Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
AndyHill

Submarines: the next step.

327 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
6,912 posts
8,784 battles
55 minutes ago, Major_Damage225 said:

Oh now ya'gon did it, gavem the idea :Smile_hiding:

Russian supercavitating torpedoes clocking 200kts when?

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BBMM]
Players
3,730 posts
4,085 battles
27 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

The 'separate mode' bit *may* make a positive difference.

 

That said, I can't imagine anything will stop WG ploughing ahead with eventual PvP implementation, even if all the customers tell them to knock it off - I can't help recalling that the Halloween subs had 'real' subs underneath all the gubbins. You don't make that much effort unless you're fairly hell-bent on going ahead...

Agreed. I think that is a very accurate assessment of what is going to happen.

 

I'm not against subs though. I can actually see how they can fit them in and make them work.

But the same as CVs, they'll not listen and make something crappy OP or just mega-crap out of it.

So far, they have. True they have "corrected"it - but not by actually solving the problem, just using stop-gap methods. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
617 posts
3,366 battles
2 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Russian supercavitating torpedoes clocking 200kts when?

Germany has a supercavitating torpedo project, too. It's named 'Barracuda'. Except this one will only reach 20kts and have secondaries all over the torpedo's hull...

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
145 posts
5,241 battles
14 minutes ago, Stormhawk_V said:

No, we don't need new content at all costs. If the game was well balanced and mostly fun a lot more people would play it. Instead WG has created an endless circlejerk of powercreep by ignoring everything their CCs and testers told them.

Not disagreeing, tbh my wording there was bad, FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor 's was better,  I wonder if they are limited in what they can do with the base game, hence the need to continuously dangle new shiny things in front of us, also new classes mean new additions to trees which translates into cash, either directly through premiums or indirectly via gold etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-LA-]
Players
186 posts
1,896 battles
1 hour ago, lovelacebeer said:

 

Or it could make the game way more passive because people will be even more scared to push. Still no harm in testing them I guess. 

well theres always room to [edited] it up but we always assume that cant do anything , i dunno maybe im wrong but i would think subs would feast on the immobile/slow moving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
617 posts
14,804 battles
1 minute ago, Padds01 said:

well theres always room to [edited] it up but we always assume that cant do anything , i dunno maybe im wrong but i would thing subs would feast on the immobile/slow moving

 

At the moment it's all guess work but my fear is as subs are ambush hunters they would punish anyone pushing rather than trying to sneak around to ambush slow moving ships as that's more risky for them getting into those positions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
617 posts
3,366 battles
1 minute ago, arcticstorm123 said:

Not disagreeing, tbh my wording there was bad, FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor 's was better, tbh I wonder if they are limited in what they can do with the base game, hence the need to continuously dangle new shiny things in front of us, also new classes mean new additions to trees which translates into cash, either directly through premiums or indirectly via gold etc.

None of those shiny new tech trees made me come back to the game. All the good players I had in my friendlist quit the game over the few months after the CV rework. I can see how some people are attracted by new ships but it doesn't change the game for the better. In my opinion all it does is speeding up the blatant powercreep even more as if it isn't already obvious enough.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
3,616 posts
11,921 battles

- accidental double post (smartphones :Smile_bajan2:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
3,616 posts
11,921 battles
3 hours ago, __Helmut_Kohl__ said:

People will panic and whine about it until and shortly after release. 6-12 months later nobody will really mind the change anymore. 

 

CV reeeeework says hi

 

 :Smile_hiding:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HBS]
Players
12 posts
3,861 battles
2 hours ago, Hanse77SWE said:

Everytime subs has come up as a subject I've said: "If subs come, I go!" If a "WoWs:Cold War" based on Cv and subs would come out then I'd have no problem with it, but this game is 1900-1950 and neither CVs or subs were used in naval surface-battles during that time so the history-nerd in me screams at the tought. (CVs were used 1943-1944 in the Western Pacifc and not much elsewhere.)

 

the history nerd in you should read up some on WW2. just check how many ships were lost to air attack or sub attack and how many from surface attack.

 

bismarck, yamato, musashi, tirpitz, roma, jean bart, shokaku, rjuvo, hermes, langley, lexington, alabama, arizona, west virgina.

 

just a couple that comes into my mind, all of these are in the game, and i doubt that any of them sunk by a BB....

 

of course, if the history nerd in you calls a naval surface battle when all combatants surface(d) ships and directly fires at each other, you're right.

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BONUS]
Beta Tester
1,283 posts
40 minutes ago, 10ThousandThings said:

Yep, it does all feel a bit panicky. Which doesn't exactly inspire confidence to spend more money...

 

Thing is, if WG are concerned about running out of new content (which we know they are), surely the question to ask is not 'how do we generate more content [edit: meaning specifically ships] and keep adding it [what feels like] faster and faster?'. It's surely 'How do we keep the game viable in a state where there's less new content available to add?'. I don't have a full answer, but initial thoughts suggest it's about retaining new players (whole debate in itself), concentrating on balance and some degree of stability – meta shifts are fine and all, but constantly radically shaking it up seems counter-productive – and using events to introduce content which gives you revenue. As I said above, Sharks v Eagles would be an example. These are just thoughts off the top of my head, so feel free to critique.

 

Anyway, the game felt in a good state last summer. Less straight-up gimmicky rubbish, mirrored MM had just come in, WG seemed to be listening, great events, new daily missions, not more new stuff than it was possible to keep up with, main complaints IIRC were BB AP on DDs, Conqueror and the port UI. Surely the dream is to have a relatively stable and positive and reasonably balanced meta like into which you can introduce evolutions to stop it from becoming stale, rather than smashing it to pieces every few months in the name of disruption and novelty? Is that just me?

The problem is, they are doing the exact opposite of what they're saying.

As you said, they're obviously scared of running out of content (hence pooping out content faster than rabbits reproduce). But at the same time, they keep running events that give out T8 ships, thus making people NOT play their game.

 

They keep adding content at faster and faster rates to prevent people from not playing the game anymore, and then they add events where you get high tier ships without playing the game. If we had to grind our T8, we would play the game. Now we don't. Now we play the T8, grind to T10 and get bored again. That process of grinding 3 tiers takes much shorter than grinding the entire line.

 

 

NTC is a good example of this. They don't want to encourage midtier play (there are easier solutions). They just want to grab as much money as they can from the bored second-time-grind people that want the shiny Ohio.

 

If you think about it.... right now we have events permanently. As soon as one ends, the next is announced. Events used to be special. There was a whole year of nothing special between Kamikaze R and Grand Naval Battles. People would return to the game for the event. People would go out of their way to complete the event. Not now. Now people think "meh, I've been burned out, I'll just skip this event".

  • Cool 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,912 posts
8,784 battles
13 minutes ago, Bellegar said:

If you think about it.... right now we have events permanently. As soon as one ends, the next is announced. Events used to be special. There was a whole year of nothing special between Kamikaze R and Grand Naval Battles. People would return to the game for the event. People would go out of their way to complete the event. Not now. Now people think "meh, I've been burned out, I'll just skip this event".

So much this.

 

Years ago if we had tech tree ships discounts or equipment discount during weekend it was considered "good" and "worth logging in", any events, be it anniversary of specific battle or any other mission marathon were rare and definitely worth checking out.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
542 posts
1,929 battles
15 minutes ago, Bellegar said:

If you think about it.... right now we have events permanently. As soon as one ends, the next is announced. Events used to be special. There was a whole year of nothing special between Kamikaze R and Grand Naval Battles. People would return to the game for the event. People would go out of their way to complete the event. Not now. Now people think "meh, I've been burned out, I'll just skip this event".

Well said. I wasn't around during the Kami R and Grand Naval Battles event (just had my 2-year store voucher), and even I've noticed the pace of things has got much faster. It does feel like too much; I'd like to be left alone to just play and improve quietly.

 

But I'm an unrepentant introvert who doesn't need lots of bells and whistles and shiny stuff for something to be interesting – and the core concept for WOWS is interesting, imo – and maybe that makes me different from WG's target audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[INTRO]
[INTRO]
Players
473 posts
11,737 battles
1 minute ago, vizihulla said:

the history nerd in you should read up some on WW2. just check how many ships were lost to air attack or sub attack and how many from surface attack.

 

bismarck, yamato, musashi, tirpitz, roma, jean bart, shokaku, rjuvo, hermes, langley, lexington, alabama, arizona, west virgina.

 

just a couple that comes into my mind, all of these are in the game, and i doubt that any of them sunk by a BB....

 

of course, if the history nerd in you calls a naval surface battle when all combatants surface(d) ships and directly fires at each other, you're right.

Bismarck: Sunk by surface ships. (Or rather scuttled by crew)

Yamato: Western Pacific

Musashi: Western Pacific.

Roma: Sunk by landbased planes.

Jean Bart: In port.

Shokaku: CV on CV and Western Pacific

Hermes: CV on CV

Ryujo : CV on CV and Western Pacific

Langley: Landbased planes

Lexington: CV on CV and Western Pacific

Alabama: Never sunk

Arizona. In port

West Virginia: In port

 

Perhaps you should read up on history yourself.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of Jutland? No

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of the Falklands (1914)? No.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle at Surigao Strait? No.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of North Cape? No.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of Dogger Bank? No.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of Cape Matapan? No.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of Heligoland Bight? No.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of Tsushima? No.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of the Denmark Strait? No.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of Savo Island? No.

 

My point is that surfaceships being in battle with other surfaceships and at the same time being under air-attack AND submarine-attack is not historically accurate.

 

And of course I'm right! If I knew it was wrong then I'd never done the post in the first place.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
617 posts
3,366 battles
3 minutes ago, Hanse77SWE said:

My point is that surfaceships being in battle with other surfaceships and at the same time being under air-attack AND submarine-attack is not historically accurate.

That has been my issue with CVs from the get go. You can't just maneuver freely to dodge bombs and torps because there are five BBs waiting on the other side of the map trying to get your broadside. I'm not talking about rockets as these are just stupid and should have never made it into the game. Even if the enemy CV sucks he still keeps you spotted which can be enough to ruin your game, especially in a DD. WG wanted CVs to become damage dealers but they never even considered taking away their oppressive spotting capabilities. Without a doubt subs will have the same issue because they have to be easy to play and rewarding for people to spend their money on them.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester
1,650 posts
12,268 battles

Since the other thread got closed for "neatness" sake and since they didn't even have the courtesy to merge them I'll have to post this here.

 

7 minutes ago, artic_99 said:

Maybe you all should take a chill pilll.

Subs are not announced for being in random batlles yet. They just get an alternative batlle mode and then they will look and decide wether for random or not.

 

You don't honestly believe that, do you?

 

Ask yourself this - how many players do you think buy premium ships just for Operations and is this figure anywhere near as large as the number of people who buy premium ships to play Randoms with?

 

Now tell me again why you think the decision hasn't already been made.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,442 posts
6,753 battles
2 hours ago, shadowwolf9705 said:

the thing i am  mostly worried is about how they intend we fight them cause i ont see any way to do that in any way that it is an kind of good for the game short of basically restructuring the entire game and its balance into large fleet battles were you have atleast 2-3 BBs, 6-7 Cruiser and 15-20 DDs involved with maybe 3-4 subs as in the currentr game format the only class viable to hunt them would be the 2-3 DDs per game and they already have from a teamplay perspective way too many important jobs to fullfill (and that is before we put in the regular will of the 0815 random player to fullfill his dutys)

Look at CV rework and you got the answer. You don't. In the end, it matters not whether there is counterplay, just that the damage numbers on the spreadsheet stay within certain bounds. If subs are just so slow they murder two ships and no more anyway, so their damage is within acceptable limits, then all's fine to WG.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[P-W-C]
Players
4,710 posts
26,451 battles
5 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

You don't honestly believe that, do you?

Because you read WGs mind and thoughts. :fish_happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester
1,650 posts
12,268 battles
24 minutes ago, Hanse77SWE said:

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of Dogger Bank? No.

 

 

Well, of course not, that was just a scrap at the carpark in the woods near our house.

 

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[P-W-C]
Players
4,710 posts
26,451 battles
26 minutes ago, Hanse77SWE said:

Bismarck: Sunk by surface ships. (Or rather scuttled by crew)

Yamato: Western Pacific

Musashi: Western Pacific.

Roma: Sunk by landbased planes.

Jean Bart: In port.

Shokaku: CV on CV and Western Pacific

Hermes: CV on CV

Ryujo : CV on CV and Western Pacific

Langley: Landbased planes

Lexington: CV on CV and Western Pacific

Alabama: Never sunk

Arizona. In port

West Virginia: In port

 

Perhaps you should read up on history yourself.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of Jutland? No

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of the Falklands (1914)? No.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle at Surigao Strait? No.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of North Cape? No.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of Dogger Bank? No.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of Cape Matapan? No.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of Heligoland Bight? No.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of Tsushima? No.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of the Denmark Strait? No.

Were there any submarines or CVs at the Battle of Savo Island? No.

 

My point is that surfaceships being in battle with other surfaceships and at the same time being under air-attack AND submarine-attack is not historically accurate.

 

And of course I'm right! If I knew it was wrong then I'd never done the post in the first place.

This

Game

Is 

Not 

A

Simulator

Of

WW2

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[P-W-C]
Players
4,710 posts
26,451 battles
Just now, xxNihilanxx said:

 

Well, of course not, that was just a scrap at the carpark in the woods near our house.

 

 

Speechless Stick Guy 20072019104458.jpg

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester
1,650 posts
12,268 battles
3 minutes ago, MacArthur92 said:

Because you read WGs mind and thoughts. :fish_happy:

 

Not a mind reader but I am excellent at spotting behaviour patterns. From the outside the two do appear similar, though.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[P-W-C]
Players
4,710 posts
26,451 battles
Just now, xxNihilanxx said:

 

Not a mind reader but I am excellent at spotting behaviour patterns. From the outside the two do appear similar, by the way.

:cap_look:

Though still it's a speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester
1,650 posts
12,268 battles
Just now, MacArthur92 said:

:cap_look:

Though still it's a speculation.

 

Time will tell. Sooner or later, time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
145 posts
5,241 battles

I think the only way to make these new classes work with no grief in the community is separate game modes and encourage people to play them with better rewards,.

 

CV's and subs could have their own extended co op games (for CV's current co op games are way to short, they can also up CV hitting power so you get the chance to actually sink something yourself without relying on other ships wounding stuff so you can kill it with your anaemic aircraft ).

 

Subs for instance you could have proper bot convoys to attack (alone or in a team) and base the win on tonnage sunk.

 

Trying to shoe horn everything in one game is a mistake, and it only causes discontent for players focusing on win rate or credit grinding, I liked the CV play but I must admit it does alter the game for the worse for some players particularly for dd's, subs will suffer similar hate but probably from a different class. 

 

There's a large part of the player base that like the 3 main surface ship classes, and they shouldn't mess with that, this my conclusion after the CV rework issues.

 

Only suggesting co op because I can't see many people wanting to play against subs or CV's by choice

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×