Figment

They should just block the corner bits off with ice sheets too. Sometimes people would run off to the other end of the earth. It was huge, so logistics played a major role and I think that's what sunk the map.

I took my Amagi into the north ice fields, was great to play cat and mouse with Yamato's, since if I stayed anywhere near the open, I'd get outranged and spammed badly despite zig zagging, since I was the only BB moving a bit closer due to range issues.

I kinda liked the old islands of ice map, what with the high islands with corridors where you could trap BBs.

Not true, sub could rise to the surface. :)

Those are the easiest tbh since it can be about 50K+ spotting damage per match, just bring a stealth DD, find an open flank and sit to the side or behind the enemy team, spotting camping cruisers and torping away at BB. Do the spot damage and torp damage missions in one go. :) Did 54K spot damage in my Bourgogne yesterday too. :P I may or may not have stormed my way through a few cruisers and DD in B exposing the entire team firing at me, but killing a Mino, Napoli and severely hurting DD, Kremlin, Colombo and Iowa in the process.

The potential damage is the only lingering mission for me as well (at 21M), but that's because it really is a BB mission and if you grind other units, those simply don't get that much pot damage thrown at them. because they either die or are too stealthy if played well. Best way to get through that is by bringing a US, JB or Russian BB and tank damage. That said, PvP accomplishments count a bit more than Coop accomplishments. I'm fine with coop being able to do it, but then it should be a lot easier for PvP players to get it as they face tougher opposition. Citadel missions are harder for PvP players than for PvE players after all (if I really need citadels on short term, I just bring a British cruiser like Surrey into Coop and farm a couple bot cruisers for 2-6 citadels a volley). But I think they're making these missions harder to force people to either play more or to pay up for some extra stages in the dockyard events. I mean, 7 tiers on the D7P is a bit much given there's a cool down time for missions becoming available after completing a set of missions, for no reason other than to stall and make it harder to get it all on time.

So taken from a number of posts, what I'd do with submarines to make them fit into WoWs better. I'd do a major overhaul of the sub mechanics that Wargaming came up with to make them both fairer, more diverse and more fun. Role definition (scouting, flanking and assassination) The sub role overlaps a lot with that of DDs, just that they're much worse at capping due to their fragility when surfaced, can't fire over any terrain and typically have much worse AA. However, they have some positioning advantages as they could sneak by or up really close before engaging, or scout targets that would be hard to scout with DDs and have a different means of escape and damage mitigation. Spotting wise, subs can in principle go where DDs cannot go. If they can for instance make a move to bypass some ships and then spot or attack radar or other camping cruisers from certain positions a DD cannot easily reach, then that's an USP for them. With similar speeds to DDs (as is) and lowered detection range and submerging management play, this could be a viable and fun stealth gameplay addition. If you make subs invulnerable to radar (even if just at periscope depth), that's an additional advantage over, or useful alternative to, DD spotting in high tier matches. Your goal is to get as close as possible to the enemy, outflank them and strike, then try to survive any counterattack. Starting locations: Depending on map size, ~2.5km - 5km ahead of current DDs, halfway between the current starting positions (so more in between A-B or B-C on most maps, or higher up the sides of concentric ring maps). This should reduce the time to target a bit, but also provide a more viable and unpredictable choice where to go (center or flank). Slight reduction in travel time means sooner in action. What to do with ping?: mainly navigation The current ping mechanism is very flawed IMO and a separate design issue on its own that should not be conflated with submarine viability. IMO its frequency of use for homing torpedoes is both far too high as is to be fair against the temporary repair skill one has and in used for the wrong purpose (homing torpedoes, rather than distance and position gauging and navigation). The combination with citadelling ships is more than a little off and should have no relation to that. It should not be required for manual torping either. I could however, see pinging a ship required to attain the torpedo lead indicator. Personally I think pings should be used primarily while at max depth to check for surface ships in particular directions, reveal the terrain ahead under water and be used for sub to sub combat (since elevation is an issue, some limited angle homing torps would be a good thing for sub to sub combat, but not per se for sub to ship combat). In that case, using a ping would not be necessary in sub to surface ship combat as this would be resolved at periscope depth and on the surface. But, it would be required to determine if it is save-ish to pop up again and give RPF-like info to surface ships in its direct vicinity, where one ping doesn't provide accurate info to either side, but receiving more frequent pings in a row and/or within a certain distance would increasingly accurately tell where they are. This could look like this: the first ping provides a range and wide vector, a second ping a narrower vector and a third ping show a targeting indicator over the ship. If the sub is within a certain range of the pinged ship(s), it would increasingly reveal its own location in the same way to enemy ships however. Torpedo changes: Default torpedoes are fired at surface vessels manually, fire and forget, straight line. Same range of torpedo speeds as for DDs. Torpedo range varies between of ~4.5km to ~10.5km depending on tier, nation and ship and other stats like stealth capabilities etc. Reload times: Torpedoes would be not reload set by set in subsequent order, but independently and simultaneously. Reload times would be a bit longer to compensate for increased average damage per torpedo (though lowered maximum damage compared to citadels and keeping torpedo mitigation in mind) This forces hit and run, rather than hit hit hit and move to next target as is possible today at times. Between torpedoes of the same tier, in general the longer the range, the lower the payload. Think difference between Skane's and Mahan's torpedoes (up to about 40% difference). Special torpedoes may exist, but their used should be conditional and limited: Zig-zag torpedoes Alternate mode to straight fire for some nation subs (could be given to some cruisers and DDs too) Follow standard patterns Can set it to zig or zag first by right clicking and cycling through the modes Homing torpedoes Used in sub-to-sub warfare by all nations to compensate for elevation changes and increased difficulty for distance determination Homing torpedo steering angles are ~80% reduced with what they are now. Initial aim must be pretty accurate. Acoustic homing torpedoes target the propellor of a ship at higher speeds (>=50%) and engine of a ship at lower speeds (<50%) Magnetic homing torpedoes just target the nearest part of the ship (may still hit elsewhere due to limited steering) Some (!) nations might have these torps as alternate mode to fire at surface ships, at both a significant cost of refire rate, or as limited consumeables and at a damage reduction (reasoning would be lower payload to make room for torpedo navigation system) Deepwater torpedoes Some nation subs can load deepwater torpedoes instead of regular torpedoes. Deepwater torps can't hit DDs Optional design: periscope depth of a ship determines if they are regular or deepwater torpedoes, so less HE damage, but can't hit DDs from periscope depth surface = always regular torpedoes A ship's torpedo belt is actually useful in preventing torpedo damage. Torpedoes are thus best aimed at bow or stern unless a ship has no torpedo belt. ASW and torpedo countermeasures and prevention of always-submerged-when-it-matters: Depth charges. Same as now. Every vessel that had it should have it. Maybe balance depth charges between nations in terms of number, spread and damage a bit better. HE damage up to about 1.5x-2x periscope depth, depending on shell caliber. BBs can thus use HE deeper than most cruisers and DDs. Hydroacoustic search detection radius: Surfaced ships as per usual Periscope depth -30% range Maximum depth -60% range Deep dive: -100% range, but as indicated below, deep diving may cause flooding(s). So forcing a sub to evade hydro and depth charges might still result in (significant) damage to the sub. Some (non-ASW in particular) ships could get a sonic decoy for defense purposes to throw off homing torpedoes New ship hull upgrade for some older BBs: anti-torpedo netting. Costs ship speed, but reduces the damage of torpedoes (can be destroyed like secondaries?) Means of forcing subs to surface or sinking them: Anxiety of being detected increases oxygen usage by the crew by 15-25%, forcing the sub captain to pop up sooner or die through suffocation. Basically what happens now. So even if power suffices to stay under, this might be an issue. Module damage: Broken battery modules instantly reduce available power for diving by a set percentage of the remaining dive time (assuming batteries drain equally). Percentage depends on the amount of batteries on board. Stuck elevator (forces up to surface, levelling or even uncontrolled deep dive depending on angle at time of damage) - requires ballast tank expulsion to safe from sinking and risking floods. Flooding - Depending on amount of compartiments flooded: reduced surfacing rate, increased diving rate Fire - Fires on subs reduce oxygen levels (increase oxygen usage by 30%) Engine damage - reduced battery recharge rate at surface and periscope depth Snorkel damage - reduced air intake rate, switch to electric power More limited dive time Reduction from 6 minutes diving time to 2-4 minutes, depending on tier. Must make more strategic use of periscope depth and surfacing. Difference in dive time on the basis of oxygen and power. See below for recharge rates at surface and periscope depth. Note: Would be faster than today due to reduced dive time as you run out more quickly. Diving limiters: oxygen and power (and hp) First off, I'd have two limiters on diving: power and oxygen. If either runs out, the sub would be considered sunk and not just forced to the surface. So there'd be three ways to kill a sub: running out of hp, oxygen or power. Sitting on top of a sub could thus be a way to kill 'm off if the sub captain didn't manage their oxygen and power levels, even for non-ASW ships. HP wise nothing would change. The amounts of HP are fine as is IMO: they're very fragile units with a large striking capability. (Dis)advantages of various depths: NB: values are open to balancing, indicative values only. Surfaced: ++ Optimal (surface) scouting range: full 360° surface vision, maximum detecting range (torpedo range +30%, or min. 8km), ~2.5km sub-surface hydrophone range ++ Improved recharging of battery and oxygen (+30-50% recharge speed based on the nation). + Can use secondaries and AA + For most ships: optimal speed + Can effectively fire torpedoes at surface ships + Can move camera underwater for anti-sub warfare + Can cap/contest zones + Diesel engine active (batteries recharge) - Could be detected by radar (though perhaps shorter than other ships due to limited sillhouette) - Can't use all consumeables - Worst detection range (~3.8km at lowest tiers up to ~5.8km at higher tiers) -- Worst air detection range (~2km at lowest tiers up to ~3km at higher tiers) Periscope depth: + (Surface) scouting range is equal to maximum torpedo range, or the minimum range of 6km. Information is shared with allies. + Reduced detection range (~2.5km at lower tiers up to ~3km at higher tiers) + Reduced air detection range (~1.5km at lowest tiers up to ~2km at higher tiers) - with AA off, of course. + Reduced HE damage (Depending on ship may have varying periscope depths and thus varying HE mitigation at this level) + Can effectively fire torpedoes at surface ships + Can use some defensive consumeables + Can move camera underwater for anti-sub warfare + Can't be detected by radar + With snorkel: diesel engine active: batteries recharge and oxygen levels recharge - Usualy slower speed - Can't cap/contest zones - If no snorkel or snorkel damaged, batteries drain, air drains - Reduced situational awareness: ~2.5km 360° from hydrophone, but 120° vision in the direction you're pointing the camera. Turn camera to get situational awareness for other directions. - Can't use secondaries or AA Diving depth: ++ Can use all defensive consumeables + Automatically switches to anti-submarine torpedoes when a submarine is targeted upon launch (have minor vertical homing-in to make hitting possible) - note: torpedoes are fire and forget + Optimal camera for anti-sub warfare + RPF skill would still show nearest enemy unit(s). - Can't cap/contest zones -- Only hydrophone/active ping vision resulting in severely reduced scouting ranges: ~2.5km around your ship -- No information sharing with allies until resurfaced or periscope depth is reached - only killed enemies and allied subs are communicated to the team as usual -- Map shows only last known positions and actively scouted ships. -- Can't effectively target surface ships due to torp elevation angle  Consumables: - Blow air tanks (infinite use, recharges at surface (fast) or snorkle depth (slow)); for emergency dives (at the cost of a significant percentage of oxygen and a little power and thus diving time). - Blow ballast tanks (infinite use, recharges at snorkle depth or max depth); for emergency surfacing (at the cost of air tanks and a little power and thus charging for the next diving time would take longer) - Fake death (limited use (1), additional or more effective depending on captain skills); which could only be employed when taking damage in the 10s before, which would leave an oil spill on the surface and leave the sub undetectable even by hydro for a minute as long as it remains at max depth. - Go silent; temporarily reduce underwater base detection range by 50%, reduces max speed by 50%. Reduces if not stops homing effect on sub-to-sub torpedoes fired by other submarines at you. - Engine boost; Same as normal, more effective for most ships on the surface. Reduces power faster when used under water. - Emergency Pumps; Restores damage taken from flooding specifically. - Deep dive; Temporarily increases max depth out of depth charge range, the player loses control of diving depth and automatically dives the ship and eventually brings it back to max level (as long as elevator rudder is repaired). During deep dive, floodings may arbitrarily occur. Say every 5 seconds of deep dive a flooding check is done. Up to three or four simultaneous floodings may occur. Captain skills could for instance reduce the chance of flooding and/or the frequency of checks during deep dive. - Decoy buoy (limited use (2-3), additional depending on captain skills), for a limited time creates an alternative blip in the area with your name and hp over it for enemies to chase. Is launched from a forward torpedo tube, so if you want to use this may not want to launch after you've been detected, but in expectation of being detected, or launching it in advance to confuse an enemy and let them show broadside. - Magnetic mine deployment (limited use (3-5, additional depending on captain skills); Deploys a mine from a surfaced submarine that engages enemy ships trying to pass by it within a short distance. Limited detection range (1km, 1.5km with vigilance), limited drift activation range (250m). Activates 15s after deployment. Deals high damage if an enemy ship hits it. Can be deactivated by friendlies, including the own sub through friendly fire. Relatively short reload time. Other ship settings: - AA / secondaries on/off (note: any secondaries should actually work) - Switch between Active Ping/Passive hydrophone - basically, "auto-ping" on/off. Active ping would automatically ping for you, increasing detection range of environment and enemy ships by +200% , but also risk disclosing your location over time. With this setting off, the slower you move the larger your situational awareness (particularly useful at max depth). 100% speed = base detection range of 2.5km (+0%). 50% speed is +50% detection range, 25% speed = +100% detection range. Also, potential special sub rule for wins: for a point score win, any last player on a team must be surfaced when the timer runs out.

I’m fine with dissent from my opinions, but I’d rather it be focused on constructive things than pointlessly trying to make me stop trying. :) I understand full well that it is unlikely to be used (hell, I’ve contributed to the CV threads since RTS beta), hence there is no reason to tell me the odds. They are lower than Missouri drop rates. Doesn’t mean we can’t show a better way. And yes, the ridiculous direction they’ve gone in with the gambling is ultimately self-destructive as more players will get fed up and leave, stop spending and ignore those things. At such a time it’s nice to have the “told you so” posts ready, though more likely they’ll just move to a different project rather than fix mistakes.

Who says anything about giving money? De Zeven Provinciën is probably the last investment for me. Nothing which any of you said makes WG more likely to do the right thing. It just incentizes them to ignore you further since in their mind “they already lost you”. Besides since you’re not expressing clearly what you want even if they guestimate what you want they will likely mess up again giving you more reason to quit or stay away. Again, I don’t care about the odds, I care about having tried.

I been here since beta. Stop trying to educate someone who knows the odds, the company and who protests to development directions in a different manner than giving up and throwing all chance away. I’ll take their RNG lootbox over guaranteed not being heard at all. edit: even if you leave and close your wallet you will not get the change you want without defining the alternative that would be good or acceptable. You have to shoot if you want to score.

No I’m fully aware. It makes me more keen on showing them how to be better. In the end it is in their interest if they want to continue receiving money and I count on that.

I have no, I can get yes, maybe, probably not, if one tries. Now please move on. My actions are my concern. Now please stop wasting everyone’s time and stop helping WG do nothing. You’re never helping the community by stifling constructive feedback and I don’t need your advice nor to adopt your attitude. You don’t have to explain your position as you will say nothing new or unknown. You just want to bully people to be as negative as you. Seen that desilluisioned attitude on every development forum ever. Please stop.

Could have the power out slowly sink the sub, if it hits too deep a depth, it’d start risking floods, last chance would then be an emergency ballast tank dump to rise. Oxygen and power management would ensure the class isn’t a noob tool as some people fear though.

Hard to say, the US subs are best in open water as they are snipers. Advantage it gives them is being further from likely detection. (Cue sub captains with w w w w). U-boats might be a bit more agile? The shorter range torps seem to hit harder, but the chance of being run down are greater. Russian subs have heal I think. Won’t be here for the event I bet.

Harder. Not impossibru. ;)

But it is set to detonate at a specific depth (pressure). It's not armed yet! :)

Long ago I suggested rewards for getting to Rank 1 should be based on how fast and efficient you ranked out. So how about this: You'd get all the standard rewards for winning X, Y and Z amount of matches (each getting you to a specific stage), but let's say the top 1.000 players at the end of the season in each category below would get additional prizes based on their performance. Top 1% - Top 5% - Top 10% - Top 15% - Top 20% etc. get gradually less valuable extra's, but still everyone always gets something. Per class, min. 5 matches in said class: * Ranking speed: How many matches did it take you to rank out? (Ship container with higher tier based on performance -> Bottom 40% get a T2-4 container and every 10% up from there get a one rank higher container) * Individual performance: What was your average place in the team during wins and losses? Your experience earned? How did your stats match up to other people? Create some total score and hand out rewards based on similar percentages. * Coop performance: How close were the won and lost games? How alive/healthy was your team on average after a win? And how did this compare to other people's teams? This to provide an indication of how effective a teamplayer you are. Could also provide some lesser bonusses like flags for damage stats, (potential) damage tanked, zones capped, spotting damage etc. Give people a good overview of their performance and hell, give 'm a bell curve scorecard to show how their stats were above or below average compared to others. :P etc. Either way, the point of ranked ought IMO be competition between players and their teams.

I dislike star losses and savings in general as it creates competition within a losing team, further reducing their chances, rather than cooperation.

Come now, this is not the language of the gods who create land out of water.

The license to a SW title was not strictly SOE's from what I recall anyway, there were plenty other games in the SW universe during that time, but could be SOE had an exclusive on a MMO title. Even so, the game was dieing with massively declined playerbase iirc and SOE wanted to have a reason to shut it down. Could be both sides had a significant interest in it.

There's also Dunning-Kruger syndrome that causes much of the frustration. The players who get most upset about a loss are detriments and liabilities to the team, they just don't know it and the results and speed of levelling up (or rather, getting stuck in ranking up) don't match their expectations of glory. Thus start to pass blame to everyone and everything, from RNG to the mode and of course other players. Hell, the amount of conspiracy theorists who think WG fixes matches against them is hilarious. Overall I enjoy ranked as a lot of people are inclined to cooperate for progression purposes. Sometimes though the people claiming the calling of shots have absolutely no clue what they're doing and just want to talk trash to you - especially if you or they died early and can't accept the enemy was lucky or someone, especially they themselves, made a mistake.

I shall attempt to make contact by utilising the universal greeting. Quick, someone offer him some energon! D:

Tbh they hoped that this ranked sprint would sort good and bad players better by making qualification for the next league harder by requiring more wins in a row to get there. I for one don’t need 70 games to reach the next league, I personally just don’t like being told what ships I can and cannot play all evening as it gets too repetitive. I’m mostly just looking at mission grinds + tech tree / captain skills grind combinations and currently those don’t overlap well with ranked.

Look, I've been an online game community contributor since 2003. Most the times companies ignore you unless you have an inside man. For PlanetSide 2, I had a lead developer and level designer on speed dial and made a massive impact revamping their shoddy base design to take a new look at all bases on three 64km2 maps. They even designed that game because my essay made it to SOE's CEO via a passionate CRM. John Smedley (the CEO) directly quoted my critiques on SOE management of PlanetSide and other titles, as well as all the USPs and all opportunities and concepts I mentioned in that essay in his sales pitch for PS2 on the community forums. This was after 5 years of SOE neglect of the original game (one part time dev one to two days per two weeks was working on PS1). It's possible to make an impact, but not if you have a negative attitude and just give up. For PS2, their player contribution system on cosmetics and other 3D work to reduce development time and have fresh, unique content contributed by players, as well as their free to play model setup (what kind of micro-transactions would players accept) was my idea. It turned out to be very lucrative source of income for both SOE (they could focus on unit and level design) and community contributors (income from skins and camo sales). After I got on the community council, I got ignored for two years, wasn't even in alpha. Gave some feedback on DCUO, not much was done with that. I and a few other PS1 contributors didn't get to talk to PS2 developers as promised. Got into PS2 beta and had them made huge changes by accurately predicting how new stuff would pan out (very badly), which got me noticed again and I eventually got into contact with the lead developer and a level designer. The latter I taught about defensive base layout for this kind of combined arms game (onion structure with transition between indoor infantry and outdoor vehicle combat, as well as basic castle design principles). I gave them concept designs for all sorts of fortifcaction stuff, 80% of which was used in game from roofing to friendly fire pass-through shielding to deployable spawn groundvehicle design. They revamped and revised their base lay-outs, closed too open tower designs, layered defenses, changed the accessibility to a lot of the base entrances (less open to vehicle spam), the spawn room positions and rooms, defensive tunnels (bit of a band-aid to overcome issues with spawnroom-objective reaching without complete base redesign), the addition of certain units, a more consistent chat/map system design and availability in menus and game (not losing connection to the game world while in a menu). But getting that entry level took me years of quality posts to get noticed, an entry into a player council, visits at Gamescom and more. I know how hard it is to get stuff through. For Wargaming and Gaijinn, what matters is the popularity and quality of the posting to get anything added. If players agree en mass to a feature it is harder to ignore. Some stuff I provided feedback on during and after beta (and I'm sure I wasn't the only one) did get added in both WoWs, WoT and War Thunder. This was mostly minor UI related stuff. The thing here is that bashing WG alone will not get anything done. Spoonfeeding them worked out, constructive posts MIGHT, MIGHT, get noticed. That's enough for me. I don't need anyone telling me their personal speculation of success chances. I know the odds. I also know it's possible, especially at a moment when they need some good press. What they will and won't do (according to anyone but their CRMs and Devs - and even that is questionable) is irrelevant. All one does by trollposting (mocking WG here) or not contributing is distracting from the topic and discouraging community feedback and lessening the worth of the constructive feedback. :/