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

Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) - The Balancing Nightmares....

208 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
1,392 posts
12,202 battles

In general submarines == bad joke. 

But at least wait for Gamescon for them to be announced properly. 

 

Meanwhile, sharpen the pitchfork and start the bonfire! 

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
3,367 posts
7,895 battles
10 minutes ago, Gvozdika said:

Any automatic RNG-based system (like AA flak) will be frustrating

The game is rng-based, otherwise we would have some kind of FPS Shootergame like Battlefield. RNG is needed for this game (Dispersion of shells e.g.)

 

Beside that, I would wait for the next video material, so we can make good advices here, otherwise we can only assume, what they are planning. I always refer to Steel Ocean, Subs were fun there! And those Subs had only speeds like 18-24 knots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LADA]
Players
265 posts
5,613 battles
1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

The game is rng-based, otherwise we would have some kind of FPS Shootergame like Battlefield. RNG is needed for this game (Dispersion of shells e.g.)

 

Beside that, I would wait for the next video material, so we can make good advices here, otherwise we can only assume, what they are planning. I always refer to Steel Ocean, Subs were fun there! And those Subs had only speeds like 18-24 knots

I meant the RNG-style system associated with the flak clouds in AA - the player has zero control over their placement and WG felt that they were perfectly adequate. Until people *to WG's shock and horror* just flew AROUND them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
3,367 posts
7,895 battles
3 minutes ago, Gvozdika said:

I meant the RNG-style system associated with the flak clouds in AA - the player has zero control over their placement and WG felt that they were perfectly adequate. Until people *to WG's shock and horror* just flew AROUND them. 

The aa explsions are only one part of the AA, just like the dispersion is one Part for fireing the guns. Especially with the next patch, when you have also the instant damage. Then there is even less RNG. Though in my opinion, the burst damage should be aimed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
3,367 posts
7,895 battles
16 minutes ago, DanSilverwing said:

You forgot ramming, which should never be a Pyrhric victory for the DD.

Wondering about the IJN Submarines, if they ram a DD haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
617 posts
14,804 battles

I do wonder how they intend to make depth charges work unless ships can fling them a long way out then the sub hunter will need to drive right over the target sounds easy but not when under fire. I suspect they will make depth charges more like underwater flack bursts, not at all realistic but I guess workable. 

 

The issue of what vessels will be able to hunt subs will be interesting, HMS Warspite successfully sunk U64 using her spotted plane so will BBs have a separate ASW plane or will spotted planes be duel purpose? As for Destroyers it could prove problematic lets face it some teams the DDs suicide very early on or might be in a division so only are on 1 flank so the rest of the team all need a way to defend themselves. 

 

I dont think they will add any new classes of ship so no sloops or corvets but perhaps we will see more specialist DDs added. Only reason I doubt they will add sloops is because the British tier 1 Black swan is a sloop and you cannot really have tier 1 ships doing ASW at tier 8.

 

Im also curious how the sub will appear for the ship hunting it, will the water be more transparent or a kind of indicator showing its direction appear somewhere on screen. 

 

Im guessing here but I assume subs will fire a small number of very hard hitting torps rather than lots of fast reloading but weak torps thankfully that's just a matter of balancing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LADA]
Players
265 posts
5,613 battles
1 minute ago, lovelacebeer said:

I do wonder how they intend to make depth charges work unless ships can fling them a long way out then the sub hunter will need to drive right over the target sounds easy but not when under fire. I suspect they will make depth charges more like underwater flack bursts, not at all realistic but I guess workable. 

This is what I'm hoping they don't do - given how everyone very quickly worked out that flak wasn't enough balance CVs. People could just WASD their way past the defences. If we then apply the same to subs - you can go faster, slower, left, right, up and down - three dimensionally dodging arbitrarily generated 'explosions' fairly easily once you work out the pattern to them. The balance tips to the attacker if they can just dodge everything thrown their way.

 

So WG then wheeled the other way for AA vs CVs - to the constant DPS output - which kind of negates the skill of attacker/defender altogether. Quite how they'd apply the same/similar system to subs is anyone's guess - but the limitations would be the same. At it's heart the constant DPS defence is just brainless, automatic and not requiring any player ability whatsoever - you either have the numbers to do damage within the arbitrary zone or you don't. You either have the HP pool to weather the DPS ticks or not. 

 

Then again, I get the distinct impression that WG is just running with the idea and working it all out as they go along.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,734 posts
4,191 battles

Long story short, it will be next to impossible to make submarines fit well into the game, and wargaming has showed time and time again that they arent capable of doing it.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,229 posts
14,832 battles

The main issue for me is this:-

 

When it comes to balancing issues, Wargaming sets itself extremely low standards.......which it consistently fails to achieve.:Smile_sad:

  • Funny 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,911 posts
8,784 battles
52 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

The issue of what vessels will be able to hunt subs will be interesting, HMS Warspite successfully sunk U64 using her spotted plane so will BBs have a separate ASW plane or will spotted planes be duel purpose? As for Destroyers it could prove problematic lets face it some teams the DDs suicide very early on or might be in a division so only are on 1 flank so the rest of the team all need a way to defend themselves. 

WG sure as hell won't leave baBBies without option to retaliate, so automated ASW plane with derp charges sound about right from WG perspective as tool for BB. And cruisers as only RU ones have visible depth charge rails and racks across entire tech tree and then going sub hunt in glass of a cruiser is only going to end funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
417 posts
1,690 battles

Yes WG could make a great job of anti submarine balancing and RNG, or not. But what they can't make a good job of is to stop players roaming the map on lone anti-sub hunts in valuable DD's or cruisers. You think wandering off to the edges of the maps is a problem now, well you haven't seen anything yet, it will become even less of a team game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,911 posts
8,784 battles
2 minutes ago, 250swb said:

Yes WG could make a great job of anti submarine balancing and RNG, or not. But what they can't make a good job of is to stop players roaming the map on lone anti-sub hunts in valuable DD's or cruisers. You think wandering off to the edges of the maps is a problem now, well you haven't seen anything yet, it will become even less of a team game.

Are you implying Wargaming games were ever anything else than Massive Singleplayer Online games?:cap_hmm:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HEAT]
Players
1,143 posts
33,592 battles

I don't think countering submarines will be an issue. Hydros and Destroyers are the best way to counter them. Playing Submarines will be more difficult than playing Destroyers IMO.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,911 posts
8,784 battles
40 minutes ago, ABED1984 said:

I don't think countering submarines will be an issue. Hydros and Destroyers are the best way to counter them. Playing Submarines will be more difficult than playing Destroyers IMO.

You need to get directly over them to apply ASW ordnance tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,923 posts
9,627 battles

I really don't see it all as much of a problem.

 

Submarines need to have access to unrealistic speeds, while fully submerged, in order to get across the map and into place for an attack. This is OK as an arcade feature - they just get access to a special "cruising depth" where they can move at this speed out of combat, without being able to spot or attack (although they still get minimap spotting info from team mates). They also have limited time fully submerged, a resource which needs to be eked out over the course of a game. So your typical opening move in a sub would be to try and get close to a cap or other location where an enemy is likely to be. However... you need to be at periscope depth or on the surface to effectively fire torpedoes, which risks discovery by planes or onrushing DDs - it needs timing! Especially when your hard counter, the ASW destroyer is about.

 

ASW DDs are dual purpose DDs that give up some surface warfare functionality for anti-sub weaponry and baked-in special captain skills. Key amongst these would be ALF - Acoustic Location Finding, a kind of auto RPF which shows the DD player to which side the nearest submarine is located.  The efficacy of ALF would depend on the speed of the submarine. Down at cruising depth doing 25/30 knots? We can hear you coming miles away! Easing up in speed, at periscope depth, or silent running? Much more difficult. Equally, ALF dropping out could act as a proximity warning to the canny DD player. 

 

ASW DDs are also Silver line DDs - there's one at every tier where there is a submarine (even numbers again, so I understand?). For the RN  - who would need to be at the front of the ASW queue - you'd be looking at something like HMS Vanessa (Tier IV, WW1 V class which shipped a bank of TTs for DC launchers), HMS Hesperus (Tier VI, H class with fewer guns/TTs and Hedgehog front-facing ASW mortar ), HMS Battleaxe (Tier VIII, Weapon Class DD,  2 x Squid), HMS Diamond (Tier X, Daring class, 1950s build with enhanced ASW detection)

 

They would also have ASDIC - essentially a very long ranged underwater-only hydro, which could only be used if the ship was running at 3/4 speed or below - and the Vigilance torpedo detection skill. This would enable them to act as "Detect and direct" ships within a team, sending other team mate DDs to a submarine's location - because all DDs would have depth charges (although the weapons on "standard" DDs would be much less effective than those on specialist ASW ships). 

 

But then.... ASW DDs would be prized targets for the enemy team. And submarine players might well be able to lure them into overextending....

 

So what do subs get? Crash Dive/Rapid Surface and Torpedo Acceleration Consumables (range sacrificed for torp speed), their own long-range Hydro detection and torpedoes with a higher than normal chance of flood and increased flood damage. Possibly even the acoustic homing torpedo which tracks smaller ships  (the "Zerstorerknacker"/destroyer killer). The longer they survive, the more powerful they become. Even CVs might feel worried....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
3,367 posts
7,895 battles
15 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

I really don't see it all as much of a problem.

Me neither, though they don't need speed. They are supposed to lurk for enemy ships, so they can wait at caps for enemies. I like this kind of mechanic

  • Cool 2

Share this post


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

This is what I'm hoping they don't do - given how everyone very quickly worked out that flak wasn't enough balance CVs. People could just WASD their way past the defences. If we then apply the same to subs - you can go faster, slower, left, right, up and down - three dimensionally dodging arbitrarily generated 'explosions' fairly easily once you work out the pattern to them. The balance tips to the attacker if they can just dodge everything thrown their way.

Yes, that is a problem indeed, and they (IMO) FF-ed it up. 

What could have been done is (insted of the nutty "sector left/right") is really easy, as well as fun.

- Give the ships AA-patterns, and let them vary by pressing a button;

- if you spec the captain to AA or the ship to AA you get MORE patterns and can VARY them faster.

- THEN it would be a challenge to see who'd win... WASD or not.

 

3 hours ago, Gvozdika said:

So WG then wheeled the other way for AA vs CVs - to the constant DPS output - which kind of negates the skill of attacker/defender altogether.

Yes they did, therefore making it stupid and unfun.

 

3 hours ago, Gvozdika said:

Quite how they'd apply the same/similar system to subs is anyone's guess - but the limitations would be the same. At it's heart the constant DPS defence is just brainless, automatic and not requiring any player ability whatsoever - you either have the numbers to do damage within the arbitrary zone or you don't. You either have the HP pool to weather the DPS ticks or not. 

:cap_like: Agreed.

 

3 hours ago, Gvozdika said:

Then again, I get the distinct impression that WG is just running with the idea and working it all out as they go along.

In fact they stated so themselves. It is a WIP with us as test dummies. :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[_FK_]
Players
163 posts
2,297 battles
1 hour ago, invicta2012 said:

I really don't see it all as much of a problem.

[.....]

SEspecially when your hard counter, the ASW destroyer is about.

Do you classify the ASW DD as a seperate class?

Because if you treat them as a regular DD... MM will screw you over.

 

Both teams get 2 subs

One team ends up with 3 ASW DD's and 1 normal DD

The other team gets 4 normal DD's and has no hard counter to the enemy subs?

 

Remember, this is WG, who is fully willing to put all the radar cruisers in 1 team and all the non-radar cruisers in the other team.... :Smile_amazed:

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OGHF]
Players
231 posts
6,550 battles
6 hours ago, Gvozdika said:

TL DR

The counters for subs are going to be the make/break for subs being shoehorned into WOWS. Nothing they’ve done recently dispels the illusion that WG really do fumble around when it comes to fine tuning balance between the classes (cough rework cough). I also think that the ship-sub interaction will be a massive pain in the backside for everyone concerned. The yo-yo in the AA ship/CV balance is evidence of this and that in many ways is MUCH simpler than the truly three-dimensional nature of Ships vs. Subs.


 

 

 

I think that as WG have proved that they couldn't balance a see-saw, submarines should stay in a game mode of their own...

 

You just know that the spreadsheet excuse will be used at some point to say that "all is fine"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCNG]
Weekend Tester
1,182 posts
3,486 battles

Just Saying. But if WG cant Balance the Game anyways.

Then why would you Oppose Subs ^^

 

More Classes actually Increase the Error Margin of Balancing because you get Rock Paper Scissors Systems which allows Ships to simply be Balanced as Rock is 150 against Scissors but 50 against Rock.

Which is much much easier than Balancing for Ship A to be 100 and Ship B to be 100 without them being the Same. ^^

 

So if WG Sux at Balancing. Then you should Welcome Subs. Because the more Classes we got. The easier the Balancing will become :P

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LADA]
Players
265 posts
5,613 battles
8 hours ago, Sunleader said:

Just Saying. But if WG cant Balance the Game anyways.

Then why would you Oppose Subs ^^

 

More Classes actually Increase the Error Margin of Balancing because you get Rock Paper Scissors Systems which allows Ships to simply be Balanced as Rock is 150 against Scissors but 50 against Rock.

Which is much much easier than Balancing for Ship A to be 100 and Ship B to be 100 without them being the Same. ^^

 

So if WG Sux at Balancing. Then you should Welcome Subs. Because the more Classes we got. The easier the Balancing will become :P

On what planet does that even make sense?

 

If a juggler is trying (and failing) to juggle 3-4 balls - he's not going to be any more successful if you hand him even more!

 

The game balance is far more nuanced than a simple X beats Y process. If anything, adding a new class requires even more balancing know-how because you've now added a whole new set of variables you simply didn't have to take into account before. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester, Players
1,772 posts
5,014 battles
8 hours ago, Sunleader said:

So if WG Sux at Balancing. Then you should Welcome Subs. Because the more Classes we got. The easier the Balancing will become :P

The more complicated the things get, the easier they are to balance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HEAT]
Players
1,143 posts
33,592 battles
12 hours ago, Panocek said:

You need to get directly over them to apply ASW ordnance tho.

Ofcourse, And that what the Submarine players should try to avoid :Smile_popcorn:. Looks like fun playing Subs I guess. :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×