Jump to content
Flandre Bug Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Tanatoy

Submarine Battles results and work on submarines (DB 60)

85 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WG]
WG Staff, Administrator, Community, WG Team
5,018 posts
4,216 battles

We would like to thank you for your participation to the submarines battles modes and would like to show you what we are planning next.

 

Read more.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 6
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
14,693 posts
20,960 battles

WG: CV players are too stupid to manage more than one thing at the same time.

Also WG: BB/CA players now have to do a RTS manual drop to counter submarines while doing everything else they're supposed to do as a BB/CA.

 

tenor.gif

  • Cool 11
  • Funny 11
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OCTO]
Players
1,240 posts
29,342 battles
23 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Also WG: BB/CA players now have to do a RTS manual drop to counter submarines while doing everything else they're supposed to do as a BB/CA.

 

 

Which is what exactly? Sail to the end of the map and click mouse once every 30 seconds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L123]
Players
101 posts
21,602 battles

Is it possible to put again a test on live server as submarines mode at Tier VIII ?

Would be interesting to check some results.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,040 posts
9,328 battles
2 hours ago, Tanatoy said:

We would like to thank you for your participation to the submarines battles modes and would like to show you what we are planning next.

 

Read more.

 

1.

While I am Happy that this will be an Indirect Buff to German Battleships because they thanks to their Hydro and Floatplanes are likely to become pretty Efficient Submarines Hunters now.

This in a Sense will make it Pretty hard for Submarines to do anything.

At least if these Charges are Strong enough to bother the Submarine. Because this means that thanks to their extremely Limited Range, Low Speed and Low HP even Attacking a Battleship will become a Deathtrap as unlike DDs they cannot do it without Revealing their rough Location. (DDs only reveal a Previous Location cause the Torps wont be seen for quite a while and tend to have the Speed and Range to actually Change their Position rapidly)

 

2.

DD Hydrophones now Outranging certain Submarines is also a Problem to be Honest.

Because it means that now a Submarine Literally cannot get close to a DD while staying Hidden.

And worse. Now a DD can basicly sit behind a BB and his Hydrophone will Pick up the Sub causing the BBs and Heavy Cruisers to Send waves of Bombers there.....

 

3.

The Spotting Changes Increase that Effect. Because now effectively a DD will be able to Locate a Submarine before the Submarine can even See the DD. Because the DD will get a Warning of the Submarines rough Location 7km away. While the Submarine will be Spotting the DD only when its between 3 and 5 km away depending on the DDs Concealment.

Which will make Fighting off or Escaping a DD even less Possible than it already was.

I would Understand this Change if BBs and Heavy Cruisers would not have gotten ASW Weapons.

But with CAs and BBs getting ASW Weapons this Change turns Subs into Fodder which will have Trouble Attacking anything at all.

 

4.

At least the Final Change of making HE hit below Water to a higher Depth than the Surface Depth of the Sub is a Good Change as it Creates a Buffer.

I hope you also remember to make Depth Charges not become useless when the Sub just Surfaces.

 

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

WG: CV players are too stupid to manage more than one thing at the same time.

Also WG: BB/CA players now have to do a RTS manual drop to counter submarines while doing everything else they're supposed to do as a BB/CA.

 

tenor.gif

 

Nothing new there.

 

From the Fact that a CV must not be taken out of the Game no matter how Badly he Plays while any other Ship would basicly be Killed if it did that.

To the Fact that DDs by now basicly have to know a Second Concealment Range have to Constantly fiddle with their AA Guns and have to know Attack Distances of different Plane Squadrons of Different CVs to somehow be able to at least make themselves harder Targets etc etc.

 

From the get go. It seems WG has an extremely low Opinion of CV Players.

I wonder why they dont just Automate the Complete Process of CVs and basicly have the CV Player just Steer the Ship while Clicking Targets for Bombing Strikes with a Binocular.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NEXT]
Players
5,688 posts
11,574 battles
55 minutes ago, Smeggo said:

These changes look promising  :fish_happy:

 I thought the same, but I also think some changes still have to be done. If I'm not wrong, the Periscope depth has still no real function. And I think we need deck guns :3

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
241 posts
2,817 battles

Really determined to force this square peg into a round hole aren't you?

 

Maybe, just maybe you should stop wasting energy on something that will never be good for the game and start fixing it's issues instead of adding more...

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,464 posts
18,486 battles

Anti-submarine armaments for battleships and heavy cruisers 

 

In the new test iteration, battleships and heavy cruisers will be able to call anti-submarine defense planes. When choosing this type of weapon, the camera rises, and the aiming reticle will allow the player to select a point within a radius of about 10 km, into which, after a while, an aircraft will drop a depth charge. Charges of anti-submarine armaments will be gradually restored, like the charges of depth charges. Battleships and heavy cruisers will be able to locate where approximately a submarine is with the help of hydrophone at a 3-5 km distance.

 

This is quite an interesting idea - however I think it should be a consumable for BBs and CAs which currently have aircraft handling equipment and can slot a fighter or Spotter plane. Might be an interesting re-balancing factor, esp. at high tiers. 

 

Also: good way of introducing Helicopters. Tiger class cruiser as ASW Specialist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SERBS]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,623 posts
9,595 battles

How about to give up from them? Much easier and lesser work. 

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NEXT]
Players
5,688 posts
11,574 battles
1 minute ago, _DeathWing_ said:

How about to give up from them? Much easier and lesser work. 

you could say that to every game, that patches the game. Less work, and easier not to patch and offer more content xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,758 posts
14,397 battles

Sonar Ping changes

This seems like an improvement for both sides in my opinion although one of the main issue with pinging was more to do with how easy it was to see how your ping traveled to your target so you could correct your aim.

 

Battery Mechanics changes

Penalising SS with low battery seems logical but I still feel like there should be a point where SS are forced back to the surface.

 

ASW on BB and CA

This seems good, an option for the bigger ships is better than no option at all and the actual mechanics of it seem interesting.

 

Hydrophone changes

Solid improvement here, but why is hydrophone now 7km? Should it not scale a bit with tier?

 

Detectability changes

This sounds beneficial but confusing... are players going to have another minimap ring now so they can see their surface SS concealment? How does this work underwater?

 

Other changes

The surface layer is still 6m but projectiles can hit up to 10m down now, is that right? Only testing will prove if this is sufficient

 

 

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,050 posts
8,570 battles

I like that the development team went ahead with some fresh creative ideas. Let's see how it works out in practice. Haters gonna hate.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NEXT]
Players
5,688 posts
11,574 battles
9 hours ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

Battery Mechanics changes

Penalising SS with low battery seems logical but I still feel like there should be a point where SS are forced back to the surface.

It's kinda indirectly forced to surface with that mechanic. It's just the decision of the player. He could stay forever submerged, but this might make him very useless. I like this mechanic

 

9 hours ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

Detectability changes

This sounds beneficial but confusing... are players going to have another minimap ring now so they can see their surface SS concealment? How does this work underwater?


As I understood it, it's just like you said, a new circle. Like Ship concleament, air concleament, submarine concealment. Sounds like a good improvment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,090 posts

Well we're getting them like it or not, That's how WG roll, I would really look forward to and  enjoy playing them in a seperate game modes alas shoe horning Subs into fleet battles I'm thinking is going to fail  as it did in real life with very few exeptions and some catasrophic results (K Class)  I hope I'm wrong, can't see it though.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
447 posts

I think this is erroring too much to the other side, I already didnt want to play submarines with its obtuse aiming mechanic and now I want to play even less considering not only the mechanic is apparently fine comrade but they want to overload commanding a sub with even more crap to deal with.

 

Also if the developers think listing to the screeching of the "playerbase" is a good idea, its not ... they made their head about how the game should be and nothing will change their minds, all I can say I hated trying to use a sub in PT and nothing I see changed my impression from that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NEXT]
Players
5,688 posts
11,574 battles
2 minutes ago, WWDragon said:

Also if the developers think listing to the screeching of the "playerbase" is a good idea, its not ... they made their head about how the game should be and nothing will change their minds, all I can say I hated trying to use a sub in PT and nothing I see changed my impression from that.

Fun fact, most people think, they never listen to the playerbase :3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
447 posts
6 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Fun fact, most people think, they never listen to the playerbase :3

They do but its selective, the people that sounds knowledgeable gets their ear as people that simply say what they feel but cannot articulate it on a mechanical level get ignored. There is also a positive feedback loop were if you confirm their own ideas they are more likely to keep listening to you.

 

There is still personal bias, some developers like the notion of "balanced" items with then having a upside and a downside and design games around those mechanics as others simply see upgrades that, a upgrade that doesnt have a downside and then there are the ones that use both ideas, if you start make every module in the game "balanced" then you would see a split in the playerbase as you surely noticed it with the Unique Modules (that basically suck balls as far I am concerned) because they are "sidegrades" on what pretty much is a upgrade system, that personal bias on leadership roles means they wont budge no matter what people say, the whole obtuse ping mechanic is something I am sure someone really likes and wont go away and this is why I am not even bothering with subs after experiencing it because no matter how much I complain, it will only change if people hate it so much the number of people that actually play subs is too low to justify their existence (and Premium sales, what really matters in the end) and so they are forced into making changes.

 

Screeching SUBS BAD! isnt going to make then change their minds because you arent telling then anything outside "muh fee fees", you have to tell then exactly what the problems you have are otherwise you get ignored, doesnt mean if you tell what problems specifically you have that they will change the whole thing but its at least proper feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NEXT]
Players
5,688 posts
11,574 battles
2 minutes ago, CastorTolagi said:

Do they also spot WG?

 

Because if they do:
3.0.png.5d627f028841d8fbfc6c561cf36dd661.png3.0.png.5d627f028841d8fbfc6c561cf36dd661.png3.0.png.5d627f028841d8fbfc6c561cf36dd661.png3.0.png.5d627f028841d8fbfc6c561cf36dd661.png3.0.png.5d627f028841d8fbfc6c561cf36dd661.png

The fighter and Spotter planes were supposed to spot, though Maybe they rework the mechanic

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NEXT]
Players
5,688 posts
11,574 battles
19 minutes ago, WWDragon said:

They do but its selective, the people that sounds knowledgeable gets their ear as people that simply say what they feel but cannot articulate it on a mechanical level get ignored. There is also a positive feedback loop were if you confirm their own ideas they are more likely to keep listening to you.

 

There is still personal bias, some developers like the notion of "balanced" items with then having a upside and a downside and design games around those mechanics as others simply see upgrades that, a upgrade that doesnt have a downside and then there are the ones that use both ideas, if you start make every module in the game "balanced" then you would see a split in the playerbase as you surely noticed it with the Unique Modules (that basically suck balls as far I am concerned) because they are "sidegrades" on what pretty much is a upgrade system, that personal bias on leadership roles means they wont budge no matter what people say, the whole obtuse ping mechanic is something I am sure someone really likes and wont go away and this is why I am not even bothering with subs after experiencing it because no matter how much I complain, it will only change if people hate it so much the number of people that actually play subs is too low to justify their existence (and Premium sales, what really matters in the end) and so they are forced into making changes.

 

Screeching SUBS BAD! isnt going to make then change their minds because you arent telling then anything outside "muh fee fees", you have to tell then exactly what the problems you have are otherwise you get ignored, doesnt mean if you tell what problems specifically you have that they will change the whole thing but its at least proper feedback.

But that's the obvious. Some people say this, some people say that. But WG is the Developer, so they decide, not the community. They listen to feedback and use this feedback for their ideas, really see no issue with that. ^^

And there will be always complaints, I'm pretty sure. I personally like all the new changes with no exception. But that doesn't mean, that the whole concept is perfect. There are still 2 points, that have to be changed, then it could be fine for me

- periscope depth with function: It's nothing else than a surface level, but it should actually have an own function and meachanic. It should be the major attack mode

- Deck guns: Most will still say, they are useless, but they won't be useless, and beside that, some submarines would be get unique features with their guns. (Surcouf, IJN submarines)

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
447 posts
5 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

- periscope depth with function: It's nothing else than a surface level, but it should be actually have an own function and meachanic. It should be the major attack mode

- Deck guns: Most will still say, they are useless, but they won't be useless, and beside that, some submarines would be get unique features with their guns. (Surcouf, IJN submarines)

- It would be better that the ping mechanic, just make it so torpedoes have the same line as destroyers and not that stupid narrow firing angle ... if you want ping as a alternative that sets the torpedo lined up with the target sure, harder to use - safer to use with periscope being easier to use - more dangerous to use, balance the damage if you must as otherwise all you achieve is further increase the skill/damage gap.

 

-Deck guns were a thing back in WWI, U-139 had a couple of 150mm guns even if the USN had much lower calibers on theirs (76 mm) and so did the RN so I do see a use for the "submarine cruisers" instead of everything being the same with a bit more speed here, more range there and with this consumable, as it stands they are basically the same and they seem to be stuck in WWII era only lacking WW I designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG]
WG Staff, Administrator, Community, WG Team
5,018 posts
4,216 battles

Hi,

 

It's not decided yet if the ASW plane would be able to spot. In one hand, letting ASW planes spot is not something very desirable and on the other hand an armament which is useful in a very rare situation is also something not ideal. However, according to your feedback and our analysis, we really thought it was necessary to implement this armament, the exact way will be decided during the different testing. 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×