Submarines

[Condensadordefluzo]

Im the only one that want submarines as new content?

i thnk that would be nice

[lafeel]

15 minutes ago, Condensadordefluzo said:

Im the only one that want submarines as new content?

i thnk that would be nice

They're being worked on, but not coming any time soon, last I heard they still need a lot of work.

[SkollUlfr]

you are not.

but like most things, it comes down to implementation.

there are a lot of carrots and sticks that have gone into creating the current game meta, and a lot of balance corrections that where ham-fisted.

 

to limit peekaboo play, weegee slapped a penalty on the accelleration on all ships. which turned a lot of peekaboo into positional island camping as ships lost agility.

to limit cv sniping that left only one team with a cv, weegee created the rework, which removed the battlecard cv play. while it mostly prevented complete domination by one cv against another, it cause endless high tier balance issues, and left low tier ships like kolberg, that have modelled aa weapons, listed as having zero aa rating.

to counter that same issue created by the MvR weegee nurfed the boost of every rocket plane squadron in the game.

 

and there are likely dozens of such reactions in the games history that make players uneasy about major changes.

[Ryuuteimaru]

The time subs are added is when I quit.

[Riggerby]

My thoughts on submarines are the same as 2015 Wargamings thoughts on submarines.

 

 

I am quite torn on them to be honest. I think no matter what, we are getting them, so its not if but when. Wargaming have just invested too much time and resources into them to just scrap them at this point, so now all we can do is hope we get them in a balanced and tolerable state.

The glimpse we all got to play of them in that temporary game mode, i really did not like them. I thought sub vs sub combat was tedious and unfun, i thought sub vs DD interaction was just a joke, the subs acted like a Radar perma spotting the DD's trying to hunt them making Anti Sub work literal suicide, but on the flip side if the DD did manage to get depth charges off the sub was just insta death, totally unfun for both parties. But the thing i hated most was just the total, complete lack of counterplay cruisers but especially BB's had against them. Playing a BB in that mode was just... ugh... Honestly when flanks became sub vs BB the BB player may aswell just alt tab, open task manager and force quit the game. It was pointless. 

 

The best i personally hope for now is that when they do come, they exist only in Coop or their own special game mode. Maybe a mode where its like a team of Subs has to sink an AI convoy and a team of DD players has to defend them. Idk, basically just anything where the primary victim of the subs isnt a player. Fortunately AI doesn't experience hair tearing anger when being bullied by OP things like us humble homosapiens do. 

 

I mean, I guess we will just have to wait and see what they look like in future tests right?. Maybe Wargaming could find some way to balance them and make them an interesting addition to the game, i just really don't see how they do it to be honest. I honestly really fear and worry subs will end up just another class every one hates like Artillery in Wot or CV in Wows, and the thought of sitting here in 12 or 24 months time getting told to 'just dodge' the heatseeking sub torpedos is just upsetting really. 

[Verblonde]

2 hours ago, Condensadordefluzo said:

Im the only one that want submarines as new content?

Unfortunately, you aren't.

 

Sadly, we're almost certainly going to get them added whether we want them or not; the best we can hope for is that they don't entirely ruin the game, but I'm not terribly optimistic:

• We all know what happened with the reework (still not right more than a year and a half after implementation).
• The initial sub mode was bloody awful ( @Riggerby covers the why off well).

WG may surprise us all and devise a way to add submarines such that they actually improve the game; I'll be pleasantly surprised if that's the case, as they tend to be driven by money more than anything else, and that applies pressure to release things too soon i.e. before they've been got to work correctly.

[Itwastuesday]

Well they need to lose free depth movement and have just a set of fixed depths for different gameplay purposes. Like surfaced for spotting/cap, periscope depth for torps, underwater for stealth and deep for evading depth bombs.

[U69_2020]

5 hours ago, Condensadordefluzo said:

Im the only one that want submarines as new content?

No, you are not! 

[Ashardalon_Dragnipur]

first GW needs to figure out that you cant have a zone where ships are completely immune to all damage 

instead of getting both immunities in the transition from depth to deeper they need to have none

if they can wrap their head around that they might possibly be possible to balance

but i doubt they can figure that out 

planes still only die after they killed off their target 

[zengaze]

Ah subs, it will never work, they will work at them until they agree it will never work (they already have), then someone at the top will tell them times up, subs are in broken or not. Then there will be much gnashing of teeth, and probably a lot of uninstalls.

[Captain_Newman]

They’re using the same false logic as with the cv rework; too much time and resources invested so we can’t drop it. Yes you can, your game will reach a critical point where the amount of people you drive off will no longer be covered by the influx of new players. Then there will be a bunch of panic reactionary moves that will likely only compound the problem.

 

The last implementation of subs that I’ve seen was both boring to play and boring to play against. No ability to surface and sonar pinging the whole game was far more boring than the tension of running out of air and having to surface, so you needed to plan your movements carefully. In addition, guided torps that can cause citadel hits were dumb and broken.

 

If they must shove this class into the game then they need to go to the concept of air being a resouce you need to stay underwater (or battery power, both replenish on the surface, and some boats may be able to use snorkel to prolong it) and get rid of guided torps.

[U69_2020]

2 hours ago, Captain_Newman said:

If they must shove this class into the game then they need to go to the concept of air being a resouce you need to stay underwater (or battery power, both replenish on the surface, and some boats may be able to use snorkel to prolong it) and get rid of guided torps.

Germany: Hold my beer...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_XXI_submarine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7es_torpedo

[Captain_Newman]

8 minutes ago, U69_2020 said:

Germany: Hold my beer...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_XXI_submarine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7es_torpedo

 

Not sure what your point is, though? Genuine question. I'd say the vast majority of people here have at least enough interest in all things naval that they've heard of type XXI and ww2-era acoustic guidance torps... so yes, we know about those. Realism and historical accuracy aren't reasons for something broken to be in the game, this isn't a realistic simulation but rather a team vs team pvp shooter with a naval theme.

[SkollUlfr]

surface ships with large calliber guns need to be able to use those shells as depth charges down to at least periscope depth.

[Hirohito]

7 hours ago, Riggerby said:

but on the flip side if the DD did manage to get depth charges off the sub was just insta death, totally unfun for both parties. 

If they managed to get off depth charges, that is.
I played against some rather decent sub captains, and at that point I felt the sub was more of a threat to my DD than the other way around.
One particular bastard kept hovering around the 6m mark, and as soon as I dropped charges he went above 6 km and became immune.
At that point I had to be extremely careful of my position vs the sub, because he could point blank torp me either from his front or rear, meaning I had to align myself perfectly on his side and use my guns (which took ages to sink him, and kept me lit for the enemy team in the meantime).
Even if I would succeed at staying on his side at point blank range using my guns, there was also the off chance that he would just try to ram me outright to take a favourable trade considering his position.

Needless to say, it was extremely frustrating to sink a sub as a DD, and impossible to do so as a BB, CA or CV (as long as he juked at the 6m mark).

No wonder we saw 179 subs in the queue, 0 BBs, 1 cruiser, 1 CV and 4-5 DDs.
They really were that broken.

[Uglesett]

[Eikkuu]

Il y a 10 heures, Condensadordefluzo a dit :

Im the only one that want submarines as new content?

i thnk that would be nice

Maybe, there are not good feedbacks for submarines as l know, just imagine a BB getting torpedoes by DD, CV and sub. l don't think it' s a good point having something more boring in the game. l a CV main but when l play others boats class, l know very well why people can be boring from CV, just can't imagine how the game will be with submarines. 

[Aschwell]

Someone "Hyped" for Subs 

 

[U69_2020]

43 minutes ago, Hirohito said:

If they managed to get off depth charges, that is.
I played against some rather decent sub captains, and at that point I felt the sub was more of a threat to my DD than the other way around.
One particular bastard kept hovering around the 6m mark, and as soon as I dropped charges he went above 6 km and became immune.

I have played both subs and DD, and the only imbalance were allied bots shooting at my DD while I was floating above a sub.

Regarding the 6m exploit... a DD has guns and torps. I have used both against with acceptable success in such situations.

And, in contrast to subs, a DD can use a that funny ramming signal flag.

[Uglesett]

Memes aside, I think you can divide the player population into two coarse groups:

-Those who think subs are cool, and want to see them in the game

-Those who realize what kind of impact they're going to have on game balance and don't want them anywhere near the game.

 

WG couldn't balance one class of unit moving in the third dimension, there is no reason to believe that they can do it for a second one.

[Hirohito]

Just now, U69_2020 said:

I have played both subs and DD, and the only imbalance were allied bots shooting at my DD while I was floating above a sub.

Regarding the 6m exploit... a DD has guns and torps. I have used both against with acceptable success in such situations.

And, in contrast to subs, a DD can use a that funny ramming signal flag.

Yeah I'm not saying I couldn't use the guns when getting on top of him (I did, and sunk quite a few SS' that way), but at that point I found that the dpm on the guns was really too low for the high risk I was putting myself in (keeping myself lit in the open).
Yeah I could have rammed him with the flag on, but is that really the trade I'm looking to take in that situation?

The DD-SS interaction just felt very gimmicky and like terrible design at that point, and nothing at all resembling anything close to actual sea combat of the era.

Hated it.

[Hirohito]

19 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

Memes aside, I think you can divide the player population into two coarse groups:

-Those who think subs are cool, and want to see them in the game

-Those who realize what kind of impact they're going to have on game balance and don't want them anywhere near the game.

 

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive though.

Personally I'd love to see subs successfully implemented in the game, but at the same time, the last rounds of testing have shown how little WG understood of sub "brokenness" before testing.

The whole event was a fiasco, as subs shouldn't even have been released for testing at the current state they were in.
If anything, it only showed how rushed to concept was, and how little WG understood of the rather broken mechanics involved.

To add, I also find the whole concept of homing torps to be absolutely ridiculous.
Torps were generally not homing in that era (especially not with "pings"), so there's the realistic aspect of it.
Then there's the balance aspect of it, where BBs can't reliably take preemptive measures with course corrections (like they can against DD torps).

If sub torps would behave more like DD torps (straight-lining towards where they were shot, and only homing in against other subs so that subs can counter each other), I think there would be at least a little bit less of an outcry against them.
As of now, homing torps only encourage BBs to play even more passively than before, and I'm not sure I can fault the BB players for doing so.

[Yedwy]

11 hours ago, Condensadordefluzo said:

Im the only one that want submarines as new content?

Yes you are

[MrWastee]

20 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

Yes you are

...given a proper implementation (lol).....

WROOONG

[Aethervoxx]

5 hours ago, Captain_Newman said:

They’re using the same false logic as with the cv rework; too much time and resources invested so we can’t drop it.

 

Subs will be here whether the players want them or not. The CV rework happened  whether the players at the time wanted that or not (and approx 90% of forum responders to that question did not).