Ok so. Not applying history when it can break the game = bad. Applying history when it's possible to game to work = bad. So... does it even possible to make things good with such logic? Because if we won't apply history at all it will also be bad. And if we apply history everywhere the game will be unplayable...
DD the only class that can attack sub at underwater level with depth charges. On periscope and surface levels ANY ship can hit it with its main battery.
Judging upon an Alfa footage...
I told it numerous times in several threads already - wait for the tests to see how it will actually work in-game (and even then many things may be changed based on players feedback), debates that are based on WiP footage are meaningless.
I can't consider any thoughts about something you barely saw in Alpha state as feedback. That's why I'm telling everyone to WAIT for the test. To TRY the subs and only THEN to leave feedback.
CV rework was a hard process with its own nuances and we took that experience into account in our work on subs.
We are already collecting applications for Beta Test so it's going to be pretty soon. However, applying for it doesn't mean you will be able to participate since Beta test will have its limits.
It serves to show you how it will look in game but still, it may be changed since it's WiP. But what I saw now is a debate about how bad it's going to be in a late-game or how no one except DD can do something to Subs. Which is kinda meaningless and not true.
I don't mind you to comment. But debating about game changes and how bad it's going to be is based on... nothing.
What exactly is broken? The speed? The circles? You may not like the mechanics but debating about "I already know how it will look in randoms" is kinda strange. As it was said numerous time, after tests it will be added in a separate mode for further tests, balancing, feedback gathering, etc.
That's why it will be in a separate mode. So we can balance and change it until it will be tenable.
As I told already, I don't mind criticizing the subs mechanics or else. But what I don't get is assumptions about how bad it's going to be in randoms after we add subs there. When it was clearly said that we are not going to put it in randoms right after tests. It will be in a separate mode for further balancing, etc.
Because we definitely are not going to change anything based on feedback from an alpha video footage. And that's why we will have tests to receive a valuable feedback from players who actually played sub or VS. sub.
We are running more tests and subs will be placed in a separate mode and won't go straight to randoms as it was with CV.
You will learn that after tests. I'm myself haven't played the subs yet so I can't tell you exactly how it will be. But in theory... DD is the only class that can damage it while it's underwater, all other ships can damage it just fine with main battery while a sub is on periscope or surface levels. And since sub has a limitations for being periscope and underwater it can't hide for long it's forced to be on a surface level to regen.
Then try it later and let's see how it's going to work in an actual battle.
Comparing game changes with a hit by a bus is strange.
Just sayin'...
Because it's same as changing leading role actor in a movie based on social media negative responses. Weird, no? For example, everyone was totally negative after Warner Bros. told that Ben Affleck is gonna be new Batman. But in the end, he played his part pretty good and most ppl liked him in that role.
And one more good thing, movie does not have a test runs and we do :)
It can be damaged with AP shells as well.
As I already said, I can understand people frustration and I clearly see your point of view on this after CV rework. However, we took that CV rework experience into account and subs will not go straight to randoms. It will be placed in a separate mode where players will be able to try it and we, developers, will be able to receive enough statistic data and feedback to calibrate it right in case of gameplay, balance, mechanics, etc.
And who will define it? :)
But anyway, we are not going to release it to randoms UNTIL it's a properly balanced to be playable and enjoyable. And IF there will be some balance or else issues we are ready to postpone it until it's good to go.
I am not sure where "trumpeting" is. Yes, we would like to reflect the DD historical role, and ideally, avoid giving depth charges to the ships that did not carry them - ideally, I say, because if absolutely needed for the sake of game balance, we can live with that.
As for the speeds - all speeds in the game are scaled, including shell travel time. And the ships sizes are scaled (twice bigger than IRL compared to shooting ranges), so with all due respect, this is not hypocrisy, this is "we want to minimize the historical inaccuracy when possible, but game balance goes first". The OP seems like an attempt to pick on phrasing.
P.S. "Scale the speed" does not mean "totally discount historical accuracy". I can give you hundreds of examples where it is totally discounted in the game, but it is not here.
Cheers!
Plans change. It you (I don't mean you personally, of course, it is an abstraction) don't update the plans for your game which are several years old, you are either a prophet, or dumb.
Our "no subs ever" gently turned in "we don't work on them atm" very long time ago, actually. And still, we had a lot of things to do. Now, a year ago, in terms of our technical and production capabilities, was a good time to start working on them, so we did.
The only problem I see here is "never subs" which was our position back then. Because "never say never"
Nobody thinks you are. But you definitely like to pick on words. I explained this above. Historical aspect is already selective in the game, and it was like this from the start. It's a game based on history, and we reflect the history when we can, but if needed we're willing to sacrifice it for gameplay.
They will go to separate game mode for testing. If it has good results, they WILL be added to the main game mode with time. But a dedicated mode gives us the chance to collect a lot of viable feedback without changing the game experience for everyone overnight.
Some details:
Stats from test;
Surveys;
Forum+Reddit+SM impressions;
CCT impressions;
Our own assessment.
Something like that will affect our decision making. How exactly - I don't know until we started.
If you, by any chance, have a ready formula which will somehow tell us 100% precisely how to move on or not to move on with the subs, please DM it to me. I will gladly shower you with Missouris, Belfasts and Kamikazes for the rest of your WoWS lifetime :)
Hint: there is NO universal solution to such cases. You need to love the game and the players, have vision for it, and have some guts to make a call in the end. And still, you can be wrong, and in this case you need to show ownership and work your aft off to fix stuff. That's tough dev life right here
I am sorry that our change of plans collided with your infinite hate (or phobia?) of submarines. I really do. But you have to understand that most people don't feel like that. For the most people submarines, even without track record of taking part in big fleet battles, are a part of WWII naval warfare. And our game is..about WWII naval warfare. There is demand for this class. Even the situation where we had to reply to "subs when" over and over again proves that.
No, top management people responsible for the game on company level do not interfere with game design. We work on the subs because we (WoWS team) believe they can be good and fun addition to the game. Also, have some faith please. We've made this game which brought all of us together and we've been keeping it hot for 4 years now. We had a lot of bumps and lessons learned hard way, but tons of fun and good updates as well. We (both players and devs) can handle some tiny underwater boats
Your theory, it is. Time will tell
Thank you for the feedback, I guess. Or was it a pointless rant aimed at us?
Historical aspect is quite strong in our game - models, lore and a lot of IRL specs applied to ships, how we work with ballistics and armor, etc, etc, however OF COURSE a lot of things work vastly differently because we're not a sim. That's fine, no need to see it as black & white. Hitsory is a part of this game identity, like it or not, it influences how game feels and plays, but it does not need to be 100%...even 75% accurate.
That's fine, we're scared too, and we don't want to ruin the game as well. You know, looks like here devs and players have a lot of same goals, which is good.
How do you know that? The above poster just commented on how people adapt (or not) to meta change. This does not prove absolutely anything.
devtrackers.gg