Figment

Agree. More eastern timezones get more time to climb up too. Not exactly fair. I can somewhat imagine that when pops get too low for the MM to quickly generate matches you stop however. But if that was the reason the game would be in serious trouble.

Agree to disagree. Still, I dislike the removal, as luring people into their own side’s torps or forcing enemies to not launch a defensive torpstrike due to risks to allies was a handy CQB tactic at times. People spam launch these days in the same situation. The few times a DD or cruiser would run into my torps (even if warned over and over) or would hit me by accident I could easily live with. I don’t think they’re ignoring the discontent, they are however focusing on the wrong type of solution (balance passes) and thinking that once database balance had been achieved it’s all going to work out fine. It’s probably more a lack of vision and imagination with a big dose of ego. Don’t think this was the case in this instance. The described attitude in chat does not match that of newish players. There’s a difference between generating unintended emotions from players who feel they lack control over a combat situation, with people going out of their way to deliberately attempt to hurt/ offend/ bully others in some way for no other reason than to revel in their misery. Problem is a lot of players apparently don’t see the difference, present company apparently included and use that inability for basic empathy to justify extending their hatred and feelings of injustice to innocent users who are just there to have fun without any malice intend in mind. Deliberately conflating that is dishonest. Accidentally conflating that is ignorant bigotry. If you want to see examples of bullying attitude, then look no further than the just-began-playing-powerful-battleships-why-don’t-DDs-die-on-the-first-shot-I-play-BBs-only-crowd. A lot of them love bullying, you frequently get one on forums to demand the ability to do so even better and nerf counter abilities from other classes. That is a bullying attitude. Most CV players are just people who like carriers or providing more of a support role and try to get their team a win. I won’t say there are no bullies among CV players, but to suggest people who play CVs or subs are per definition bullies is just wrong and unethical demonizing. An example of a CV bully would be one going out of their way to damage friendlies or overly frequent seal clubbing long past the grind to get to the next CV. Attacking enemies, including focusing on one or one with worse AA defenses, is simply part of the game. You cannot fault a CV player for doing what that player is supposed to do. Even if you disagree with the balancing or design choices. Defining a player using a tool as intended without exploiting or abuse as a bully is just asinine and dishonest. Likely projection as well as it is apparently the only thing they can imagine themselves using it for. I do not blame Petrograd and Stalingrad players for using IMO too powerful long range radar against my DD either. That’d be a really dumb and low thing to do. Unfortunately ethics are low in the general playerbase once they feel they have some great cause. Like using trying to remove a class of ships as justification. Suddenly they think they are above rules of decency and can set their own behavioural norms that other “lesser” people will just have to put up with as collateral damage of their quest.

Great. So what good has reporting CV players done? Potato 5.5km torp cruisers sailing behind their allies and firing at targets 10+km away more likely. Subs are not near allies and do not aim at allies since they are out in front of them. No. No. No. No. People like you are a much bigger problem. Have you ever seen abuse of players lead to WG changing tactics? Have you seen any company do so? No. No.

Tbh it’s pretty pathetic to take out frustration with game design on players. People didn’t TK bordersurfers either and those were deliberately exploiting. These people are simply playing a game as intended by the game designers. I’ve seen this kind of TK behaviour in online games before by “disgruntled” players. At first it’s aimed at pet peeves, usually by people using free trial accounts to attack players using certain equipment considered OP, in some cases it has been for racist reasons targeting Chinese or Eastern European players in particular. Eventually these people will start targeting others just to “get back at the company” and attempting to drive away customers and keep expanding the “legitimate targets” in their mind. In that sense I’m almost glad teamdamage is turned off, even if it diminished the tactical part of the game. I’m glad there are some checks in place to keep free accounts under control with some effort and that deliberately harassing players automatically become restricted. We can mostly expect the typical type of unsporting behaviour that leads to losses and loss of fun as a lot of abuse options are covered, until some hack is discovered that is. Regardless, this kind of behaviour may sound funny, but every player that quits over abuse, is another player gone. If the sub had ended up there by accident, it’d been funny. On purpose is just a toxic show of impotence. If you’re afraid players will leave over subs, those fears may be justified, but don’t drive more out. Don’t harass and polarize, You will not be able to get that extra toxicity out of the game again. It is just going to make a bad situation worse and the threshold and bar for bad behaviour in other ways and to other people is just going to get lower and lower. It invites revenge actions. That is going to impact everyone eventually. And that’s not on sub players, that is on the people cheering it on just because you feel rather powerless now. Don’t take it out on people, just hang in there and focus on reforms. Bullying others is never the answer. :/

See poll content for some suggestions on how to improve ASW and sub interaction. Similar poll regarding acceptability of submarine weapons:

Do you at all recognise this is just a conditional design choice that can easily be altered? A bigger problem is for several ASW exclusion zones at shorter range (for BBs for instance) being the same range-ish in which you can detect them sub-surface. Except that it doesn't dictate it. It reacts to you approaching it and if you're over it, it can't just nillywilly pop up at its will again. It would die. You give yourself too little credit, you control that engagement once you've forced him to dive. His angles will be bad, he's trying to escape, not engage. You're the hunter, keep the initiative. And you can herd the sub with depth charges. In the current meta, you should require two, perhaps three passes to kill a sub at most, otherwise you're a really bad depth charge user. But regardless, none of that is important with respect to any and all sub interaction designs. That's just how WG implemented it. Now, in reality, a sub that kept moving would be tracked by hydroacoustics and/or ASDIC. So in reality, a sub would go as deep as possible and go silent, hoping the DD or cruiser would give up. This is something that you can mimic with game design. WG chose not to. That's a design choice, not a given. I think you really give the tool too much credit. It's really, REALLY not that omnipotent. Maybe you should try them once. Knowing your enemy tends to help. Your claims are extremely obsolete as well, since the latest ASW changes to depth charges the density of the danger field has increased singificantly even on the edge of the explosions. The frequency of air strikes is high and near misses have become crippling in contrast to the old. You're biased and it shows. I won't take you serious till you've done at least 10 matches in subs to at least get a feel for how easy it is to stay undetected. You're not unlimited. You are going to have to surface, you are going to overextend and there will be ships waiting for the least of spots to drop 4+ ASW airstrikes over the entire area you're in. Heh. Not true, but you have to lead the target like with anything. HE shells hitting the surface of the water (especially with captain skills in ASW, which nobody selects) will hit even if the sub dove already, but is still within 6-15m, it takes some more time to get to a deeper depth than "instantly". When a sub is spotted, everyone attacks it at once and it cannot dodge or accelerate as well as a DD. It's going to lose a lot of hp if it's even mildly slow to dive after getting spotted. Subs are fragile and can easily lose modules (which does soak some damage and might be what you're experiencing). But again, these are design choices, not a given thing that has to be this way. Again, you're argueing against the status quo (which I don't support, but I'll correct you when you're exagerating) and I suspect you approached subs from a surface ship perspective only. How many videos have you watched where you were on board the sub with an average to reasonable player? Chances are they only shared their good battles, since sub matches can be over before damaging anything at all. Anyone who tried them can tell you this, even if they dislike subs as a concept: they'll most likely say playing them is "meh", either you perform well or you don't perform at all. They'll often also say that playing against them is "meh" in the current meta. What I find interesting is that none of them acknowledge that the fact your match can be over so quickly means ASW measures are actually extremely effective to the point of OP from a sub perspective in certain situations (!). But the surface ships tend to not register the underwater part of combat, so they miss out on a lot of information and it may seem nothing happened. Tbh, these rants come over as a BB main user with 0 hours in DDs complaining about DD stealth torping omnipotence... It's way more nuanced than you think. I can't take it very serious in the sense that you should be credited, I do however see it as yet another cognitive disonance issue that the current game design creates. Perception and reality are miles apart and that's due to WGs use of ribbons. They didn't differentiate between a near miss and a hit for instance and handed out near misses very swiftly as if it was a hit, in the previous iteration. This gives the impression that ASWs were painless. If they did a near miss they were like getting hit like a HE shell on a cruiser. But a direct hit would be like a citadel, could eat half your hp with ease. Getting caught between four direct blast hits would likely spell doom. This, is hugely exagerated. You don't want to surface and be seen, period. if you do this it's out of despair in an attempt to shotgun, or because you've run out of underwater time. You'll be quickly outmaneouvred if it fails and you'll be eating depth charges left and right if they're any decent. Concealment and farming behind an island is not exactly something that should be without counters either though is it? HE spam from concealment was actually one of the main grievances of a lot of players right after CV. Getting 6 ships on a single sub is also questionable. They'd be in a bad position in the first place if they're ALL in the same spot. I mean, really? HALF a team in the same spot at T6+ when one or two suffices to keep the sub in check if they know what they're doing? I don't think it's the sub that would cause a loss. The inexperience of players to deal with subs in itself is a problem that skews the experience of fighting them, the introduction came without any instructions or introduction to ASW. No training on how to lead. No tutorials on how to track a sub. No suggestions on how to dodge homing torps (which is different from dodging non-homing torps but very doable). All in all I think the implementation period has been handled very poorly by WG to the point that players were so overwhelmed, they concluded they wanted nothing to do with it and evil incarnate. Tihs is also why some subs do really, really well and some do really bad. If an enemy team pushes on a sub's position, it's got no chance. If players try to sail away from it and keep distance, they'll be signing their death warrants. They don't just become immortal though... That's literally your fears creating mental images. :/ I strongly advice you to just try subs, not to enjoy them and play them on a regular basis (I don't), but to experiment and push them to their limits and to be able to say what should be toned down and changed. If you know what it can and can't or shouldn't do, you'll be much better at guestimating its next move and aim your ASW there, instead of where you knew it to have been. I can pretty much guarantee you that you'll be underwhelmed by their impact and power consistency (there's no consistency). Regardless, we're getting somewhere, dive preparation time is also just a design variable. It can be given some lag ("closing the hatches") or just a slower descent rate and that would already create much more exposure.

^

Yeah you clearly NEVER make strawmans and character attacks. You go from "(not) being good at something and being able to design not being mutualy exclusive" to concluding I think "stats are pure luck". Wow. Logical extrapolation and being good at a game clearly aren't corrolated either. For the record, no, having good stats doesn't mean you'd be a good designer or even understand everything in depth or can imagine changing circumstances. Good stats means you have a good enough understanding of the current meta and appropriate skillset to do well in what the game requires you to do at that time. In some bad design cases, "good stats" can mean you're good at spawncamping. So should we ask a spawncamper how to (re)design that game per se? Good stats after all and not just luck if they know how to optimize their stats. (And no, in WoWs stats mean a bit more in terms of skill at playing indicator, because the devs actually did a reasonable job overall in balancing stuff reasonably). Chances of having some insight in what a change would do to a game when you have good stats in an already reasonably balanced game are higher, but otoh you might be completely autistic or have the creativity or imagination of a bed bug. They're not a guarantor of anything. When leading aim and for instance lay-out knowledge (not per se insight, but mere keeping a good database record of what can and can't be done with penetration for instance) is a deciding factor, this doesn't guarantee you understand what a change in certain game fundamentals, RNG math odds or combinations of elements would result in, because you don't need that level of game design expertise to thrive in a game like that. You need to know where to aim and how to get into position. Doesn't mean you know already how to play when a new variable is introduced. Not all top level players are the designers of the game, nor are the designers of the game always top level players. You don't seem to be able to grasp this. Instead, you once again drop to flawed conclusions, which says more about your ability to make determinations and the level of pre-thought you put into something. You're a very superficial person from what you state and how you state things, you lack the need for in depth argumentation, you lack the drive to share your thoughts and you lack the ability to lay proper connections and are impatient, making you jump to conclusions. But why don't you go and take your own advice and do some background research before making a fool of yourself some more? You think I never looked at people's stats to figure out what they're possibly doing wrong in a given meta or how they come to weird conclusions about a given game situation and make a weird suggestion after blaming the game for their performance when others in the same circumstance thrive? Sure and in that sense it's a reasonable tool to evaluate people's skill level. When it comes to designing, not so much. Don't waste your time though, you're wasting mine so you're going on ignore and even if you respond, I won't read your tripe anymore.

Speed isn't everything. A sub can't just accelerate to top speed, it'd run straight into its enemies or terrain given their turning circles. In practice they're not that agile and have some limitations in where they can go and will have to go. Their nose angle determines a lot in how to catch them off guard. They're more predictable than people seem to think and can be cut-off relatively easily by agile DDs. In my experience they can be caught off guard quite well. So I disagree with this. So let's not ignore this. Subs can't outspot you, turn and dive in time in all circumstances, you generalise. Besides, when you close in on a sub position, they're not infinitely invisible. Once you see them and their orientation, even if they manage to dive in time that doesn't mean they can be just about anywhere all of a sudden. The range of options where they can be is very limited. Typically you don't run at the spot they were, but the spots where they might be now, which given the sub has to turn its nose away from you, is likely closer than you give credit. You're being pretentious. You elevate the sub player to a godlike status, where this is hardly the case. A lot of the reasons why good sub players can get away with some of the stuff they pull is because people react in panic and fear out of lacking awareness and inexperience. The whole repair to break ping mechanism exacerbates this problem and if this mechanic wasn't so stupidly designed (to link repairs and homing torpedoes together, if there had to be homing torps at all), this wasn't such a big deal. Don't know which DDs have 9.4km detection range, but no, that goes for cruisers, most of which have hydroacoustic search (and could be given ASDIC), which I've at least used a lot to detect subs from around islands (even with Dutch Cruisers who have no ASW (!) have I killed subs or gotten subs killed). They're less suitable to chasing down subs than DD are however. Cruiser ASW is like torpedoes as it is less frequently useable until you've already closed the distance before engaging. A 5.8km to 7 detection range vs 2.4 at periscope depth means a submerged ship has about 3.5 to 4.5km detection advantage over DDs, which is about enough to dive, but not enough to get to a safe depth or distance in case the DD goes for you. Especially if the DD is steaming up at full speed and the sub is laying still. For the record, subs aren't always at full speed, they want to keep plenty of distance with the current setup to make any countermeasures less accurate, get more support from allies and give themselves more time to react. But... You're trying to argue against me on spotting distance around the situation as is, while I just suggested a completely different situational awareness system and conditions for subs. So even though you're not really accurate for the current situation... It's a completely irrelevant argument to argue against the poll suggestions? I mean, I cut their situational awareness, reaction time and kinda force them to give away their direction and approximate position when under water when looking whether it's safe to pop up, while having to get closer than the current subs (preferably with slower torps), increasing risk further and making it easier to evade and get in a position to counter. That's a completely different design situation. Consider just the suggestion of giving subs in periscope mode a more limited viewing range, which can be done in various ways as well if one would like (they could be made to be more blind to DDs and cruisers for instance, variable spotting distance for different class objects isn't that weird). In fact, if subs launch deepwater torps at periscope depth, a whole class of ships would become invulnerable to them unless they'd be surfaced. Design is everything. Yeah, they never nerfed something before after making a bad call like that. EDIT: Btw, do you actually think you can participate in a discussion like this with a signature like that? It doesn't make me take you more serious.

Sigh. Dunning-Kruger effect... Too short, didn't read. Yeaaaaaah... No. The anti-sub bandwagon started immediately after the first playtest that would lead to the coop test period (years ago) and was based on the suggestion that it could never possibly work, because WG once said so and promised no subs. In fact, the anti-sub bandwagon existed from early beta. Whenever someone opted to ask for subs, it was immediately shutdown by the BB crowd in particular. No crap Sherlock. lol. Yes, clearly I've never done so. What did I say again about people from the bandwagon making character attacks and insulting strawmen assumptions? Hmmm... Naaaaah you wouldn't do that, would you now? Noooooo. You really don't understand polling and people. Really? You've seen arguments posted against the specific solutions posted above? Impressive... How about you stop both lieing and being insulting? Did it ever cross your mind that those people tend to have biases just as much as other people and that being able to play a game as is doesn't mean they want change, nor that it means they're capable of designing something that fits in? It's not mutualy exclusive, but it's not a given either. No, because you might want to consider that again is not mutualy exclusive. You're not very good at logic... I've given some examples before. ASW in principle deal effective damage to subs when they're deployed with proper lead (sub caught within the blast radius), their deployment is however limited, largely blind due to guesswork and therefore information and interface to optimise results are problematic. HE works on subs till a little distance under periscope depth (including with ASW skills in particular). This is counterplay, whether you deem it effective ENOUGH is a whole different argument. Being able to force subs to the surface through detection IS counterplay. Whether it's adequately applicable is different (I'd go with a different mechanism personally, unfortunately you never followed the sub debates or you'd have known I proposed several variants - but hey, you know everything anyone ever posted in suggestions, right? Oh wait, no, you didn't do your bloody research). There are ways to lose homing torpedo locks or abuse the pings to avoid torps ever hitting that are easier to exploit than regular torpedoes (if you control what comes at you by movement, you can steer them). There are depth charges launched from ships. Pings give away the approximate direction and distance of subs (provided they use them). There are spotting mechanics like scout planes that force subs down. There are tracking mechanisms (poorly defined ones, but they're there). No counterplay would mean you'd never be able to do anything, ever. In any circumstance. Anyone who says there's NO counterplay, is a liar. Anyone who says there's insufficient counterplay options and opportunity within the current design and gameplay of subs as a whole, would be correct. You clearly don't. You're redefining it to suit your agenda, like most people in the bandwagon. Uhm, I've already given them. A lot of players are very conservative, not to mention have a sense of entitlement. They dislike new threats, particular if it affects them personally in any negative way in favour of someone else. A lot of people don't like something that might have an edge over them, even if it's very circumstantial, while ignoring the situations where they have exactly such an edge, even if that circumstance is more commonplace. This is hypocrisy. The sub thread is filled with it. LOL. "I'm trying to convince you, thus I don't need to build a case with arguments!" Cute... Completely disrespectful, but cute. And you wonder why devs don't listen to you. Why don't you go visit one of those then? Go on kid. Shoo. THIS IS A FORUM. You don't get to tell people this sort of crap. They used to. But then clowns like yourself ruined them with toxicity.

Clearly nothing says having trust in WG developers than creating a heap of alternatives for them to explore? Amirite? Ship based ASW should be more powerful than airbased since it's harder to deploy. But I don't get where you get the impression a sub can move away that easily. Yes, they're fast once at top speed, but they're not agile, huge turning circle and aren't that fast accelerating. There's a lot of opportunity to take 'm out. Main issue is whether they can attack from the safety of friendly support (this is one thing I'd like to change).

Clearly nothing says having trust in WG developers than creating a heap of alternatives for them to explore? Amirite?

Oh sorry, confused it with Adrenaline Rush. :)

Ah, monopolising the argument. As I said, you've made up your mind and decided on and invested in a particular opinion. You're closeminded. You're very prejudiced and don't seem to know it. Honestly a large portion of the argument (no actual reasons are given) here is conservatism: you know what you know and how things ARE and can't imagine how the dynamics can shift to fit it in. That's not a conclusive argument. Hence why I gave a premise for the poll... I've followed the discussions. The fast majority of people here aren't creative, aren't even imaginative and aren't trained for coming up with design solutions. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Most people just figure that if WG's first version doesn't work, no version can ever work and then the bandwagon starts especially if WG's version fails. A lot of people don't dare go against such a stream, being herd animals and not wanting the toxicity to be aimed at them. I've received a huge amount of toxicity and false assertions made about my character and even opinion, just for correcting people when they make false statements. I really can't give a rat's arse for such people, but I'd say those type of people make up around 60% of the forum population when it comes to certain topics that are a pet peeve to them. Even fewer people have the guts or incentive to call out someone on their own side of the argument when they make a false statement, accusation or claim. I do and I get a lot of flak for it. It's not working overall, but on the other hand, it is actually working to a certain degree. A number of things they've done does work, but those are the things taken for granted or ignored by the community due to overall bandwagon sentiment. It's far from good enough and it needs a much bigger, more fundamental change (especially at higher tiers where effects are felt more). Thing is, I've noticed that most of what works is deliberately denied by people (who often havn't even tried to verify their claims by playing subs themselves, but proclaim to hold the Truth after making hyperbolic claims that are demonstrably untrue). Why? Because they have an agenda. People exagerate their points constantly and ignore evidence of the contrary in order to come to preconcluded conclusion that subs can't work, ever, in any way, shape or form. For instance, the fallacy that there's no counterplay is bogus, there's a lot of things you can do and a lot of things people do already. There are however limits to those counterplay options that are too severe, in part that has to do with sub design in terms of situational awareness, diving power, reach, distance keeping and general stealth, along with the stupid ping mechanic for homing torps WG introduced. Most these things can be sorted by just repositioning the sub closer to the engagement at hand (that creates a much greater challenge for the sub to remain undetected, especially when it loses a lot of situational awareness). A number of other things (like constant scouting) can be taken care off by putting more severe limits on radio distance while under water and changing how the scouting system works (which should be done to favour DDs and cruisers and stimulate initiative in higher level matches anyway). There's a lot done, in some cases in a very simple way, that WG hasn't considered yet. Hence there's a lot, a LOT of room for improvement. I've called several times for a major overhaul. Problem is most players don't want it. Not because they believe the subs don't fit, that's just an excuse. The real reason is having to adapt to a stealth threat where a lot of players prefer to just slugging matches between BBs. The argument that you can fire back at something is laughable given the stealth attacks a BB or cruiser can do from complete safety (not even being detected while firing from ranges and positions that their enemies literally can't fire back at). The argument that you can't hit a sub is obsolete since ASW was introduced. That you can't hit them reliably or control the engagement with skill is a problem that improved ASW options would fix. Most of the stuff people complain about is a compilation of smaller problems. Take a few of those compiling issues away and subs can be dealt with much more reliably and fairly. Note also that what WG has done with it so far is irrelevant where it comes to evidence of it not being possible. The point is not that they havn't done it because it "can't be done", the point is they havn't tried anything. Those two are not the same thing and you try to conflate those positions. But again, there is also a huge issue with the way people communicate here that's partially to blame for lack of dev action (there are other things involved like egoes with some devs it seems). People keep sabotaging their own reachable interests by chasing a pipe dream. An ideal that realistically can't be attained. "I havn't made an argument why, I just claimed so, thus I'm right." Look, I know you're convinced you've got a compelling case, but from my perspective you keep showcasing your lack of imagination, as you can't even imagine why I made a poll (even when I explicitly stated why...). Sorry, you're not very convincing. To me it seems you're trolling with defeatism you want to force upon others at most without being able to finely point out why. I'm under the impression you assume your stance is the only valid one and that it's so obvious you don't even need to explain your gut sentiments. You might want to explain your case better with supporting arguments and evidence. Suggestions threads exist. This is one of them. The massive thread on subs is just there to try to contain the crap most players leave behind when they express their negativity. A thread that long is not useful for discussion of particular suggestions. Any half decent developer of anything would know you need focus, not just an endless thread with brainfarts and veiled threats. Read. I said I want them to think about the alternatives put forth. They can suggest alternatives or express their opinion on particular ones. Or expand on them. When they can just ignore them by going "where is the option where I just want them gone so I don't have to think", they're not going to think. You need to understand how people work. Clearly you don't. I suggest you do some more thinking on how people act and react and what their options to respond are. So no, we don't need that option at all in the poll. It would be counterproductive and invite trolling, dismissing options off-hand. And it's also useless to add when you've already stated the assumption is removal is not useful. Giving them a specific choice forces consideration. And lastly, you might want to consider that "leave as is", is the same thing as not adding something new when there's nothing designed in place yet (which is actually also a design choice). If they want something else instead, they can post it. Now, let's agree to disagree here, because this isn't going anywhere. We'll just keep repeating ourselves to one another.

For damaged DDs. ;) Essential on a gunboat, it helps with torp reload, but there's other ways to go with torp DDs.

I hardly use it on DDs. Prefer not to get spotted and do some extra torp damage. :)

IJN ships can all be citadelled reliably. The Izumo and up all feature the same design flaw in the nose ~under the second turret. BBs with radar are much more evil.

Don't have time to play so I only see Bronze once a month. Reasonable winrate, pretty easy to get to 5, but then most the time I'm out of playtime. Something something tiny kids something something diapers. (You decide whether I was speaking of in game or RL).

I think you also need to consider the possibility that you just don't want them to solve the problem with subs, since you've already drawn conclusions you're unwilling to reconsider and are betting on removal as the easiest and safest option and anything that might mitigate subs undermines that goal. A very human thing to do, but to say it can't be done based on a single implementation is just a bad argument. It's also one I'm not willing to engage in further, for: 1. This is just not going to happen. You know this. I know this. It's not a solution when they are too heavily invested. 2 sounds like an option for people who don't think about it much, but consider what that would require. First of all, if there's any PvP, they'd still need to be tested for balance and as you face opponents, you'd still need proper designed ASW. If you think of pitching them PvE only, there's even worse problems: there is no way they're going to make a huge amount of sub only ops, or do subs in coop only. They'd have to rescript pathing and AI for it for minimum return. They don't even invest in regular Ops and only have the one mission circulate a week. They're not going to isolate CV and/or sub players to a mode like that. It just doesn't make sense. So you're going to be stuck with this in some regular modes. I can imagine that they'd do something like limited size maps akin to brawl and 1 v 1 modes, so a sub doesn't have endless sea to hide in, but again, that'd still require proper ASW and interaction. Regardless what you want, you'll have to accept that they're going to ram it into the game one way or another. Let's just make sure it's something palletable. No, I deliberately didn't provide that option, because that invites people to not think about the options, but go with an easy cop-out, vote with their gut in hopes of WG just somehow magically cancelling subs so they'd never have to think about what they think would be good alternatives. Those kind of useless polls exist plentiful already. I want people to look at the alternatives I put on the table and from the looks of it, people much prefer them to the current design solution WG provided. Besides, I think one of the major issues is that people think subs have too few risks and can stay too safe from persecution (which in part is down to the sub's stealth and ease to stay hidden without giving out indicators where it is, but also to signalling its allies your position as you hunt the sub down, making you a target. Hence people often can't afford to go out of their way to hunt them down). Tracking/hunting subs down by giving position indicators, making the subs sit closer to the enemy (which reduces the problem of overextension or going out of the way to deal with subs), adding risk to the submarine's health when it tries to avoid detection and reducing situational awareness combined should largely deal with the problems people have with subs. I could even imagine that ships sailing over a sub that deep dives to get away from them get exp for any hp lost due to forcing the sub down (including receiving the flooding ribbons)

They have made quite a few adjustments already, incremental ones mostly, but there's a distinct difference between the first and last incarnations, including the sensitivity of the homing torpedoes, ping effectiveness, ping effect, ASW skills, ASW for ships without depth charges, more damage to depth charges, changes in deployment patterns, added a detection wave upon using ping, added oil leaks to show approximate submerged location, changed a few things around modules and altered hp (in practice subs found near the surface are still very fragile, even if some people want you to think otherwise and even while few people opt for ASW captain skills). Some skills on the subs have been altered, but mostly it's been small balancing steps on existing variables like hp, timers, damage and damage taken. Which is to be expected when they think they got the concept right and no real alternatives to tinker with. Regardless, they are tinkering with them. We may not think they changed the right ones, or enough. For some people like with CV, it will never be enough till removed. Those people will be ignored as they probably should due to being unconstructive bashers with a personal biased agenda and not having a fair and open mind and largely base their opinion on wilfull ignorance and/or petty and hypocritical spite. But the fact remains they have made adjustments and havn't yet released submarines permanently. But since vocal people just whine about removal and harassing and do hostile take-overs of any submarine thread (often spouting bogus claims and having no personal experience with using submarines themselves), instead of steering the development with ideas and suggestions, proper feedback gets drowned out. There's no good indication of what players would accept and what players want from their counter measures. With a poll like this you can at least give some argument to what people want from subs and ASW if they're to stay. There's very little point to read the massive sub thread either due to this. Huge waste of time for devs and highly repulsive due to the abuse hurled at them. So why do you think they don't seem to bother? If people can't bring themselves to show a little bit of restraint and respect, even if they're furious, they're just not going to get the reaction they want. Pitchforks drive dev to their bunker, not out in the open to discuss what to do next. With Wargaming devs there's always the looming threat of biased and incomplete picture statistical analysis. But driving them into their bunker only makes this problem of inside out looking worse, not better.

Aaaaah the smell of fail divisions. Smell them. SMELL THEM. That reminds me of the time I played a T9-T10 match with a T34 (pre-premium facing the bugged armour IS-4s) in WoT and someone on my team brought a loltraktor for funs and giggles through a fail division (loltraktor and a Maus in same division).

Yeah. It's questionable practice given they've added it to multiple modes in turn, but as long as they havn't released an official line and keep handing them out through missions, nor made them accessible in every game mode, officially it's still "in testing". In that sense, they can still opt to pull them all together, but if they wanted to do that, they'd have done so already. They can however withdraw them for "updates". Which means now is the time to ensure they make some choices that players can appreciate.

PlanetSide took about 3 years since the horrendous Core Combat expansion before something happened. The game went without a dev team for 2,5 years at that time: just the one emergency balance patch after a half year of ruined balance from the OP battlemechs and a pop decline of 50%-80% - pop had been steadily rising before the expansion and one month after it before it fell in steep decline. Completely unplayable. Couple years later there were rumours of a new dev. Contacted that dev who was very enthusiastic (the only one on the game for one or two days a week) to playtest his new stuff. Got at least 30ish bug fixes and exploits sorted, including some stuff that was out there for years. Then he left right after his update was added ( the last good update and first good update since 2004) and then the worst possible GM with no proper game design background and a horrid sadistic attitude took over and festered for three more years. The game died after one of those as all balance was thrown out and cheats were allowed to roam free with next to no GM support to remove ‘m. Worst was that the one player who had offered an anti-hacking tool to PS by pointing out the flawed codes being abused got accused of hacking by SOE! I had one good CRM contact from years on the dev forums and together with one other player got on the player council. Aside from convincing John Smedley through a 10 chapter essay to start work on PS2 (made millions and still running, so guess that worked out), I got them to change dozens of conceptual things. Unfortunately SOE didn’t let us in during alpha. Just beta. Why? Because they asked CoD and BF2 clans to playtest it. In fact, not a single PlanetSide 1 clan was invited to PS2 alpha. Skirmish twitch skill FPS gamers… No grand strategists or RTS players (attrition and economics side of warfare). No combined arms players. The biggest problem was fighting fanboyism from the type of players who would brag about exploiting the bad camping designs. According to them you just had to also go camp from a ridge. That teamplay was impossible between randoms online (they all played as lone wolves and the game stimulated that, unlike PS1 where you even knew the enemy on an individual level due to their teamwork vehicle and weapon choices and individual (in)abilities and their strategic choices and preferences making them stand out). In PS2 everyone blurred together, never a long enough stand-off or teamwork effort to get to know randoms and no noticeable vehicle, suit or weapon limitations. They went with classes (CoD/BF2) instead of inventory/certification and it made the game much worse community and gameplay wise. In PS1 everything was designed to complement other player’s inabilities. To exploit the differences in abilities to gain an upper hand or play attrition against bigger enemy numbers (I beat 20-1 odds by simply removing the spawn options and medics and then stalling the rest and taking them out one by one with faster spawn-distance logistics till friendlies would arrive. In Ps2 every zergling was medic and spawn provider and they had the shorter distance to key points due to base design, so hey. No attrition possible…). Who’d have thought the maps ended up totally unplayable and supposedly built for infantry skirmishing, while none of those players considered providing feedback on the need to defend from constant air and ground camping by hundreds of enemy vehicles at once and mitigate the total amount of enemy vehicles by making teamwork in vehicles obligatory when you go to a map with 2000 players divided over three factions and you hand each player the ability to bring a tank or A2G attack aircraft? Or what would happen to the frontline and vehicle play, if you create huge ravines and cliffs to steer ground vehicles, but at the same time a single fighter pilot can just ghost cap every zone behind enemy lines and oh… you can just fly over the enemy frontline with a spawnvehicle (chokepoints, logistics, Whack-a-mole?). Was very hard for them to step away from the concept that the center of the base with base controls had to be constantly contested by both sides as if it were a CoD map of two equal sides (in practice they gave the attacking side tank and aircraft overwatch over the key points of the bases and defenders became the attackers of their own base), rather than that the defender should have defensive rings around the facility controls that would mitigate enemy numbers with chokepoints and superior fortified positions. So lot of things I would make huge critical posts about pre-beta. You havn’t seen me that destructive here at all (trust me when I say WoWs players have at least a pretty functioning game even when balance is a bit off). 100% accuracy score on those posts. Got the attention and ear of the lead devl and the ear of a level designer. Great guys, just had no experience with fortified conquest MMOFPS/RTS gaming. Americans, so had to explain how castle designs and defense principles work to them… They revamped most bases and base types on three 64sq km maps from the ground up based on my feedback after it turned out the level designs and base changes (cover, wall design) by the level designer I instructed turned out to be massively popular with the players. They changed the main base layouts of the most problematic ones (clearly didn’t understand what I meant by tunnel network, but hey they tried to make due with what was created already with a hotfix and it was at least an improvement). Got tons of things changed from mobile spawns to cosmetics to level design.. But I had a huge advantage in personal connections and widely known reputation then. Sadly never got them to abandon BF2’s one player one man tank policy (expensive cost wise multi-crew vehicles with dedicated drivers would have slashed the numbers by half to two thirds and solved traffic jams and attrition, while allowing vehicles to be slightly more powerful). They argued players were accustomed to it now. I polled specifically asking for game of origin and 80% of even BF2-origin players wanted multi-crew vehicles to reduce spam… Oh well. Few if any since closed beta. They tried some player feedback on the RTS concept, but didn’t seem to understand the feedback or went overboard with it for creating nonsense variations for the sake of nation specific over the top features. Beyond that I’ve mostly seen UI suggestions implemented in this game, probably largely inspired by player mods. Seen some balance and economy tweaks as suggested by players, but the major gameplay decisions wern’t made. Not sure to what extend the major CV overhaul was player inspired though. Given the amount of nutter “remove CV” posts in all topics it’s impossible to hold a constructive conversation for long as people defend themselves from the bashing that they like or tolerate CVs more so than providing feedback on how to improve. Why would a dev or even CRM read that tripe? He’ll have better things to do! So I’m not surprised they didn’t seem to get the full feedback if any. Depends during which period. Post-beta aside from the constant BB nurturing I have seen plenty of good progress bits. But I know what, or perhaps, who, you mean though and I agree. I don’t think the current dev team has its priorities straight and I don’t think they can take sufficient distance from their designs when it comes to player critiques.

Uh huh. Every of these options can fit in game on their own, implemented one by one If necessary. But hey, whatever floats your boat. No need for removal, can just do this with patch updates after playtests. Besides, subs are still in testing and have yet to be officially implemented.

I'd prefered it they'd use their limited TLDR attentionspan for a poll in this case.