μετ- before vowels and μεθ- "meth-" before aspirated vowels.

The earliest form of the word "meta" is the Mycenaean Greek me-ta, written in Linear B syllabic script.[4] The Greek preposition is cognate with the Old English preposition mid "with", still found as a prefix in midwife. Its use in English is the result of back-formation from the word "metaphysics". In origin Metaphysics was just the title of one of the principal works of Aristotle; it was so named (by Andronicus of Rhodes) because in the customary ordering of the works of Aristotle it was the book following Physics; it thus meant nothing more than "[the book that comes] after [the book entitled] Physics". However, even Latin writers misinterpreted this as entailing metaphysics constituted "the science of what is beyond the physical".[5] Nonetheless, Aristotle's Metaphysics enunciates considerations of natures above physical realities, which one can examine through this particular part of philosophy, for example, the existence of God. The use of the prefix was later extended to other contexts based on the understanding of metaphysics to mean "the science of what is beyond the physical".

 

So "Meta" means none of these things you say. I think WoWS players have for some reason adopted this work to mean "tactical trends" which seems very odd. Sorry to be a nit picker but the wierd use of this word in this game should really get sorted the findlesticks out. " Tactical Enviroment" or "Trends in tactical deployment" would be more accurate to what we are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,015
[USA-N]
Members
785 posts
12,273 battles
4 hours ago, Palladia said:

Translation:  "WAAAAA,  PUT CV'S IN THEIR OWN MODE!"  God,  you guys never quit whining, do you?

Listen here, old bean. When we has a complaint about complainers comment on these fine boards, we expect an infantile cat gif to go with it.

This is a complaint about complaints about complaints comment, and you may notice the terse sense of disdain, and the absence of any gif. This is proper form.

On your way. Go rocket plane a small animal or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
908
[PIG]
[PIG]
Members
1,315 posts
6,776 battles
5 hours ago, Varknyn12 said:

Some key points:

1.) Worthy applause to WG departments involved in making Sub models, and related visual as well as audio mechanics are quite great.

2.) As far as Sub balance, they are nearly there. Even in their current iteration, they are 100x more balanced than CVs ever have been. 

3.) Most people don't know that there are two types of META. A hard META and a soft META. 



Now to the meat and potatoes:

-Subs-

They are close to being just right. However, a step back needs to be taken for that to be achieved. First of all, Battery power needs to be a better balancing factor for time submerged and less about pings. If a sub runs out of battery, it should immediately and automatically proceed to periscope depth where it is vulnerable to attack. This should be the key feature that ensures that subs will never have free-reign in cases where their direct counters are already destroyed.

As for spotting, subs should NOT be able to share active spotting data (full render spotting / lock-on spot). Outgoing spot sharing from subs should be minimap ONLY. This means if a Sub spots an enemy ship, the ONLY information that should be passed on to allies of that sub is on the minimap.  However, incoming spot sharing should proceed as normal, i.e. if an ally DD spots an enemy BB the sub will get a full active spot render of that BB.

Next, offensive capability. Slightly rework the entire torpedo - ping - homing function. Subs should be able to load two different types of torpedoes on the fly, dependent on reload, just as you do with HE / AP on surface ship guns. One set of torpedoes (Set A) would be dummy, they would not have the homing capability, but would be much higher velocity and range. If you achieve two successful pings on a target that is subsequently struck by Set A torpedoes, they would not only ignore TDS but automatically cause two stacks of flooding and have a high chance at destroying components/guns/steering/etc for each torpedo struck.  Now Set B torpedoes would be more like what Subs have now in testing. The difference is, the sub would be unable to fire these until at least one successful ping was already on the target. Set B torpedoes should have lower velocity and range compared to Set A. Subs would also be able to benefit from the "Expert Loader" captain skill.


Lastly, ASW.  Since the spotting changes above would give DDs an actual chance at countering Subs, the on-hit damage of depth charges should be reduced. The primary effect of depth charges should be DoTs, temporary torp launcher or engine component destruction, and some battery charge automatically drained. The on-hit damage itself should be very minimal.



-Separate game mode and CVs-

If any ship type needs to be restricted to a separate game mode it is CVs. They do not fit in a functioning balance model of the current WoWs format, whereas subs as they are now, do. Why? It all has to do with Risk vs. Reward.  The primary factor dictating this fundamental is that the game is absent a respawn system. All ships should have counterplay and that counterplay itself as well as the roles a ship type is designed for must ALL directly impact the match based on the win conditions. The win conditions being things like... first team to reach 1,000 points... sinking enemies automatically begets points for your team and subtracts from the enemy team... sink all enemies to automatically win...etc.  With CVs, they present no risk for the vast majority of a match barring a few "meme" div comps like 899, and even then that is just using multiple ships of which each of them are overpowered to counter another overpowered ship. That is not balance.

For CVs to fit in the balance model, and to a valid inclusion to not only the primary game mode but also competitive modes, CVs would need to be changes to have risk that matches their reward, both effective and potential. CVs should NOT be able to sit unspotted all the way across the map and spot...damage...or even kill enemy ships. The ONLY exception to this would be if either shooting down planes directly caused HP damage to the CV --OR-- if shooting down planes automatically gained points for the team and subtracted from the enemy team just like sinking a ship does (but obviously for a lesser amount in the case of planes).  Subs are far more balanced because at any given time they still present FAR more risk than a CV does. Weapon range limitation plays a large part in this. The amusing part is that the ship types which the data confirms as being overpowered, are both the same ship types that are also limited the most in the team-based competitive mode. Simply icing on the cake as far as substantiating those facts. If they did not cause an imbalanced interaction, you wouldn't need to limit them so much.

I suggest the following combination of changes:
1.) Shooting down planes automatically grants 5 match points for the team that shot down the planes, and -5 to the team of the CV that lost the planes.
2.) the AA values of ships should be completely dependent on the inherent risk of the ship. The game is almost 100% arcade, it is NOT a sim. If a ship type is High risk, like DDs.. with lesser combat effectiveness... especially low effective weapon range on average... they should have the absolute highest AA values on average for all types. I am talking No-Fly zone with priority sector. Whereas larger ships, like BBs, which have the EHP to effectively survive lots of CV runs.. should have the least effective AA capability.
3.) Next, AP bombs, need to have an additional limitation applied, a maximum % of the victim's HP. They are currently are either an extreme overpowered feast... or famine.
4.) Lastly, a new mechanic should be added to CVs. Planes/squadrons that are damaged to a certain extent that return to the carrier, should automatically damage the CV slightly when they complete landing. If you need some sort of descriptive justification, just consider them like planes on fire or heavily damaged with potentially live ordinance landing on a CV deck.. things are bound to go wrong.

Until both Subs and CVs are completely balanced, like the above suggestions would enact, they BOTH should be restricted to a separate game mode. In this new game mode, it would be just like Randoms but with a few changes. For one, CVs would be soft capped at (1) per team and hard capped at (2) per team. Subs would be soft capped at (2) per team and hard capped at (3) per team. The only battle type in this mode would be "Standard", as in only 1 objective for each team. That way, this mode can serve as a controlled environment for balancing ship/type interactions. When Subs/CVs are more balanced, they can then be moved to the primary game mode (randoms) and then to competitive modes. TO entice participation in this game mode, the XP and credit rewards should be higher than Randoms, perhaps with daily missions that offer flags and Coal.



- META -

Just a little educational tidbit here for those who do not know. There are two types of META. A Hard META and a Soft META. In a Hard META, there is a specific set of archetypes/tactic that presents a large advantage over any other option. In a Hard META, skill plays the least part in impacting result unless a team is using non-META choices. A Hard META is also a clear symbol that your game is very imbalanced, well beyond any reasonable deviation. A Soft META on the other hand, even if there is a specific set of archetypes/tactics that present an advantage over other options, the advantage is minimal, and said advantage can only be exploited given high skill and synergy of the components. A Soft META is much better for the health of a game.

Oink!
Pig?
I don't like your post.
Too long, too boring.
It's not really about subs, but about CVs.
You know there will be CVs and SSs in this game.
It makes no sense to have Random battles with Subs and without Subs.
Double bacon!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,389
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
1 hour ago, Barazzuolio said:

Check out the definition of 'Meta': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta

Original Greek meaning[edit]

In Greek, the prefix meta- is generally less esoteric than in English; Greek meta- is equivalent to the Latin words post- or ad-. The use of the prefix in this sense occurs occasionally in scientific English terms derived from Greek. For example: the term Metatheria (the name for the clade of marsupial mammals) uses the prefix meta- in the sense the Metatheria occur on the tree of life adjacent to the Theria (the placental mammals).

Epistemology[edit]

In epistemology, and often in common use, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in and so on). In a database, metadata are also data about data stored in a data dictionary and describe information (data) about database tables such as the table name, table owner, details about columns, – essentially describing the table. Also, metamemory in psychology means an individual's knowledge about whether or not they would remember something if they concentrated on recalling it. The modern sense of "an X about X" has given rise to concepts like "meta-cognition" (cognition about cognition), "meta-emotion" (emotion about emotion), "meta-discussion" (discussion about discussion), "meta-joke" (joke about jokes), and "metaprogramming" (writing programs that manipulate programs).[citation needed]

In a rule-based system, a metarule is a rule governing the application of other rules.[2]

On higher level of abstraction[edit]

Any subject can be said to have a metatheory, a theoretical consideration of its properties, such as its foundations, methods, form and utility, on a higher level of abstraction. In linguistics, a grammar is considered as being expressed in a metalanguage, language operating on a higher level to describe properties of the plain language (and not itself).

Etymology[edit]

The prefix comes from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-), from μετά,[3] which meant "after", "beside", "with", "among" (with respect to the preposition, some of these meanings were distinguished by case marking). Other meanings include "beyond", "adjacent" and "self", and it is also used in the form μητα- as a prefix in Greek, with variants μετ- before vowels and μεθ- "meth-" before aspirated vowels.

The earliest form of the word "meta" is the Mycenaean Greek me-ta, written in Linear B syllabic script.[4] The Greek preposition is cognate with the Old English preposition mid "with", still found as a prefix in midwife. Its use in English is the result of back-formation from the word "metaphysics". In origin Metaphysics was just the title of one of the principal works of Aristotle; it was so named (by Andronicus of Rhodes) because in the customary ordering of the works of Aristotle it was the book following Physics; it thus meant nothing more than "[the book that comes] after [the book entitled] Physics". However, even Latin writers misinterpreted this as entailing metaphysics constituted "the science of what is beyond the physical".[5] Nonetheless, Aristotle's Metaphysics enunciates considerations of natures above physical realities, which one can examine through this particular part of philosophy, for example, the existence of God. The use of the prefix was later extended to other contexts based on the understanding of metaphysics to mean "the science of what is beyond the physical".

 

So "Meta" means none of these things you say. I think WoWS players have for some reason adopted this work to mean "tactical trends" which seems very odd. Sorry to be a nit picker but the wierd use of this word in this game should really get sorted the findlesticks out. " Tactical Enviroment" or "Trends in tactical deployment" would be more accurate to what we are talking about.

META stands for Most Effective Tactic Available

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,745
[WOLFG]
Members
33,531 posts
10,430 battles
6 hours ago, Varknyn12 said:

I see you are lacking a coherent and concise argument and have resorted to an emotional and fallacious outburst. You have been found wanting.

All hail Varknyn, Lord Arbiter of all that is virtually nautical!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,669
[CLUMP]
Members
1,885 posts
2,412 battles
7 hours ago, Varknyn12 said:

Some key points:

1.) Worthy applause to WG departments involved in making Sub models, and related visual as well as audio mechanics are quite great.

2.) As far as Sub balance, they are nearly there. Even in their current iteration, they are 100x more balanced than CVs ever have been. 

3.) Most people don't know that there are two types of META. A hard META and a soft META. 



Now to the meat and potatoes:

-Subs-

They are close to being just right. However, a step back needs to be taken for that to be achieved. First of all, Battery power needs to be a better balancing factor for time submerged and less about pings. If a sub runs out of battery, it should immediately and automatically proceed to periscope depth where it is vulnerable to attack. This should be the key feature that ensures that subs will never have free-reign in cases where their direct counters are already destroyed.

As for spotting, subs should NOT be able to share active spotting data (full render spotting / lock-on spot). Outgoing spot sharing from subs should be minimap ONLY. This means if a Sub spots an enemy ship, the ONLY information that should be passed on to allies of that sub is on the minimap.  However, incoming spot sharing should proceed as normal, i.e. if an ally DD spots an enemy BB the sub will get a full active spot render of that BB.

Next, offensive capability. Slightly rework the entire torpedo - ping - homing function. Subs should be able to load two different types of torpedoes on the fly, dependent on reload, just as you do with HE / AP on surface ship guns. One set of torpedoes (Set A) would be dummy, they would not have the homing capability, but would be much higher velocity and range. If you achieve two successful pings on a target that is subsequently struck by Set A torpedoes, they would not only ignore TDS but automatically cause two stacks of flooding and have a high chance at destroying components/guns/steering/etc for each torpedo struck.  Now Set B torpedoes would be more like what Subs have now in testing. The difference is, the sub would be unable to fire these until at least one successful ping was already on the target. Set B torpedoes should have lower velocity and range compared to Set A. Subs would also be able to benefit from the "Expert Loader" captain skill.


Lastly, ASW.  Since the spotting changes above would give DDs an actual chance at countering Subs, the on-hit damage of depth charges should be reduced. The primary effect of depth charges should be DoTs, temporary torp launcher or engine component destruction, and some battery charge automatically drained. The on-hit damage itself should be very minimal.



-Separate game mode and CVs-

If any ship type needs to be restricted to a separate game mode it is CVs. They do not fit in a functioning balance model of the current WoWs format, whereas subs as they are now, do. Why? It all has to do with Risk vs. Reward.  The primary factor dictating this fundamental is that the game is absent a respawn system. All ships should have counterplay and that counterplay itself as well as the roles a ship type is designed for must ALL directly impact the match based on the win conditions. The win conditions being things like... first team to reach 1,000 points... sinking enemies automatically begets points for your team and subtracts from the enemy team... sink all enemies to automatically win...etc.  With CVs, they present no risk for the vast majority of a match barring a few "meme" div comps like 899, and even then that is just using multiple ships of which each of them are overpowered to counter another overpowered ship. That is not balance.

For CVs to fit in the balance model, and to a valid inclusion to not only the primary game mode but also competitive modes, CVs would need to be changes to have risk that matches their reward, both effective and potential. CVs should NOT be able to sit unspotted all the way across the map and spot...damage...or even kill enemy ships. The ONLY exception to this would be if either shooting down planes directly caused HP damage to the CV --OR-- if shooting down planes automatically gained points for the team and subtracted from the enemy team just like sinking a ship does (but obviously for a lesser amount in the case of planes).  Subs are far more balanced because at any given time they still present FAR more risk than a CV does. Weapon range limitation plays a large part in this. The amusing part is that the ship types which the data confirms as being overpowered, are both the same ship types that are also limited the most in the team-based competitive mode. Simply icing on the cake as far as substantiating those facts. If they did not cause an imbalanced interaction, you wouldn't need to limit them so much.

I suggest the following combination of changes:
1.) Shooting down planes automatically grants 5 match points for the team that shot down the planes, and -5 to the team of the CV that lost the planes.
2.) the AA values of ships should be completely dependent on the inherent risk of the ship. The game is almost 100% arcade, it is NOT a sim. If a ship type is High risk, like DDs.. with lesser combat effectiveness... especially low effective weapon range on average... they should have the absolute highest AA values on average for all types. I am talking No-Fly zone with priority sector. Whereas larger ships, like BBs, which have the EHP to effectively survive lots of CV runs.. should have the least effective AA capability.
3.) Next, AP bombs, need to have an additional limitation applied, a maximum % of the victim's HP. They are currently are either an extreme overpowered feast... or famine.
4.) Lastly, a new mechanic should be added to CVs. Planes/squadrons that are damaged to a certain extent that return to the carrier, should automatically damage the CV slightly when they complete landing. If you need some sort of descriptive justification, just consider them like planes on fire or heavily damaged with potentially live ordinance landing on a CV deck.. things are bound to go wrong.

Until both Subs and CVs are completely balanced, like the above suggestions would enact, they BOTH should be restricted to a separate game mode. In this new game mode, it would be just like Randoms but with a few changes. For one, CVs would be soft capped at (1) per team and hard capped at (2) per team. Subs would be soft capped at (2) per team and hard capped at (3) per team. The only battle type in this mode would be "Standard", as in only 1 objective for each team. That way, this mode can serve as a controlled environment for balancing ship/type interactions. When Subs/CVs are more balanced, they can then be moved to the primary game mode (randoms) and then to competitive modes. TO entice participation in this game mode, the XP and credit rewards should be higher than Randoms, perhaps with daily missions that offer flags and Coal.



- META -

Just a little educational tidbit here for those who do not know. There are two types of META. A Hard META and a Soft META. In a Hard META, there is a specific set of archetypes/tactic that presents a large advantage over any other option. In a Hard META, skill plays the least part in impacting result unless a team is using non-META choices. A Hard META is also a clear symbol that your game is very imbalanced, well beyond any reasonable deviation. A Soft META on the other hand, even if there is a specific set of archetypes/tactics that present an advantage over other options, the advantage is minimal, and said advantage can only be exploited given high skill and synergy of the components. A Soft META is much better for the health of a game.

Logical fallacy to cover up the fact that you hate CVs  :Smile_popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,389
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
4 minutes ago, LastRemnant said:

Logical fallacy to cover up the fact that you hate CVs  :Smile_popcorn:

Always amusing when someone uses that terminology of which they clearly do not understand all whilst being guilty of committing one.

Edited by Varknyn12
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,669
[CLUMP]
Members
1,885 posts
2,412 battles
3 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

Always amusing when someone uses that terminology which clearly do not understand all whilst being guilty of committing one.

Hey you are one using subs as an excuse to nerf CVs :Smile_smile: What next when Subs come out and affect your precious DD playtime you will want them nerfed also :Smile_popcorn:To you everything that doesn't fit your narrative is a logical fallacy :Smile_hiding:

Edited by LastRemnant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,389
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
1 minute ago, LastRemnant said:

Hey you are one using subs as an excuse to nerf CVs :Smile_smile: What next when Subs come out and affect your precious DD playtime you will want them nerfed also :Smile_popcorn:To you everything that doesn't fit your narrative is a logical fallacy :Smile_hiding:

and you did it again.
 

Quote

Always amusing when someone uses that terminology of which they clearly do not understand all whilst being guilty of committing one.

If you have a coherent and concise argument, present it.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,669
[CLUMP]
Members
1,885 posts
2,412 battles
6 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

and you did it again.
 

If you have a coherent and concise argument, present it.

Right I am not going bothered since you will call it a fallacy :Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,396
[INTEL]
Members
13,459 posts
39,002 battles
6 hours ago, SteelClaw said:

I am having a blast playing Subs. They are BB nukers and I am loving it. Pinging a ships lets the torps ignore the torp belt and man do the BB feel pain. 

Must be a wonderful interaction for the BB player, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,015
[USA-N]
Members
785 posts
12,273 battles
28 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

Must be a wonderful interaction for the BB player, then.

Yes, as I understand it, being a BB with subs around leaves you with no options at all.

Fun fun fun.

I think, for all the reasons people have already identified, that subs are dead on arrival, as an entertainment concept.

There seems to be no inspiration at WG, no creative vision or leadership. It appears to be game design by committee.

Might be time to look out into the world and see what is new. Somewhere out there, creative people with fresh ideas will be building something new.

This factory workshop WG have created for themselves is getting exceedingly boring.

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.

×