General Submarines related discussions

[Siagor]

10 hours ago, SmegTheNoob said:

It amazes me how some players do not have a 100% win rate in Coop battles.

 

It happens sometimes, when...

 

9 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

Most all of your team consists of bots, and your realize it a little too late.

 

...happened to me 3-4 times total. Always very late at night, always on t10, when being absentminded I rush forward and eat an instant concentrated salvos from several reds, dying instantly and only then realize all my team are bots - who then lose the battle.

 

All the rest were victories of course, no biggie nor the point. The thing about Coop is not a victory - it's granted - but being better/faster than the rest of your team.

[BLUB__BLUB]

5 hours ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

you want reality? no you dont :)

No, that would be boring - but having a sub that can outdrag other surface ships (Colorado, anyone?) AND have the advantage of being able to never show itself...

Now that is not an experience you'd want to be at the other side of, eh. Basically you have no chance unless the sub does a major FF-up. 

[WingedHussar_Adler]

50 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

No, that would be boring - but having a sub that can outdrag other surface ships (Colorado, anyone?) AND have the advantage of being able to never show itself...

Now that is not an experience you'd want to be at the other side of, eh. Basically you have no chance unless the sub does a major FF-up. 

well to be honest Colorado also have 0 chance against any sub and any dd 1 vs 1....they are faster....they have stealth advantage and can torp him....or gun him down (more risk cause he can defend)

 

teamplay is only option for poor Colorado

[BLUB__BLUB]

7 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

well to be honest Colorado also have 0 chance against any sub and any dd 1 vs 1....they are faster....they have stealth advantage and can torp him....or gun him down (more risk cause he can defend)

Eh, I have a 55%WR in Colorado and 53% solo - it does fine. If you have a DD hunting you yes for sure you have a problem. 
But you can see where he is, and run away, then hide behind an island and zap him if he gets too close. 

If he makes the mistake to use guns then the DD is usually dead. In smoke, he'll have to stay behind or I'll run him down.

Also, even if he's not smoked up, you can move in, using your large HP pool, get him cornered and BOOMSHANKA him. 

 

Not so with subs. First of all they have the guided torps - you never know where they came from... 
...and you'll never see where his ping comes from unless you happen to spot his 'horseshoe' thingy at that exact moment. 

Also, when you finally see him then he just dives. Basically he has some sort of endless smokescreen, can't even blindfire into it.

 

Quote

teamplay is only option for poor Colorado

Well good luck on that with this game... 

[WingedHussar_Adler]

Just now, BLUB__BLUB said:

Eh, I have a 55%WR in Colorado and 53% solo - it does fine. If you have a DD hunting you yes for sure you have a problem. 
But you can see where he is, and run away, then hide behind an island and zap him if he gets too close. 

Also, you can move in, using your large HP pool, get him cornered and BOOMSHANKA him. 

Not so with subs. First of all they have the guided torps - you never know where they came from... 
...and you'll never see where his ping comes from unless you happen to spot his 'horseshoe' thingy at that exact moment. 

Also, when you finally see him then he just dives... 

 

Well good luck on that with this game... 

well mate with guided torps you EXACTLY know where they are coming from (ping....and ping tracer...you can not miss it for sure) and what part of ship they try to hit (it lights up on ship) that can help you to avoid it.

but 1vs1 you have zero chance against any of those class that are not idiots that you can ambush behind corner

[Figment]

Just going to summarise my opinion on the most important ways in which subs and interaction need to change:

 

Goals:

- Higher skill bar to play subs due to increased risk: high risk / high reward game

- More cat & mouse focus

- DDs approaching subs being much safer (natural hunter)

- Reduced situational awareness for submarines

 

Changes to torpedoes:

- Surface level to 3m depth = regular torpedoes

- 4-8m Periscope depth and surface level ONLY level at which you can target surface ships

- 4-8m Periscope depth = deep water torpedoes (can't hit DDs); note: optionally certain subs get Anshan type deepwater torps that only hit BBs and CVs at periscope depth at 4-8m. Making these more vulnerable to cruisers. In exchange they'd get slightly better concealment.

- Homing torpedoes based on engine sound. Cutting the engine loses the tracking, while reducing speed reduces the maneuvrability of the torpedo to compensate for an altered course. Tracking stops at 300m from the tracked target after which the homing torpedoes straightline. Focus of the homing torpedo cannot shift to another ship once launched.

- The Vigilance captain skill adds an alert that you've got homing torpedoes inbound.

 

Changes to detection of submarines:

- Periscope depth subs start at their optimal concealment level when a ship gets within 6km distance of it (as it dives it reduces the concealment range as it does today).

- The longer a submarine at periscope depth is within 6km of enemies, the more it loses its concealment rating until it reaches 4-5km depending on the submarine.

- The Vigilance captain skill increases the rate at which concealment is lost for submarines at periscope depth by 10%

 

Environment / situational awareness

- The ping system should be changed to become basically what the hydrophone does now with regards to ship position updates and provides map information only and visually just a temporary moment in time position and orientation.

- A ping can be used in a 360° sphere and reaches up to 10km. Pings are launched individually and provide the pinged ships a directional feedback on your position. Note that this can be used to triangulate your position (I'd ping the map for the direction, then someone else can do the same and you can then mentally draw a cross and figure out the sub's position)

- Hydrophone itself should be remade to always be active, but it's efficiency depend on the speed of the sub. The faster the sub is moving, the more its sound interferes with the hydrophone: it can't see as far. Every step of the submarine's speed-o-meter reduces hydrophone distance by 15%. Hydrophone max distance may differ per tier and nation, but ought to be in a max range of 5-7km. At full speed this thus reduces to situational awareness of 2 to 2.8km. This ought to force subs to come to periscope depth and surface level some more to get an idea of "what's going on up there".

- Hydrophones can detect enemy subs as well, but typically only at 60% or less of top speed

- At surface level 100% of the 360° area around the sub is visible.

- At periscope depth, only the direction the captain is looking at directly provides visual representation of ships, even in third person mode.

[WingedHussar_Adler]

1 minute ago, Figment said:

Just going to summarise my opinion on the most important ways in which subs and interaction need to change:

 

Goals:

- Higher skill bar to play subs due to increased risk: high risk / high reward game

- More cat & mouse focus

- DDs approaching subs being much safer (natural hunter)

- Reduced situational awareness for submarines

 

Changes to torpedoes:

- Surface level to 3m depth = regular torpedoes

- 4-8m Periscope depth and surface level ONLY level at which you can target surface ships

- 4-8m Periscope depth = deep water torpedoes (can't hit DDs); note: optionally certain subs get Anshan type deepwater torps that only hit BBs and CVs at periscope depth at 4-8m. Making these more vulnerable to cruisers. In exchange they'd get slightly better concealment.

- Homing torpedoes based on engine sound. Cutting the engine loses the tracking, while reducing speed reduces the maneuvrability of the torpedo to compensate for an altered course. Tracking stops at 300m from the tracked target after which the homing torpedoes straightline. Focus of the homing torpedo cannot shift to another ship once launched.

- The Vigilance captain skill adds an alert that you've got homing torpedoes inbound.

 

Changes to detection of submarines:

- Periscope depth subs start at their optimal concealment level when a ship gets within 6km distance of it (as it dives it reduces the concealment range as it does today).

- The longer a submarine at periscope depth is within 6km of enemies, the more it loses its concealment rating until it reaches 4-5km depending on the submarine.

- The Vigilance captain skill increases the rate at which concealment is lost for submarines at periscope depth by 10%

 

Environment / situational awareness

- The ping system should be changed to become basically what the hydrophone does now with regards to ship position updates and provides map information only and visually just a temporary moment in time position and orientation.

- A ping can be used in a 360° sphere and reaches up to 10km. Pings are launched individually and provide the pinged ships a directional feedback on your position. Note that this can be used to triangulate your position (I'd ping the map for the direction, then someone else can do the same and you can then mentally draw a cross and figure out the sub's position)

- Hydrophone itself should be remade to always be active, but it's efficiency depend on the speed of the sub. The faster the sub is moving, the more its sound interferes with the hydrophone: it can't see as far. Every step of the submarine's speed-o-meter reduces hydrophone distance by 15%. Hydrophone max distance may differ per tier and nation, but ought to be in a max range of 5-7km. At full speed this thus reduces to situational awareness of 2 to 2.8km. This ought to force subs to come to periscope depth and surface level some more to get an idea of "what's going on up there".

- Hydrophones can detect enemy subs as well, but typically only at 60% or less of top speed

- At surface level 100% of the 360° area around the sub is visible.

- At periscope depth, only the direction the captain is looking at directly provides visual representation of ships, even in third person mode.

that was wasteed 30 minutes of your life.....i am sure you know that devs give 0 crap for your (or any) sugestions.

but one thing i wonder if you can explain.....SUBS are the WORST class in any relevant stat....DMG/SPOT/CAP....why they actialy need nerf?

[SmegTheNoob]

25 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

well mate with guided torps you EXACTLY know where they are coming from (ping....and ping tracer...you can not miss it for sure) and what part of ship they try to hit (it lights up on ship) that can help you to avoid it.

but 1vs1 you have zero chance against any of those class that are not idiots that you can ambush behind corner

You only know roughly where the ping is coming from, IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE LOOKING IN THE GENERAL DIRECTION OF THE PING AT THE TIME.

If you ain't looking at it, then you don't see the surface banana marker.

Plus the banana marker is never accurate, so usually your air strike misses.

That is if the sub is within the pitiful short range of your air strike in the first place.

[Figment]

22 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

that was wasteed 30 minutes of your life.....i am sure you know that devs give 0 crap for your (or any) sugestions.

My time is mine to waste. Please never talk to me again about your despair levels and pushing your pessimism on others. Like I have no desire for religious people pushing their ideas on me, please don't bother trying to push your believes on dev (in-)action on others. You're a desillusioned pessimist, I'm an optimist.

 

Besides, the above took 12 minutes to write. Some of us have the ability to type at a high rate (and without spelling errors).

Quote

but one thing i wonder if you can explain.....SUBS are the WORST class in any relevant stat....DMG/SPOT/CAP....why they actialy need nerf?

It's an interaction change that would make subs more high risk/high reward/high skill units.

 

As is, subs perform poorly in stats because players are highly inexperienced with subs, where some experienced players are bored out of their skull while getting 100K damage without fear of retaliation. And yes, subs already are a bit hit and miss to many players, but that doesn't mean these players are representative as is, or that it's fine as is.

 

But the real issue is the interaction between subs and surface ships being out of whack in many ways which causes annoyance if not frustration, which is never good for a game. This is particularly true for how homing torps affect one's repair planning as pings can be abused to trick/harass someone into using a repair. Furthermore, tracking down subs is a bit of an issue to many players and gaining situational awareness is as well. Ships that need to approach subs in order to drop ASW overhead often face torp spam on top of surface ships and CV threats (so that threat level should reduce a bit), while deep diving subs can abuse firing torps nearly straight up to hit ships that can't react. 

 

If we change the above we can start looking at ways to buff subs a little where needed. For instance, better torpedo damage or a bit more dive time (though I'd be in favour of a more complex air and ballast system). But one could also start to reduce the frequency and/or range and thereby the threat of air strike ASW, so it shifts more to ship based depth charges and HE damage (as it should be IMO).

 

 

But most importantly, when people start recognising it takes skill to use a sub well and they had an opportunity to fight back, then subs become fastly more accepted and challenging and thereby generating respect to sub players that perform well, rather than more toxicity.

 

As is, the playerbase reacts generally very bad to players who dare use subs (way over the top reactions, sure), but that's a sign that they're highly frustrated and given that they have some fair points that means the design isn't optimally implemented.

[LoneGun1]

7 hours ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

you want reality? no you dont :)

Haha you're right! I play warships because I want to escape reality and also because I like the genre. The reality is we are now stuck with subs so just hoping maybe they'll improve detection for hydro ships.  

[Tanaka_15]

1 hour ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

why they actialy need nerf?

cos they are op :) 

[WingedHussar_Adler]

57 minutes ago, Figment said:

My time is mine to waste. Please never talk to me again about your despair levels and pushing your pessimism on others. Like I have no desire for religious people pushing their ideas on me, please don't bother trying to push your believes on dev (in-)action on others. You're a desillusioned pessimist, I'm an optimist.

 

Besides, the above took 12 minutes to write. Some of us have the ability to type at a high rate (and without spelling errors).

It's an interaction change that would make subs more high risk/high reward/high skill units.

 

As is, subs perform poorly in stats because players are highly inexperienced with subs, where some experienced players are bored out of their skull while getting 100K damage without fear of retaliation. And yes, subs already are a bit hit and miss to many players, but that doesn't mean these players are representative as is, or that it's fine as is.

 

But the real issue is the interaction between subs and surface ships being out of whack in many ways which causes annoyance if not frustration, which is never good for a game. This is particularly true for how homing torps affect one's repair planning as pings can be abused to trick/harass someone into using a repair. Furthermore, tracking down subs is a bit of an issue to many players and gaining situational awareness is as well. Ships that need to approach subs in order to drop ASW overhead often face torp spam on top of surface ships and CV threats (so that threat level should reduce a bit), while deep diving subs can abuse firing torps nearly straight up to hit ships that can't react. 

 

If we change the above we can start looking at ways to buff subs a little where needed. For instance, better torpedo damage or a bit more dive time (though I'd be in favour of a more complex air and ballast system). But one could also start to reduce the frequency and/or range and thereby the threat of air strike ASW, so it shifts more to ship based depth charges and HE damage (as it should be IMO).

 

 

But most importantly, when people start recognising it takes skill to use a sub well and they had an opportunity to fight back, then subs become fastly more accepted and challenging and thereby generating respect to sub players that perform well, rather than more toxicity.

 

As is, the playerbase reacts generally very bad to players who dare use subs (way over the top reactions, sure), but that's a sign that they're highly frustrated and given that they have some fair points that means the design isn't optimally implemented.

In short you wanna nerf ship that perform abmisal bad cause you personal do not have basic skill to fight them. Well ok. It is your right. Gl with that

[WingedHussar_Adler]

41 minutes ago, LoneGun1 said:

Haha you're right! I play warships because I want to escape reality and also because I like the genre. The reality is we are now stuck with subs so just hoping maybe they'll improve detection for hydro ships.  

No they wont. You know they balance ships according their performance and subs performs epicly bad

[WingedHussar_Adler]

19 minutes ago, Tanaka_15 said:

cos they are op :) 

And they are op because they do worst in any stat.  Yes. It makes sense 😀

[Figment]

16 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

In short you wanna nerf ship that perform abmisal bad cause you personal do not have basic skill to fight them. Well ok. It is your right. Gl with that

No. I'm killing way more subs than they kill me, with Dutch air strikes even. However, I'm not representative of the playerbase and I'm leaning heavily on a long history of playing stealth to find and predict the movement of enemy subs, experience I recognise other players not to have. As I'm not designing purely for myself, being an Industrial Design Engineer (and aerospace engineer), I know full well that you need to create a proper interaction design.

 

A design which you can't defend as "it's good as is", since it's clear there's a lot of frustration in the playerbase regarding the interaction between them and subs as is and their arguments are not that bad that it doesn't warrant an overhaul. However, it's also not as bad as some people would want to make it in order to have an argument for removal.

 

 

You however, are incapable and unwilling to listen to others, which makes you someone nobody should listen to and in your case, yes, I highly doubt devs would listen to you as you're incapable of designing anything fairly with that attitude.

[SmegTheNoob]

7 minutes ago, Figment said:

No. I'm killing way more subs than they kill me, with Dutch air strikes even. However, I'm not representative of the playerbase and I'm leaning heavily on a long history of playing stealth to find and predict the movement of enemy subs, experience I recognise other players not to have. As I'm not designing purely for myself, being an Industrial Design Engineer (and aerospace engineer), I know full well that you need to create a proper interaction design.

 

A design which you can't defend as "it's good as is", since it's clear there's a lot of frustration in the playerbase regarding the interaction between them and subs as is and their arguments are not that bad that it doesn't warrant an overhaul. However, it's also not as bad as some people would want to make it in order to have an argument for removal.

 

 

You however, are incapable and unwilling to listen to others, which makes you someone nobody should listen to and in your case, yes, I highly doubt devs would listen to you as you're incapable of designing anything fairly with that attitude.

Look mate. THE DEVS DO NOT LISTEN TO ANY PLAYERS.

 

An overwhelmingly negative response to Subs, yet they do NOTHING.

I don't give a toss if Subs perform badly.

The fact that many players are playing them has driven me away from Random Battles altogether.

I have no interest in playing stupid Submarines.

They are badly implemented, and bad for the game.

I am mainly a BB and Cruiser player, and as far as I am concerned, Subs have ruined my game play experience.

[WingedHussar_Adler]

23 minutes ago, Figment said:

No. I'm killing way more subs than they kill me, with Dutch air strikes even. However, I'm not representative of the playerbase and I'm leaning heavily on a long history of playing stealth to find and predict the movement of enemy subs, experience I recognise other players not to have. As I'm not designing purely for myself, being an Industrial Design Engineer (and aerospace engineer), I know full well that you need to create a proper interaction design.

 

A design which you can't defend as "it's good as is", since it's clear there's a lot of frustration in the playerbase regarding the interaction between them and subs as is and their arguments are not that bad that it doesn't warrant an overhaul. However, it's also not as bad as some people would want to make it in order to have an argument for removal.

 

 

You however, are incapable and unwilling to listen to others, which makes you someone nobody should listen to and in your case, yes, I highly doubt devs would listen to you as you're incapable of designing anything fairly with that attitude.

Out playerbase is dominant sub 50% wr base....offcoirse they cry....as you said yourself, if you are not bot you win more over subs than you lose and you are not near very strong player. In dd, well to be clear beloweqvarage,  and still you win more than lose. 

 

 

[SmegTheNoob]

12 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

Out playerbase is dominant sub 50% wr base....offcoirse they cry....as you said yourself, if you are not bot you win more over subs than you lose and you are not near very strong player. In dd, well to be clear beloweqvarage,  and still you win more than lose. 

 

 

For me, how many times I win against a sub has got nothing to do with how I feel about subs in the game.

I don't care if I kill a sub more times than they kill me.

Its the experience of fighting against subs that I hate.

Esp if I am in a slow battleship with a pitiful range on the ASW air strike.

A stupid sub can just sit outside that ASW range and ping me all day long.

 

Get rid of homing torps and sonar ping locks.

[WingedHussar_Adler]

6 minutes ago, SmegTheNoob said:

For me, how many times I win against a sub has got nothing to do with how I feel about subs in the game.

I don't care if I kill a sub more times than they kill me.

Its the experience of fighting against subs that I hate.

Esp if I am in a slow battleship with a pitiful range on the ASW air strike.

A stupid sub can just sit outside that ASW range and ping me all day long.

 

Get rid of homing torps and sonar ping locks.

If you get rid of homing torps, subs that right now are doing bad, would do literally nothing in game

[Figment]

33 minutes ago, SmegTheNoob said:

Look mate. THE DEVS DO NOT LISTEN TO ANY PLAYERS.

They do at times.

 

They can choose to and they have in the past. What you want to see is them slaveishly following players. They don't which is their right and we can argue on whether or not they're right not to listen, but that doesn't mean they never listen.

 

33 minutes ago, SmegTheNoob said:

An overwhelmingly negative response to Subs, yet they do NOTHING.

Problem is the overwhelming response is also poorly argumented and covered in hyperbole, bad play and aimed at removal rather than fixing. As removal has been communicated to not be an option, the focus should have shifted to improving.

 

The devs DID change quite a few things about subs, including picking up some player suggestions like oil spills to track them, stopping quick dolphining to avoid damage taking and a number of other things.

 

 

Spreadsheet wise they will not listen to players, ever. In other areas like stats, the feedback could have been far more specific and clear, but instead so much noise is generated that people drown out the quality posts. And when there's too much noise, especially if it contains a lot of abuse, of course devs stop listening. I would get tired of "listening" to unreasonable people on an infinite loop too.

 

 

Devs are relatively likely to engage when you make proper proposals. Provide clear reasoning and treat them with a modicum of respect, rather than lose them after one line that reads like you're foaming at the mouth.

[Figment]

8 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

If you get rid of homing torps, subs that right now are doing bad, would do literally nothing in game

Homing torps are actually easier to dodge than straight lining torps... The best way to ensure hits is close range unwarned attacks.

[NewHorizons_1]

24 minutes ago, SmegTheNoob said:

Esp if I am in a slow battleship with a pitiful range on the ASW air strike.

Most battleships have the longest range on their ASW. And get the most slack when homing torps stop tracking as they get near.

Cruiser ASW on the other hand is a joke. Heck, even large CAs like Hindenburg and Venezia have no airstrike and their only ASW are ship dropped depth charges.

As for DDs, lets not even go there.

 

24 minutes ago, SmegTheNoob said:

Get rid of homing torps and sonar ping locks.

There is one advantage to homing torp pings. It's a way for bad sub players to give their approximate position away.

It is annoying, and the use of damage control to mitigate it is laughably bad design.

 

15 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

If you get rid of homing torps, subs that right now are doing bad, would do literally nothing in game

I'm not entirely sure about that. As indicated above, they'd be harder to (roughly) locate.

I suspect they'd be a bigger pain in the @$$ with just regular torps.

 

[SmegTheNoob]

2 minutes ago, Figment said:

They do at times.

 

They can choose to and they have in the past. What you want to see is them slaveishly following players. They don't which is their right and we can argue on whether or not they're right not to listen, but that doesn't mean they never listen.

 

Problem is the overwhelming response is also poorly argumented and covered in hyperbole, bad play and aimed at removal rather than fixing. As removal has been communicated to not be an option, the focus should have shifted to improving.

 

The devs DID change quite a few things about subs, including picking up some player suggestions like oil spills to track them, stopping quick dolphining to avoid damage taking and a number of other things.

 

 

Spreadsheet wise they will not listen to players, ever. In other areas like stats, the feedback could have been far more specific and clear, but instead so much noise is generated that people drown out the quality posts. And when there's too much noise, especially if it contains a lot of abuse, of course devs stop listening. I would get tired of "listening" to unreasonable people on an infinite loop too.

 

 

Devs are relatively likely to engage when you make proper proposals. Provide clear reasoning and treat them with a modicum of respect, rather than lose them after one line that reads like you're foaming at the mouth.

You contradict yourself in this response.

 

First you say that the devs do listen sometimes.

Then you say they don't.

 

I have known all along that Wargaming will NEVER be able to balance Subs fairly.

They knew themselves years ago, when they stated that Subs would not be put into the game.

It has taken them, what, 3 years or more of Sub testing, and still they are NOT fit for purpose.

Yet Wargaming have given up and released them in a broken state.

 

Oh and I have put forward suggestions on many occasions on how to balance Subs, but time and time again, it has been proved that Wargaming do not listen.

Look at the proposed Soviet Subs. If those monstrosities come into the game in their current state. They will be able to outrun 95% of the Destroyers in the game on the surface.

 

This year will be a ton of pathetic premium subs brought into the game.

Plus the British, Japanese and Soviet Subs.

The situation will get worse, not better.

 

I have stopped playing Random Battles altogether.

Is that what Wargaming want?

To drive players away from the game.

[SmegTheNoob]

8 minutes ago, NewHorizons_1 said:

Most battleships have the longest range on their ASW. And get the most slack when homing torps stop tracking.

Cruiser ASW on the other hand is a joke. Heck, even large CAs like Hindenburg and Venezia have no airstrike and their only ASW are ship dropped depth charges.

As for DDs, lets not even go there.

 

You are wrong there. Have you tried playing a tier 5 or tier 6 battleship?

They have a 6 km range ASW air strike.

Yet a tier 6 sub can ping and torp you from as much as 11.5 km away.

Hell, the Sub only has to sit at 7 km range from you and ping / torp you with impunity.

Even if you can drop an air strike on the sub, chances are you will miss.

Its a complete joke.

[NewHorizons_1]

13 minutes ago, SmegTheNoob said:

You are wrong there.

And what ship class, at those tiers, has longer range ASW than a BB? Cruisers certainly do not.

I didn't say it was adequate, I just pointed out that it's the least crap.

OK at T5 BB and CA (if available) airstrikes are equally rubbish.

 

13 minutes ago, SmegTheNoob said:

 Have you tried playing a tier 5 or tier 6 battleship?

They have a 6 km range ASW air strike.

8km for many T6 BBs.