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

SUBMARINES - discussion, feedback, opinions

2,080 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
489 posts
6,521 battles

Again, it's very clear that the game is going to need two modes. Basic or Coop+ mode for a surface ship mini-game. Advanced or Full Mode for a game with Sub/CV and larger teams. 

 

Naturally, stats need to be split at this point, but you'll have Coop, Basic, Full and then Scenario's and Ranked Gameplay.

 

Should suit everybody, WG needs to accept that the 'full experience' or 'hardcore mode' is not going to be for everyone.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,266 posts
3,989 battles
18 hours ago, Tatsfield said:

In reality the introduction of both carriers and submarines into naval warfare changed battle order and virtually eliminated the value of battleships, reduced the need for many cruisers and relegated destroyers to anti submarine warfare. Navies today are based around carriers and submarines.  This evolution would completely destroy the raison d'etre of World of Warships and it was apparent that carrier play in the game was the most contentious aspect and I suspect that submarine play will bring the game to its knees, which in the real world would be  an attainment to be striven for but in virtual gameplay is going to upset a very large number of players.  WG should have stuck to the "Battle of Jutland" era model for this game and realised that the Pacific battles of WWII are far less entertaining in gameplay.   And my hobby horse?  Torpedoes!  There are just too many in the water at any given time.  They should be a much rarer and more valuable asset that player have to conserve.  Submariners would consider two torpedoes more than adequate for any attack and then have to haul very large heavy lumps of metal around in confined spaces to reload tubes from a limited armoury.  I'd hope that WoW submarines would be similarly constrained from launching full salvoes and reloading them and doing it again and again but I suspect that they won't and what with aicraft, DDs and submarines all launching full salvo torpedo attacks, you will be able to walk across the battle area on torpedoes without getting your feet wet!

This is an arcade game not a simulation.

 

Subs and CV's should be moved to separate game modes, with appropriate objectives to drive game tactics and meta development from the player base. And we should have a separate mode for surface battles only. Everyone can pick and choose what they like to play then.

 

The issue is we don't have a large enough player base in each region to support that at the moment.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOATY]
Alpha Tester
3,293 posts
13,086 battles

I'm pretty sure I was one of the first to volunteer to help test, I signed up as the article went live and yet I'm not in the test. So a first come first serve argument is not truthful then. Have they selected people randomly?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[88888]
Players
967 posts
11,149 battles
11 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

I'm pretty sure I was one of the first to volunteer to help test, I signed up as the article went live and yet I'm not in the test. So a first come first serve argument is not truthful then. Have they selected people randomly?

giphy.gif

Sure they have. 

:)

  • Funny 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
489 posts
6,521 battles
1 hour ago, Fat_Maniac said:

Subs and CV's should be moved to separate game modes, with appropriate objectives to drive game tactics and meta development from the player base. And we should have a separate mode for surface battles only. Everyone can pick and choose what they like to play then.

Agree. Although it won't be moving subs and CV's to another game mode, they are clearly destined to be part of the full game, but it is apparent from the of anti-CV-REEEEEEE and the gradually increasing whine of anti-sub REEEEEEE that the playerbase is split and a basic game mode is required. Call it Coop+ or something, with no subs or CV's. 

 

The full game mode will obviously, as WG clearly intend, be fully featured. But if people want to play a more streamlined, lets call it 'simpler' surface ship shooting experience then WG should cater for that and it should sit nicely somewhere between coop and fully featured random gameplay.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,266 posts
3,989 battles
1 minute ago, WynnZeroOne said:

Agree. Although it won't be moving subs and CV's to another game mode, they are clearly destined to be part of the full game, but it is apparent from the of anti-CV-REEEEEEE and the gradually increasing whine of anti-sub REEEEEEE that the playerbase is split and a basic game mode is required. Call it Coop+ or something, with no subs or CV's. 

 

The full game mode will obviously, as WG clearly intend, be fully featured. But if people want to play a more streamlined, lets call it 'simpler' surface ship shooting experience then WG should cater for that and it should sit nicely somewhere between coop and fully featured random gameplay.

And it's easy for them to set up, could be done very very quickly.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NIKE]
Beta Tester
3,405 posts
7,325 battles
25 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

I'm pretty sure I was one of the first to volunteer to help test, I signed up as the article went live and yet I'm not in the test. So a first come first serve argument is not truthful then. Have they selected people randomly?

They appear to have either picked randomly, OR picked a certain number of players from different "catagories" - e.g. new/experienced, or good/bad.

 

Some of the feedback questions were about how much you understood the mechanics, so it wouldnt suprise me if they selected a bunch of baddies too, to see how easy it is to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
296 posts
3,892 battles
2 hours ago, Fat_Maniac said:

This is an arcade game not a simulation.

 

Subs and CV's should be moved to separate game modes, with appropriate objectives to drive game tactics and meta development from the player base. And we should have a separate mode for surface battles only. Everyone can pick and choose what they like to play then.

 

The issue is we don't have a large enough player base in each region to support that at the moment.

IMO, the big questions to ask here is:

 

Is WG forced to make decisions like "no separate game-modes" or "we won't put much effort into PvE, because that would hurt our PvP population"  because the population is too low, or is the population too low because of those (and other) decisions, WG has made - and could such a trend perhaps be reversed by stopping making said decisions?

 

I mean, if, as an example,  a well-build PvE part would hurt PvP play that much, doesn't this show that there is a substantial demand for PvE content?

Isn't this a market that could be tabbed into?

 

And if adding CV and in the future subs to the standard game-mode has/will drive away players, at which point would it have been more beneficial financially, to create separate modes in the first place and keep those players?

 

I don't know the answer to that.

All I know is, that back during open beta, EU population was regularly around 30k people online during the day, while today, on a Friday afternoon at 16:00 hours, there are 16k online - granted, I haven't checked on other days/times, but I don't remember that number _ever_ being that low unless early morning weekends back then.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Weekend Tester
1,235 posts

I agree with separate game modes, but the surface gun ships are the bread and butter of this game so carriers and subs need to get a separate mode where the surface ships are just targets. After all, the AI is probably better at forming anti air -blobs than humans. Sub hunting will be a bit more complicated, though.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,266 posts
3,989 battles
45 minutes ago, MAD_3R_Marauder said:

I mean, if, as an example,  a well-build PvE part would hurt PvP play that much, doesn't this show that there is a substantial demand for PvE content?

Isn't this a market that could be tabbed into?

I think the issue here is that WG cannot effectively make money from PvE in the same way they can from PvP.  So they aren't investing in it. Just look at the lack of new operations.

 

There is no need for camo's or premium consumables in Co-Op. Maybe just maybe if WG did a hard mode with better AI logic then they could increase the economic rewards for such a mode. Players would then start to feel there is an economic imperative to invest in camo's and premium consumables.

 

But that means better AI logic and that is costly in dev time AND server resources to actually run it.

 

A cheap way round it would be to up the tier level of the bots faced, but that only really works in low to mid tiers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PANEU]
Beta Tester
1,975 posts
13,869 battles

There wont be separate game modes for non cv/sub gameplay, WG doesnt want to split the (not that big) playerbase even more. 

Thats why they dont improve coop or leave the special modes like arms race permanent in the game. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
296 posts
3,892 battles
1 hour ago, Fat_Maniac said:

I think the issue here is that WG cannot effectively make money from PvE in the same way they can from PvP.  So they aren't investing in it. Just look at the lack of new operations.

 

There is no need for camo's or premium consumables in Co-Op. Maybe just maybe if WG did a hard mode with better AI logic then they could increase the economic rewards for such a mode. Players would then start to feel there is an economic imperative to invest in camo's and premium consumables.

 

But that means better AI logic and that is costly in dev time AND server resources to actually run it.

 

A cheap way round it would be to up the tier level of the bots faced, but that only really works in low to mid tiers.

From what I read on the forum, WG actually put the Operations AI into CoOp for a time (I wasn't here at the time, since I took a looooooong break, so it's kinda hear-say), but put the stupid bots in again, because player's win-rate plummeted (if this was indeed the reason for putting the stupid-bots back in, that was grade-A stupid. Of course the player's win-rate will go down considerably - that's the whole friggin point)

 

LOL, I guess I should come to the point I'm trying to make, which is that this improved AI is already there, so rather limited dev-time should be needed (of course, I'm saying this as someone who knows jack s**t about programming, so yeah...)

 

With re. to server costs, well, yeah, more server capacity would probably be needed, but let's be real here, costs for server capacity has dropped about the same as cost for RAM, i.e. it has never been as cheap as today and tomorrow it will be even cheaper.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IGB]
Beta Tester
182 posts
8,865 battles
On 9/21/2019 at 1:13 PM, Smeggo said:

1200 - 2000 UTC. Server just gone online.

I know its a week to late  but were did you get that information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NIKE]
Beta Tester
3,405 posts
7,325 battles
1 hour ago, MAD_3R_Marauder said:

From what I read on the forum, WG actually put the Operations AI into CoOp for a time (I wasn't here at the time, since I took a looooooong break, so it's kinda hear-say), but put the stupid bots in again, because player's win-rate plummeted (if this was indeed the reason for putting the stupid-bots back in, that was grade-A stupid. Of course the player's win-rate will go down considerably - that's the whole friggin point)

 

LOL, I guess I should come to the point I'm trying to make, which is that this improved AI is already there, so rather limited dev-time should be needed (of course, I'm saying this as someone who knows jack s**t about programming, so yeah...)

 

With re. to server costs, well, yeah, more server capacity would probably be needed, but let's be real here, costs for server capacity has dropped about the same as cost for RAM, i.e. it has never been as cheap as today and tomorrow it will be even cheaper.

On the Sub test server, the AI there is actually reasonable (for AI) - DD stop in smoke, they scout without firing their guns etc. Compared to Co-op where they yolo at full speed firing, the AI in sub test is god-like. The worrying part is the bots in sub test are frequently better than normal players

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
6,058 posts
23,166 battles
1 hour ago, Xevious_Red said:

On the Sub test server, the AI there is actually reasonable (for AI) - DD stop in smoke, they scout without firing their guns etc. Compared to Co-op where they yolo at full speed firing, the AI in sub test is god-like. The worrying part is the bots in sub test are frequently better than normal players

 

You don't play CoOp much then, right? 'Cause the normal bots in CoOp are better than at least 30% of the players they face :cap_haloween:

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALONE]
Modder
2,375 posts
14,345 battles
Vor 4 Stunden, mirage77 sagte:

I know its a week to late  but were did you get that information?

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/public-test/submarines-beta-test/

Zitat

The server will be available during the following prime time only: 12:00 (UTC)–20:00 (UTC). This way, we can get the maximum number of real players together to reduce the number of bots in battles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
489 posts
6,521 battles
8 hours ago, MAD_3R_Marauder said:

Is WG forced to make decisions like "no separate game-modes" or "we won't put much effort into PvE, because that would hurt our PvP population"  because the population is too low, or is the population too low because of those (and other) decisions, WG has made - and could such a trend perhaps be reversed by stopping making said decisions?

 

Not really, no.

 

Some haters are already attempting to drive the 'game is dying' narrative/epic-REEEEEEE in the CV-Rage thread, but WG aren't doing all of this so it can be a mini-game. Subs and CV's are clearly intended to be part of the main game to keep it relevant, fresh and progressive. This will happen regardless of resistance from that small pocket of the player base that doesn't like the changes as would be the case with any other developer out there.

 

As I said above, and you really don't need a crystal ball for this assessment of WG intentions, the full game mode will obviously be a CV and Sub inclusive fully featured experience, not some 'mode'. As such it isn't an exercise in rocket science to deduce that if people want to play a more streamlined 'simpler' surface ship experience then WG will cater for that as a separate mode.

 

The idea that years of work as part of the roadmap for the game is about to become some minor mode is spectacular misconception.

 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
37 posts
2,635 battles

Submarines YEH or is it, it seams only those players that got special invites will be testing them so. To help test I have now uninstalled the TST server and all the Public test servers from my accounts im sure this will help because it will reduce the number of players that were hoping to test but are being told they are not going to be invited. Have a very nice test all those community members and streamers that have been able to test because you were invited, as for me I will not be testing any thing any more.. I also understand it is now almost a waist of time to put any bug reports in or report players so I will also not do it any more..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
198 posts
3,776 battles

Just keep them out of Random, that's all I'm asking. The game is cruddy enough with unkillable planes, DD play ruined and HE spamming, broken AF russian ships like the Scrublensk.

 

We don't need homing torpedos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,266 posts
3,989 battles
3 hours ago, Bad_Mojo_incoming said:

We don't need homing torpedos.

 

Actually we do. Subs appear to be a good counter to the CV if you can get close enough. Also subs will help send the  HE spammers to Davy Jones's Locker.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,474 posts
9,386 battles
On 9/21/2019 at 3:07 PM, Xevious_Red said:

You can just leave fighters till they resurface/periscope, they provide decent XP (as do more % of HP), and can be finished off with 3-4 rocket strikes. Its not a huge amount of effort while DD hunting to loop back around and take out a sub instead.

Can one bomb submarines effectively?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NIKE]
Beta Tester
3,405 posts
7,325 battles
23 minutes ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

Can one bomb submarines effectively?

Didnt really try bombs - rockets are my preffered anti DD so I was using them. AP probably wont work as you need splash damage, but HE probably will

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PANEU]
Beta Tester
1,975 posts
13,869 battles
2 hours ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

Can one bomb submarines effectively?

Yes UK carpet bombs can one shot subs even on periscope depth, but all bombs hurt them, AP bombs too

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[88888]
Players
967 posts
11,149 battles

Anybody can comment on how dds have been affected by the goose sub chase so far?

 

I understand a new main mode is coming, but for the sake if simplicity can we have a vanilla game with no CVs or subs please? Just mano a mano surface ships.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×