Hey guys, today we talk about changes upcoming to Soviet Carriers, and Submarines, where WG actually listens to feedback, enjoy!
DevBlog: https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/171 https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/169
Outro Music: Stranger Think- C418
Have a replay?
Join the Discord here!: https://discordapp.com/invite/QA7G9pr
there is a another dev blog you have to discuss sea lord mount battan
It’s so fucking typical with WG that the BB “Anti Submarine consumable” is “only for some branches”… It will be SO much fun if we get another 1on1 Ranked round, or a match is lost becuase it boils down to BB VS Sub and the BB just can’t do anything.
@undertakernumberone1 Subs would probably have nerf on their torp damage. Also good DD players are almost impossible to counter with a BB. Akizuki for one killed my Vlad with just 4 torps (snuck them through my DD ally on a flank) and I just saw him for 3 seconds or something
@undertakernumberone1 the problem is that the rock paper scissors system that used to exist is gone, but some classes (BBs specifically) have not been given the tools to deal with other classes where cruisers, CVs and DDs have. Battleships have shit AA and their over pen mechanic means that they have no recourse against DDs and CVs. While it’s true a competent player can win against a DD, it’s not before the DD has siphoned off half of more of your health with HE spam. If a cruiser, CV, or even a battleship showed as much broadside to a BB as destroyers frequently do, they would be punished, maybe even killed in one volley for it, and rightfully so. If this game was still about the rock paper scissor balance, I would say that DDs should remain as battleship hunters. But the problem is everything is a battleship hunter now.
@dziugyslovs Not in 1vs1… Go for the cap, the DD then needs to defend the cap and with the island its hard for the DD use stealth / time attacks as the points quickly go against the DD. Most matches with a BB vs DD, ended up with the DD needing to rush the BB for a one time strike but any good BB players knows where to look for DDs ( detected = you know where the DD is hiding ). And if they angle away / miss torps, the BB wins by points or because the DD does not have the time to reload.
Played plenty of 1vs1 as DD where BB’s smoked my behind by simply knowing the map, figuring out where i was and avoiding my torps. BB’s defiantly win against DD’s! Especially BB’s like the Tirpitz with Torps, making a rush interesting. Or Massa with her Secundaries. Or …
DD vs Carriers, now here is a almost no-win scenario…
@Ben Jiro dds wreck cvs, almost no point with the cv nerf hitting dds since they can dodge super easily
@Ben Jiro although at the same time it really depends on the map/mode, if its domination then going for the cap won’t really work as a DD can maintain a cap lead much better than a BB, thanks to having substantially superior acceleration and speed, and thus doesn’t need to confront the BB (if anything this allows the DD to have full control) as most maps allow it to easily slink into and capture the cap as the BB is entering another. Although on the other hand, in standard a DD could be forced into a conflict, if the BB started capturing the DD’s point before the DD reached the BB’s point, or if the BB reaches the point before the DD can complete the capture.
Personally I feel torpedo deflections should be added, especially with subs being in the near future, because then going nose in towards a torpedo salvo will do much more than just making yourself a smaller target to hit, instead of still taking heavy (and in the case of submarines citadel damage) damage despite the fact the torpedo just barely nicked your side while it was nearly parallel to your hull.
They still need to give all branches armament to fight subs. The ability to attack an opponent should never be taken out of the players hands. Some anti sub weapons can be better than other branches sure, but having no armament to deal with a submerged submarine effectively will make them impervious to damage.
Secondary builds may be viable again
@Arch _ true
@Arch _ for real? Did they revert secondary builds back to the values of pre-commander rework?
If not, then no, secondary builds are not viable.
@SpaniardNL Nope. And imho even with Pre Rework Stats, the Skills are utterly overpriced. Adrenaline Rush and the “new” Superintended, as well as Priority Target, should go back to their old costs. 2, 3, 1 respectively. And the secondary accuracy improvement… no more than 3 skillpoints. probably 2. Even with 60% and both sides shooting. It’s too situational.
@SpaniardNL should’ve specified, I was referring to secondaries against submarines
if they are to give those subs twice the historical speed in game equipped with mark 48 torpedoes that can bypass torpedoe defense system, they might as well increase the speed of the us standard type battleship, because as Jingles said in one of his video, telling that 20 knots New Mexico or Colorado to just dodge will not work. These ships will truly need another way to defend themselves against submarines.
And don’t forget subs are going after DD and cruiser, American cruiser’s have terrible torpedo protection with a citidel design of a two year old.
@Walter Melyon sad Pensacola noises
although at the same time, they aren’t very fast but they certainly can turn as at times I have been nigh untouchable for DDs whilst in my 18kn Colorado (never upgraded her engine). Although homing torpedoes would aren’t really something that is easy to dodge in the first place, all the more reason to introduce a torpedo deflection mechanic of some sort. But then the New Mexico did receive ASW Planes, although I’m not sure if any of the other American BBs, aside from Montana, had ASW planes in latest public test for subs.
And speaking of what Jingles had said in the same video, at least the same one I think you’re referring to, he did mention that with the homing torpedoes that the Germans used were countered by a few things one of which was to simply go slower (1/3 speed), so maybe implement a mechanic where the torpedoes homing is severally hindered, at very the least, if the pinged target is going at a 1/2 speed or slower.
4:10 saw a Nakhimov rocket squadron lose no planes in matches on PTS, first strike he did to a conqueror was 30k with most of the rockets hitting i believe.
Did the guy used his priority target? I played against Nakhimov with Des Moines and had 0 problem shooting those planes down
I’ve seen clips of the Soviet CVs losing every plane, I’ve seen clips of them not losing a single plane. I myself haven’t ran into one yet, so I can’t really speak much about them. But I would have to assume that the heal was probably holding his planes together. Plus it’s a Conqueror, thing is coated in 32mm
Can you imagine the constant scrambling at every decision that WG cocks up?
im not watching but ya get this game needs balanced before you bring more lines and premium money grabbing changes in before you get the palyer base centred. i dont want missions for flags i want to earn them !
Blowout games will become even more rampant when these make it to live as they are.
Nakhimov got a good buff to the rocket planes, I guess SLM didn’t notice.
Happy independence days everyone!
Thanks, you too!
if carriers and submarines are massive failures would Wargaming staff admit it and write of the years of wasted resources for the health of the game? or would they do everything they could to cover it up in spreadsheet magic to save their asses?
Why did you keep shooting AP against that Marceau? 0_o
If only they took this much time and effort with CVs and commanders:(
I know right…..never forget.
@Jay Werner yeah I want CVs in game but the CV rework could be a lot better. And the commanders I like the idea of more skills unique to ship types but not letting CAs do secondary build or survivability, making secondary builds bad, having only one viable build for each ship and not having access to aircraft skills on hybrids makes the hole thing seem pointless. But I’m hopeful for SS and I feel they will be fun and work well because it seems the guy who did CVs and commanders did not touch the subs lol.
@Gundam Zeta Yeah i hate when people be like “REMOVE CV THIS SURFACE COMBAT GAME” like Bruh its WORLD OF WARSHIPS, like it or not CARRIERS AND SUBS ARE WARSHIPS!
Yes it seems like WG KNOWS they royally FUCKED IT UP the last time, and already used up their “apology” for the year with the Yukon situation and really are taking their time with subs, IM JUST HAPPY THE SUBS CAN REGAIN DIVEING ON THE SUFRACE! and hay they made the torps better vs SUBS and worse vs battleships.
Well, no more ranked or co-op battles for me once subs appear then. Once they’re in random, the game will be put on the back shelf for a few years. Keep the game ship to ship surface gunnery.
WG managed to turn World of Tanks in an awful shitshow (which I quit in utter disgust when they introduced to the world the bloody wheeled vehicles) Now it’s World of Warships turn (I don’t know anything about World of Planes, but I can only assume it’s the same). But WG doesn’t care: until there is a good number of players buying the premium accounts and/or premium ships etc erc, things are fine and dandy for them.
WG must be one of the worst gaming developer in the world.
When you think that WG can’t make any dumber changes… and the you read that the homing torps will hit subs more easily than battleships.
Sub servers full of bots is all the data WG needed. It’s saying everything, people are not interested in playing them or against them.
Now with hybrid battleships being a thing, I’m waiting on them to make the I-400 series submarines so the community can absolutely loose their minds over it
“The balance is built around the interaction of a certain number of ships. Changing it would lead to a need to completely reconfigure all ships in the game;” yet the game is being reconfigure for subs. this tells you how important starting position for the all ships. It has been noted that when it gets busy more maps that are configure to make two 6 ships battles appear.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *