Figment

Look, regardless of what WG does or does niot do, trolling post behavior on a serious thread shows a lack of respect towards your fellow players and community contributors, not them.

Have you considered that 70 games in qualification may mean you’re not ready to move to the great beyond yet? Or maybe try something else in terms of how you go about it. Like select a different ship (if available, had to stock-Izumo my way through ranked once. WG should make rentals available imo for this mode).

Peops, understand the current emotions are running high with regards to WG and subs, but if you're not going to take this topic serious at some point, why should WG? Plenty of topics about "Subs bad" and "WG bad"atm, please have the courtesy to comment on what you like and dislike specifically about the design suggestion above, if there's anything you think can be done to improve on it.

Most of it exists as code fir various ships or is changing variables. So simple to code. New art is minimal. Rule checks minimal and simple. Good thing subs don’t fly then.

Mebbe.

Oh I'm sure they'll just post their prejudiced black and white and exagerated hyperbolic views and strawmans based on what they've (not) seen in game so far without any nuance whatsoever and what they want you to actually have said rather than what you proposed, then get angry when their views are pointed out as being biased and based on irrelevant knowledge and experience as per usual due to low emphatic and creative abilities and no capacity for self-critique. :) What can you do. This is the way.

Pfft. I was in it before it was necroed. *Old Man Hipstermode activated*

I've got one and you can lower the reload rate if you take some damage. That said, the issue with Vermont is not boredom, it's that in an exchange you're reliant on your volley actually hitting, whereas people with less damage per volley but more volleys can spam to get a better lead. A Vermont requires a good player in terms of leading targets and some luck in RNG. And most people are fresh out of one of those two things, if not both. I've had a lot of fun in Vermont matches, particularly against the super BBs (over 200K damage). Spotting wise, subs can in principle go where DDs cannot go. If they can for instance make a move to bypass some ships and spot or attack radar and camping cruisers from certain positions a DD cannot easily reach, then that's an USP. 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. I'd do a major overhaul of the sub mechanics as is anyway. What to do with ping? The ping mechanism is a separate design issue on its own and should not be conflated with submarine viability. IMO its frequency is both far too high as is and used for the wrong purpose (homing, rather than distance and position gauging). Hence it should not be required for manual torping and thus not give away one's position while in combat per se. Personally I think pings should be used 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 would increasingly accurately tell where they are: the first provides ranges, the second a bunch of vectors and a third ping show a targeting indicator over the ship - and sub - if the sub is within range that is. I'd also change consumeables and diving time a bit and add some more benefits to being surfaced. Diving limiters (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 not much would change. Is fine as is IMO: very fragile units. Consumeables: - 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% - 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 brings it back to max level. During deep dive, floodings may arbitrarily occur. Say every 5 seconds of deep dive a flooding check is done. Multiple 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. 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. I'd further make snorkel/periscope depth vary a bit between subs (more or less how much damage they receive from HE and determines detection radius as a modifier along with size, shape and tech level (due to propellor cavitation etc.)).

Depends, on context a caveman probably would be better adept at surviving in the wild. Or could survive without internet for a day.

a) Disagree. They're the polar opposite of CVs, where a sub is a very regional threat, whereas the CVs are an omnipresent threat and most other units (sometimes quite quickly) shifting regional threats. They can help to gain control of a flank, but can't influence all sides of the battle as easily as a BB, cruiser or DD can. So if an enemy flank they are on implodes and there's nothing to target in the area right next to them, they might lost connection to a battle, but they're not disconnected by default. b) Disagree. They have a similar, but more limited, specialized role to stealth torpedo DDs. Which is scouting and torping for - sometimes devastating - strikes from stealth. They CAN cap, but not as well as other ships and they CAN fight all kinds of ships, just not all as easily, they can't fight over islands (DDs can) and due to the homing torpedoes with citadel damage upon double ping, when they can fight they might be fighting a bit too well. But their main role is simply to try to kill the stuff in front of them on their side of the map in a hit and run stealth fashion, while limiting exposing themselves to counterattack and detering certain ships from advancing by posing a local threat. That's a pretty clearly defined role. It overlaps significantly with the role of other classes, but then that goes for cruisers and DDs and BBs and battlecruisers etc. too. c) Probably subjective and playstyle dependent (how much risk-reward play and how much continuous action does one expect?) There's IMO a bit of difference between the US and German subs already due to the range of the torpedoes (shorter range is higher risk of being chased down - which can result in a very quick death). Some people enjoy spending a lot of time to get in a good position. Problem is more that DPS is important in this game and having that sneak attack early can be decisive, while getting that attack later on can be too late to make an impact. Question is, is it boring to be such a location and alpha strike dependent unit where combat can be very shortlived on either side, but with very brutal results? For many that answer is most likely "yes, it's boring", but some other people might just like the suspense of the sneak attack high risk high reward. Mind, I don't think they're very well balanced as is. I'd rather they have their role defined to short range assassins (which might make their role more boring) that are an addition to the twelve men teams, rather than partially replacing those players. Hence shorter range torpedoes (4.5-10.5km with range depending on tier and nation) with mostly manual torp aim, with similar torp damage to DDs, but no easy and excessive citadels (torpedo belts must be effective) and more dodgeable torps, where going out of your way to chase down a sub shouldn't take as long and be more dangerous to subs, so the submersion/emersion bit is a lot trickier too. I'm okay with low detection ranges (say down to 4km while surfaced, 2.5km at periscope depth and 1km for full depth) but with air spotting subs more easily than surface ships (say 5-6km), invulnerable to radar detection (can be an effective counter to radar ships) and effective hydro range reduced depending on the sub's depth (4-5 surfaced, 3-4 periscope depth and 2-3km at max depth). Outside of the homing bit, I think that's all balance issues of variables and they can work fairly in combat then. The remaining issue is mainly in the late game, tracking down a sub that doesn't want to be found can be an issue with the point system if your last chance to win is kill all enemies. Hence I'm all for more forcing to the surface more frequently and shorter submersion times, but hydro exposing the sub even at max depth (just that depth charges should be harder to aim then due to timing and sink rate).

Aaaaah SWG, a SOE title. Never recovered from the "New Game Enhancements". So is that what this game needs? To die off? The only consequence is that you won't have a game to return to eventually, because development would likely cease or be more sporadic (making it harder and harder to revert), rather than revert. SOE management hardly ever listened to its playerbase, individual developers might though, Beady was great. But the PlanetSide Core Combat (BFRs) expansion anyone? Half the population quit within two months and the game never recovered. They never removed BFRs, because they were a DLC expansion bought by players and were thus legally obligated to keep them in (it took 5-6 months to do a balance pass and make them tolerable, even longer to open the cave areas to non-DLC players, another mistake, because it meant the caves were even emptier than their poor base design (spawncamping central) justified from a strategic point of view as their strategic influence on the main maps was significant with extra routes and special base and vehicle upgrade benefits). Both SWG and PlanetSide would linger on for 6-8 more years after disastrous expansions. Of course, with PlanetSide it didn't help that the entire original development team had quit without leaving design notes with their coding. (Oh wait, most of you probably never heard of that SOE title due to EQII taking up 90% of the marketing budget to compete with WoW so none of this makes sense to you :P) Think the issue was mostly that the license costs outweighed the profits and that a new SW MMO would leech most players, leaving the game even emptier and costlier. It was the only logical choice to close down from a commercial point of view really. With other games like PS and EQII the costs were mostly server maintenance, but even that was too much for PS apparently. With PS2 on the way it was logical, but a shame because PS had a superior and more balanced world design, inventory system, player progression system and more cooperation promoting player interaction design.

Think that's his sarcastic point...

Players here have opinions they want to vent and hence want a poll to show they're not alone in this, but they do not have the intention nor the education to hold proper enquiries even if they think they do. That said, neither does Wargaming given their post-battle enquiry about how satisfactory you felt about a match you probably just died in, lost and left.

There's always three weeks to two months where people gain access to new ship lines and play them at a heightened rate. That goes for new classes in particular.

Bit biased poll when you're putting words in people's mouths, isn't it? If you're going to put words in people's mouths, why not give them a bit nuance options? Yes (love them as is) Yes (accept them as is) Yes (tolerate them as is) Yes (in hopes they alter them soon) Yes (in hopes they remove them soon) Yes, but will leave if [...] Don't know yet No, but I already left but might come back if, [...] No, I already left and not coming back No, I'm leaving anyway for other reasons, namely: [...] No, I'm leaving due to subs specifically Etc. I mean, you're kinda forcing people to say they love this incarnation of subs and leave no wiggle room for people on the fence and all. :/

Yeah and can’t use the captain on the Dutch tree where I put exp and time into Friesland under Wargaming’s promise that it’d BOTH move to the Dutch line AND the captain would be compensated for. I now get neither. To me it’s exactly 0. It is denying everything I wanted. That the rest is complacent or happy with a halfarsed non-fix to a broken promise is their problem. The sheer audacity to say “Hey, you ‘only’ need to grind 1M free exp which you can’t use on other things and then grind a captain from scratch or on the ships you already and specifically trained the Friesland captain for over the past year” and/or lose an effective Ranked T9 ship for months to ‘only’ need to retrain its captain, just to get on par again with what you already had, while also breaking the promise of captain compensation just because some people may have used a special captain and calling that a fix is to me an insult. Perhaps others have lower expectations or standards, but I feel robbed.

I made a lot of submersibles out of a lot of ships. They curiously also stopped firing around the same time…

Manual as standard, homing torps on a few subs as special torps you can use once in a while (same for any other suggestions like zig zags).

Disagree. They mostly need to be better balanced in terms of effective counterplay options for the glass cannons they are and be additional units with limited numbers in the MM, rather than surface ship replacements in the MM. The average damage dealt is not exceptionally high even as is though. They are so far not as bad as they were proclaimed to be by the ardent anti-sub crowd who will never admit they’re not that bad (they went from total gamebreaking killers to argueing they are boring to play because they barely interact with enemies). Thing is, even in their current incarnation they are not as invincible as they were in april 2020, there are ASW skills you can pick up which in these even number ranked matches also provide extra AA against CVs. They are forceable to the surface (6min subsurface timer is IMO too high, while surfacing replenishes too slow, I’d go with 2-3 mins and double to triple replenishment speed which would put the subs on the surface more often. The homing torps should be at most an occasional thing. Their torps are fast enough to be a threat. The homing torps have too great a turn rate, possibly too high a link up to ping range and pings are too easy to replace once removed with repair party. I would also be okay with shorter ping times for smaller ships. The citadelling could take a look at as well. Anti-torp belt armour is there for a reason. Without those they’ll take a lot more skill to snipe effectively with and stay alive. Unlike DD torps though their path ought to indicate the direction where they are. Hydro needs to be more effective against them at greater depths and afaic radar should not affect them. They are silly in coop, but then that whole mode has been a joke since beta as the AI pathing is a complete joke and always has been.

What is there to laugh about in your comments? You are only trying to insult others and yes, that provokes a response in kind. You made no attempt at being funny whatsoever (and the pen and paper comment isn’t even accurate as there is no RPG involved… Fiction books are neither RP nor G… You read about characters there, you’re not in it interactively playing and creating your own adventure) you’re still just trying to be “right” after you lost a discussion to someone other than me, nearly went to war over that and when I tried to defuse it, rather than appreciate the joke like the other did. Then trying to still win that lost fight picked a fight with me as well by trying to take that joke as a serious response to your flawed claims (which already gone down in flames because WoW is and never will be old school even in monetization as it worked with subscriptions and DLCs before adopting further monetization where the earliest MMOs started with one time purchases). Apparently all you can think of is doubledown on an argument you lost many times over. All you do is try to make yourself seem superior to yourself and save face. It isn’t working, it is making things worse. :/ You do this a lot. You don’t understand a joke or comment someone made because you took it literal or as an attack, or you get outsmarted and you then start picking fights that don’t even have to exist. Just recognize a joke, admit a loss when you lose and get over it rather than try to move goalposts etc.

Poor you, still thinking you’re in a fight after your balls were cut off and bleeding out… Go out and buy a sense of humour instead of being a combative git.

Fuso is a bit of a sniper BB, not the best of brawlers. Hence probably not the best choice. Got a Cara with SAP? I did 64% WR with that last ranked in T6. Course, no subs then. Might want to try DDs and cruisers to see if that changes your WR then.

Won't be all you, but likely you're not contributing enough. What ships do you bring? What's your average position in the team in terms of exp? Do you die early due to overtextending or die last due to cowardice? What kind of damage do you do and do you do any spotting? Do you play together with friendlies by communicating and focusing targets, marking them for your team? Do you prioritize weaker ships if you have a choice? Do you support the DDs in their initial duels? Do you deal enough lasting damage with AP or do you just HE all the time? Could be where you take your ship, could be how careful you're playing, could be you're simply in a ship type that isn't suitable (Ranked is a very aggressive play game mode). If you're bringing a BB and staying back, you'll be nothing but a liability all match. If you focus on damage over time, sniping at range, not optimizing your line of sight, leaving ships alive to deal damage to your team by not focusing fire, throughout the game and ignore cap zones, you'll be a constant liability.

IMO, so far Ranked isn't decided by the subs really, but the DDs and cruisers that survive the initial round of combat. Which isn't even that bad. Subs seem very easy to either overextend or be useless. Yes they get some kills, often either sniping and subsequently being too far from the fight, or right before they're sunk by exposure. The mechanics are a bit weird IMO, but the submerging time becomes more important to control against players. Compared to coop there's a huge difference there. Some subs are submerged for the full 6 minutes from the start and have to surface in the middle of a group of enemies as they couldn't get away. Most of the sub gameplay is chasing shadows, but I've found pinging DDs in fog may be one of the bigger issues at hand. You can just spam pings and what's a DD going to do about it? Repair? How often? I think the homing torps would be less problematic if a repair party (which resets and prevents it if you hadn't noticed) would be more meaningful by having the ping frequency reduced by 200%. Nevertheless, I'd rather see more dumbfire torps than homing torps or have homing torps be more like a special activation you can only launch now and then and have a limited amount of. Not use those continuously.

Crucifixion is second. Stabbed is first.m (Got perma for Loyang, which I don’t have nor intend to get).