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

Submarines

9 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,859
[SALVO]
Members
3,897 posts
7,805 battles

I think if they want to insist on introducing subs then number of players per team needs to go up to 15. So that there is ample room for DDs spots to counter play the subs. 

Edited by eviltane
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
406
[VOP]
Members
1,113 posts
Just now, Admiral_Hippo said:

You guys must be getting constipated on this one.

Let WG be constipated, constipated so much it backs up and comes out their mouths. Don't want subs.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,114
[BEA5T]
Members
6,363 posts
31,530 battles

I believe that our host has a problem with Submarines and how they will affect PVP battlespace mechanics....

Imagine trying to conduct ASW in the current meta................who, would ever, sail around in the open to chase a Sub !  Carriers would eat you alive before you ever got to the sub and "Camping Dead Eyes" would blow what is left into plasma....

How would subs ever get to the "fight" being so slowwwwwwwwwww......  Alternative, closer spawns?  

Gosh guys, Carriers have messed up a lot of this game because they operate strategically (in three dimensions versus two) and subs, which operate in four dimensions (roll, pitch, yaw and pressure) can only make things a lot worse.....   The unwritten Law of Systems behavior hasn't been wrong in decades - and that law states:  "For each level of complexity (dimensions) a product introduces to an existing process, all of the supporting processes must geometrically expand to support it to overcome it's effects....  Otherwise, Culture trumps process 100% of the time"  And, since our "process" now contains "Carriers - which are three dimensional weapons;" in a Two dimensional game (surface ships only go forward, Backward, Left and Right and attack in LOS) we have not expanded anything to support the basis of their use !!!  And, we see them acting "strategic" because of their extra dimensional state.....   IMAGINE, what a four dimensional weapon will do to a two dimensional game........  OUCH.  Talk about a mess..... 

I suspect they are stuck:.........because the un written Law of Systems Behavior is very, very expensive........ 

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
[WHARF]
Members
732 posts
21,452 battles
17 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

I believe that our host has a problem with Submarines and how they will affect PVP battlespace mechanics....

Imagine trying to conduct ASW in the current meta................who, would ever, sail around in the open to chase a Sub !  Carriers would eat you alive before you ever got to the sub and "Camping Dead Eyes" would blow what is left into plasma....

How would subs ever get to the "fight" being so slowwwwwwwwwww......  Alternative, closer spawns?  

Gosh guys, Carriers have messed up a lot of this game because they operate strategically (in three dimensions versus two) and subs, which operate in four dimensions (roll, pitch, yaw and pressure) can only make things a lot worse.....   The unwritten Law of Systems behavior hasn't been wrong in decades - and that law states:  "For each level of complexity (dimensions) a product introduces to an existing process, all of the supporting processes must geometrically expand to support it to overcome it's effects....  Otherwise, Culture trumps process 100% of the time"  And, since our "process" now contains "Carriers - which are three dimensional weapons;" in a Two dimensional game (surface ships only go forward, Backward, Left and Right and attack in LOS) we have not expanded anything to support the basis of their use !!!  And, we see them acting "strategic" because of their extra dimensional state.....   IMAGINE, what a four dimensional weapon will do to a two dimensional game........  OUCH.  Talk about a mess..... 

I suspect they are stuck:.........because the un written Law of Systems Behavior is very, very expensive........ 

They are not slow........had good speed in testing and in 1 game got close enough to sunk the CV. Remember this is a game...nothing real about how these ship function 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,114
[BEA5T]
Members
6,363 posts
31,530 battles
4 hours ago, dadeoo said:

They are not slow........had good speed in testing and in 1 game got close enough to sunk the CV. Remember this is a game...nothing real about how these ship function 

I understand and was around when they were being tinkered with.   Faster = Worse.  The issue with planes is speed.  If speed in Subs gets too fast, on our small, time compressed maps, Chaos will ensue to the point the game itself, loses it's selling.......  If I want silly arcade shooters, there are far better games for that.  I'm here for the WW1-2 Naval flavor.........not more gimmicks.....

Thanks for the reminder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,560
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
14,572 posts
20,890 battles
5 hours ago, eviltane said:

I think if they want to insist on introducing subs then number of players per team needs to go up to 15. So that there is ample room for DDs spots to counter play the subs. 

Love this idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[VIKNG]
Beta Testers
430 posts
12,337 battles
5 hours ago, eviltane said:

I think if they want to insist on introducing subs then number of players per team needs to go up to 15. So that there is ample room for DDs spots to counter play the subs. 

If we go to 15 players, can I  also get mine laying capability for my German DD's ?  :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×