Ahskance

I wouldn't lose sleep thinking that you personally playing a Submarine for a few hours or many hours was the make or break point for whether they enter the game after testing.

We have hundreds of thousands of players that play routinely, and millions of accounts made. The data you provided helped as another many drops of water in the lake of data generated, so thank you very much for helping but please don't feel concern over trying out something new for a while.

...what? This post seemed rather strange.

I don't root through player data to make design decisions, because I'm a community manager. I'm a community interaction point.

The OP came up with "a way to track interest in subs", to which I responded that we already have direct access to the amount of people that choose to play them or not. In effect, we've already got the answer to his suggestion.

-

As for "majorly favorable", you might be surprised that there is little in an asymetrical game which is overwhelmingly loved. Each type of ship has its strengths and weaknesses and many people will gravitate toward what works for them while avoiding what doesn't. This can often result in resentment to other types/counters, which is perfectly normal.

As for letting them into clan battles... subs are still in testing. Subs have not been released and are subject to possibly drastic change should it be warranted...

We do have the ability to determine how much a player has played them. As well as how often they return to play them again.

Many people might try things once or twice to see if it fits them and move on, there are plenty of folks that only play one or two ship types and that's it.

Honestly I'm very surprised to have seen the reduction in flak damage? That was fascinating and strange, because I don't see why the flak explosion damage should be impacted by lost flak cannons.

That would argue for an additional damage reduction. There was a 600 HP part which did survive more than two hits, so even low rolls of 335 x 2 should've broken in.

I'll see if I can inquire and learn more about module mechanics. While I agree that 100% health might calculate out in a way which seems unimpressive, the Kremlin AA mounts were nerfed by 100% back forever ago as a way to add a weakness to the ship. The difference of that change was immediately noticeable to surface players as well as CV players, so I cannot shake the importance of the additional health.

Correct. Just base hull, no upgrades no commander buffs!

I'd heed the advice above on ship's with basic or mediocre AA. Ships that actually have it as a specialty are absolutely worth spec'ing into, however.

I personally enjoy a supportive playstyle, so my Halland tends to be fully AA support kitted. It's possible I might not get a CV, so it's best to just div with a friend that runs a CV so I can guarantee that my build can be useful.

I ran a quick test in a training room using a Z-31 for single, accuracy HE shell data. It took about 3 close shells to crack a Bot Preussen's 600 HP mount, so I'm assuming the HE damage might be transferred at less than full value (as full value is 1,700 a shell). The How It Works: Modules video shows AP shells as rating out at 10%. If the HE on the Z-31 was doing 10%, then that would only have been 170 damage per hit barring some outliers, but only three nearby shell hits cracking the mount still seems odd.

The Modules video also references armor as a direct damage reduction, so I'm curious about how those ArmorCoeff's work. Do you have the Z-31 HE shell ArmorCoeff data? I can do a video testing hits and running numbers.

Asked Boggzy if Atlantico had a speed boost and she does not.

Turns out he meant the Italian DD Adriatico.

Your mission idea would be a way of tracking interest. However, we already have data on how much of the playerbase has played subs and how much they played them.

More health is still more health. The OP mentioned he's not secondary spec'd, so that does reduce one of the major utility points of the Slot 1 option. The AA choice is best used for ships with significant AA or a strong interest in playing away from teammates.

Also, while the Thunderer may be amazing at crushing AA mounts, not every match has a Thunderer in it. Even ones that do may have you never taking a shell from them, and not every match has Battleship players that ever even use HE as most players primarily use AP in Battleships.

Thank you for your reports yesterday. That issue was addressed permanently yesterday.

There are always going to be advantageous games and disadvantageous games. It's about the decisions you make in response to the situations you're put in.

Sometimes you're the lone Cruiser against a game with 6 Battleships that overmatch you. Sometimes you're the DD against CVs and Radar. Sometimes you're the Battleship on a flank that lost its 2 Destroyers and you get to run from things you can't see for the next 10 minutes.

There are a variety of situations where people feel frustration, or where a single player's efforts aren't enough to overcome the odds. The answer is simply to do the best you can do with what you have. Sometimes that means losing, but that never means you have to make it easy for the enemy to win.

If you are in a Destroyer and your game has CVs in it, you need to factor them in to your decision-making. This means you might not be able to go wide on a flank and look for big Torp damage, but you can absolutely spot for your team from 8km away or so. If you see planes heading out to look for you, then fall back to friendly AA. If the planes move off to a different target, open up the distance and start claiming space.

You have to respect a CV in the same way as if you had an enemy destroyer that out-guns you. There's only so far you can push ahead of your team. Why? Because if you trip across an enemy that outguns you, you die without support backing you up. AA isn't as long ranged as guns are, but the concept is remarkably similar.

I played subs for something like 30+ hours during Ranked on Live Server. Depth Charges have an AoE explosion that also reaches the surface. To my knowledge, it has always been that way.

Depth Charges make a pressure wave that might not hurt a fortified surface ship but still do damage to a sub's structure. As @ArIskandirsaid, surface still takes damage but it's reduced as it's further away from the source of the explosion.

Depth Charges are anti-Sub weapons and this is a video game. Some suspension of disbelief is required.

In our current situation, Tier 4 is a training tier. As such, the surface ship AA is functional in a sense, but it's weak, flak-less, and fighter-less (for the most part). Having the ability to rip things apart in a low-AA environment is not something you should expect. While there was a time where the Hosho got way over-buffed, that was corrected and should not return.

Sadly the RTS days are gone. I can play her on stream, though. Maybe people would be interested to see how not strong she is as many folks are very concerned about Tier 4 CVs.

I could do that. She's just back to her release form which only dropped a single torpedo.

Tier 4 is rather slow for a stream, though.

I'm not aware of any intent to do otherwise.