General_Alexus

I mean even Atago has 40mm and more HP at the moment. If the 4*5 12km Torps are the gimmik, I would love them to make thouse torps more usable aka better torpedo angles (compare Atago again) This alone should buff the performance alot.

Just read the Devblog (https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/237) on the new changes to Subs. Overall some nice ideas, it follows stuff we have been talking about here and I can even recongnize some questions I asked myself (might be unrelated though). It remains to be seen how successful unguided torps will be (unfortunatly underwater aiming guide will come with 0.10.11 so we need to wait anyway.) The Unguided Torps in this Proposal seem to be for Yolo only while I would love to see them effective at normal ranges from 4-8km. I suggested them having lower detectibility, but they dont seem to have lower basedetectibility, only a -25% bonus after a ping (2.4*0.75=1.8, this is not stealthy this is bare minimum usable for unguided torps). This might not turn out to be enough as a target that is pinged has all the warning it needs anyway, to achieve a doubleping you need to ping about 10 seconds in advance of impact. I suggested in a post earlier that pings for unguided torps should not give a warning nor are repairable, with 2 types of Torps at the same time this is more difficult to do I guess. You could give us two types of pings that switch over together with the torpchoice, if you have an active Homing-ping and switch to a nonhoming-ping and hit again (or vise versa), it deleates the ping from the hull, replaces it (in case of unguided torps) with a non-homing ping, but this one gives no warning nor is repairable. Overall I like the change, in the first Sub-Ranked season (when pinging increesed your detection to 4km) I used unguided torps alot, and it was fun getting close (2-3km) and launching from point blank. But the detection of the torps made it unusable when not point blank. I will be looking forward to using unguided (somewhat) more stealthy torps. As the Devblog mentioned detectability and Hydro, maybe we should find a middleground here. Planes are a bit too powerfull in spotting subs (in my opinion, especially as you cant shoot down summoned fighterplanes), they force you to go maximum depth (other that Radar), so maybe buff subs a little bit by making planes not able to spot subs past 30-40m (we have thouse depthlevels, might as well use them) And nerf Subs against Hydro by making subs detectable at maximum depth with hydro, if the ship using hydro is at 1.5-2.0km (or give hydro a 50% penelty to range at maximum depth to balance German hydro against British hydro) of the sub (directly over it ready to use DCs). This would be a fair tradeoff in my opinion and balances the experience of subgames if a CV is present or not, less planespotting vs more hydro spotting. (RLF does not work at maximum depth so it will still be difficult enough for a hydro DD/CA/CL to get directly over a sub)

Well and there is the delay in spotting and rendering anyway, ships popping up and vanishing every 2 seconds screws over the spotting/rendering, add bad ping to this and its a mess.

The closest target to you (the one RL points you to) get a little symbol on the HUD that they are the target beeing located by radio location (but of course no location indicator like the user of RL) Now if you are a BB/CA permaspotted its not so clear where the DD is, especially if you have like 12+km concealment. But if you see this little symbol and you have some teammates around, you know YOU are the closest target to the Ship using RL on you and most likely the target of the next torps comming.

Radio location is a double edged sword, it makes alot of things easier, but also makes it realy easy for a target to tell if you are close. I noticed my Torp hitrate increese alot when not having RL skilled as people are more unsuspecting.

You know that this slow radarsweep is something for movies, in RL the frequency is way faster. No reason to complicate a simple mechanic like radar overly. I would be all for Radar (and hydro) not spotting through Ilands though, but maybe not possible with the current engine (as the radar implementation of just increesing ensured detectibility to 10km/12km is a little bit cheap)

Isnt that too a thing of the past? Havnt played divisions in a long time, but there were restrictions of choosing ships and this I could bet there was a Tier restriction as well. And even if not: Fail-divisions should not be problem of the balancing department, it should simply not be allowed in the first place.

I never said that this is not still the case too some extent for CVs (this is a sub discussion), I say that it was a problem and it was fixed to some extent (I eg. dont have 70% winrate in my CVs anymore, I had before, partly because I dont play the Meta CVs, partly because I never bothered to relearn them) All I said was that making pings not spammable (and other proposed changes to subs here) push the sub-class (that already is inconsistent for people who dont have a clue what they are doing) to place of more skillgap, something WG decided to not do anymore.

A Fuso (T6) can do that too, but they never meet (as do the T6 Sub)

I would agree, WG and the community does not. RTS CV were exactly like this. High Skillgap and top CV players wiping the floor of bad CV players achieving 70-80% winrate. Remember: The community cried about beeing matched up with 40% CV potatos not getting in any dmg while the enemy CV killed half the team.

They have as much value as the authorithies are able to explain to scrubs like me. WG started recently to do explanations on design dessicions, but alot of design choices for subs were made in the past. (3 years development) So WG, what was the reason for homing torps? Yes they make torp-only ships work more consistently (I think that might have been a point), but what rules dumb-fire out? Was there a testing stage of dumbfire torps? What were ideas of making them work and why has it failed? (if a dumb dude like me can have a working idea for dumb-fire torps in 5 minutes I am sure you had the same and ruled it out for a reason beyond my comprehension, that is fine but I want to know) The catchup to this will require some time.

The same group of people who write on the forums are active on social media. I bet you a large % of the playerbase dont even have time or are interested to visit social media about the game they play. (or the playerbase would play way better by just watching a few videos explaining basics)

Fair enough, I could live with increesing the CD on the pings. But I have to say that pinging in the first place is a negative sideeffect, as everybody gets a headsup of them beeing under attack. Its similar to a DD launching torps and beeing spotted by a random aircraft for a split second. That is often enough to miss perfectly lines up torps. In my sub gameplay I try to dumbfire torps, let them run for as long as possible and only ping on the last few KM, this makes sure they dont run into ilands on the way, and the enemy ship has less time to turn around and run (=> even with tracking this results in Bow/stern hits). A funny sideeffect is that players think I am way closer than I actually am (aka ping comes in and they see torps a few seconds later even though I am 10km away) So yeah, even though Pings are "free" and "spammable", good players (I am so free to count myself abouve avarage) will try to ping as little as possible anyways. If we make pinging not spammable (I am fine with that), this might lead to the RTS-CV problem of Subs beeing a high skill-gap class, this also has problems in itself as subs are a restricted class (leading to you as a team rather have a 55% Sub and a 45% BB than the other way around) This shows a problem in gamedesign of changes having unforseen consequences.

Well we have to work with what we are given, if somebody askes for insights of the current Torp tracking, I am giving thouse instead of questioning the hole thing alltogether. I would have designed Subs differently, but i dont own a million dollar Gaming buisness, nor do I have a degree in gamedesign. I would have made subtorps dumbfire, but super stealthy (compare deepwater torps), pings for tracking against Subs (that is nessesary due to the nature of 3D underwater landscape) and pings against surfaceships to increese dmg&Citadelhits, but the enemy dont get a notification of it, nor can it be repaired (remember no traccing in return) Would my solution be better/more fun? I dont know, and I dont claim to be an expert.

You have a cooldown of 10 seconds, if you miss your doubleping and it does not refresh the already existing one, you have tracking downtime of 10 seconds + traveltime of your new ping. As torps are already on the way in most cases when you try to maintain a double ping, this leads to a chance to miss alltogether. (In the few dozend Sub games I have I remember a few occations of this happening) I am not saying the ping-frequency should not be reduced for balance reasons, I am saying that there is a negative sideeffect to double pings beeing able to switch sections.

DC worked like HE as far as I have noticed, maybe a direct hit (whatever this means, DC have splash in X-meters, so a direckt hit could be any distance closer that a threshhold [X-t]m) does the full dmg given in the stats. For non direct hits the DC do 1/3 of the Dmg, for DC doing 2000dmg that would be around 660. Balao has 14000hp => you need 21 Hits.

Yes this is normal, but the disadvantage with the current system is, that this 2nd ping does not refresh (timewise) if you dont hit the same spot. You keep your 2nd ping for the 30 sek, but if you dont manage a new double ping you have to start over from zero, loosing track of Target for 10 sekonds can cause your torps to miss alltogether so it realy is a tradeoff.

I agree with the first point. Regarding exp: You get exp for % dmg on target. Say 500exp is rewardet for target X if you do 100% dmg, you get a multiplier on that if you are lower/higher tier shooting Target X. If this multiplier is 1, you get 250 exp for doing 50% dmg (so no big dmg numbers on BB = more exp, but meaningfull dmg gives Exp, eg on DDs) Last hit gives additional 10% of maximum exp, in this case 50 exp extra. This is fair in my opinion as in most cases a 1% Target not finished of is as dangerous as a 100% one (because of Adrenaline rush it even has 119.9% dpm of it)

He used Hydro (that is ok) to spot the torps at 3.5km, and used DC the moment he got pinged so the torps were 3.5km away (instead of 2.2 or closer), so the subplayer had enough time to reping him. Deserved kill and exactly why I say that most Social media complains are just whining.

The moment you see torps you press DC (and not before like you did and whined after in your post). From this moment on Torps dont home in on you anymore, that makes in possible to compare them to torps of other DDs. Result is: You have alot of time to dodge them. In case of BBs its even more strait forward: The torps stop homing at 2.1km, so you have actually more time to react than if you get attact by Halland-Torps (you see them at 2.4, they stop homing at 2.1, with Halland torps you would see them at 1.6)

No I disagree with everyone who states false facts or has no arguments based on facts or data at all(like you and alot of people whining on the forums). Like "subtorps have bad visibility", 2.4km Visibility is not low, Shima 20km torps (thouse are one of if not the most visible torps as far as I know) have 2.5km. 2.4km is bad, yes the torps are about 10-20% faster than the avarage T10 Torp, but even substracting 20% from the visibility we end but with around 1.9km, this is still bad. (compare halland torps with 90knot speed and 1.8km detection)

So yeah the sequence is not in sync? As I said, Ignore the pings until you see the torps, they are spotted early and you still have 9 seconds to react. I had great fun with and against subs so far, I dont care about the whining on Social Media. Its done by noobs,YTbers who want easy clicks by pandering to a braindead audience, or UNiCUms who feel thretend in theire accustomed playstile.

So you hit DC before you see torps? Well your mistake, the reload on torps is 50 sek+, you hit DC to let torps miss and you have 50 sek before the next wave comes. The pings dont hurt you, just keep them on your ship until you need to remove it. T6 Maps also have way more ilands, keep the ping on your ship and accelerate towards an Iland, the leed will overcompansate and drive the torps into the iland. I recomment playing subs yourself for a couple of rounds to learn how torps behave and how to doge them.

I wrote exactly that. The point was: From which part of the ship is the velocity vector calculated from? (aka a Vector stands on a point) Its the Part of the ship you pinged, not the center of the ship. On a non moving ship you will hit the bow if you ping the bow, if you pinged the bow, your torps are already on theire way and you hit the stern, your torps will slightly course correct. If a ship is sailing away from you and you hit the Bow with a ping, the point of impackt will be further away from the target (and as such the tracking will be longer) than if you have the stern pinged. In this example, you might get better hit results on a ship that moves away from you if you have an active ping on the bow instead of the stern.

Dont hang yourself up with the numberes(sry for not making this clear enough in the post), the key point was that XXXX/YYYY should be a balance parameter for every ship individual. This can mean a buff or a nerf to the current fixed numbers. Reason for this is, that with the current system we have ships like stalingrad, beeing treated the same as nimble crusers like Minotaur as the distance of Torps to stop homing is the same just because they happen to be cassified as "Cruisers". This is a balance nightmare as with the current system, every changeinfluences all ships of a class. Maybe we want subs to pushish bow-on tanking Crusers like Stalingrad/Moskwa who rely on Iland-cover anyway, but dont want them to be as deadly against crusers like Henri, who rely on open water gunboating (and are as such an easier targets to beginn with) The secondary point was that this values XXXX/YYYY can later be modified by upgrades/Captain-perks to give people the choise if Subs hurt them soo much that they need aditional protection, or if they are fine with it.