General Submarines related discussions

[WingedHussar_Adler]

1 hour ago, Figment said:

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

Yes if you sail straight

[WingedHussar_Adler]

1 hour ago, NewHorizons_1 said:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Problem with regular torps is that they are slow, have 4 of them, need to be on periscop (hydro sees you) depth, and have low range. 

 

Basically 0 chance to hit anything kiting or with hydro

[SmegTheNoob]

39 minutes ago, NewHorizons_1 said:

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.

 

8km for many T6 BBs.

 

 

I did say tier 5 and tier 6 battleships.

Granted, most tier 6 BB's have 8km range ASW.

But as far as I can tell, all tier 5 BB's have 6km or worse on their ASW.

I get your comment that cruiser ASW can be worse than a BB's ASW.

 

A Sub can easily sit outside either a cruiser or BB's ASW range and ping / torp you.

[Dutchy_2019]

1 hour 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.

 

They have rarely done so, and slavishly following players is not what many critics want. 

The fact that they came up with the 'stun-bomb proposal' for support CVs, of course to be mitigated by DCP is an indictment of them. They have also been extremely slow to fixing OBVIOUS issues in game-play, like, say, the CV MM, especially in low tiers, where especially Hosho and Hermes were brokenly OP,  double CV games were the norm, and triple CV games a common occurrence. 

Often the arguments they use publicly to defend their design decisions are either vague, non-descript, farcical, hypocritical or just do NOT make sense. Prime example - since we are talking about submarines - the argument why Okhotnik does not have ASW (historical accuracy), while apart from the name and the looks of some of the submarines, just about anything with the submarine design is as far away from historical reality as possible - BY DESIGN. Similar with the issue of (fighter-)plane spotting by CVs. A majority of players consider it a massive problem, supported by spread-sheet evidence in smaller modes (Ranked / CBs) which become boring of nearly unplayable (and definitely NOT FUN) when CVs are around where that spotting is a major issue. And all we get is 'well, we tested changes internally and they did not work' - sorry, but that is NOT good enough. If you keep the playerbase having to deal with a clearly broken mechanic, then at least have the decency to explain possible changes, and WHY they did not work. Because currently the way the WG Devs are dealing with this has ALL the hall-marks of the devs not caring or being unwilling, and things being a massive smoke-screen.

 

1 hour ago, Figment said:

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.

 

Maybe on Reddit, and partially the forums, but I am fairly certain that the vast majority of criticisms on like the CC Discord or SuperTest Discord have been far more civil in their criticisms, pointing out issues, and potential improvements.

 

Problem is that IMHO the implementation of subs is so abysmal that they cannot be fixed.

The only hope of fixing things is a complete redesign, but I would argue that this - given the constraints of the game as a whole - again a mission doomed to fail. To be able to integrate subs in a PvP (I would also argue even Co-op) with some chance of success would require a complete redesign of the game from the ground up. It is the Square Peg In Round Hole Problem. And Devs have been very clear that they will NOT change anything considering the most problematic issues with sub-implementation (ping / homing, ASW, submarine vs DD interaction). Indeed, some of the gimmicks they intend to introduce are the exact opposite if what IMHO they should do (again, see the Soviet Sub proposal).

 

[Tanaka_15]

2 hours ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

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

:) ehh no point in arguing with you cos you are blind. Yes :) not as broken as CVs but still broken :) 

[BLUB__BLUB]

7 hours ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

with guided torps you EXACTLY know where they are coming from (ping....and ping tracer...you can not miss it for sure)

No, only when you happen to see it when he pings. So IF you know WHEN he is PINGING, YES... but usually, you miss it. 
For example becasue you were, were looking at ships that you CAN see. Not at some random (empty) spot on the map.

 After he has pinged it, you no longfer see it - but you do see the torps (at a certain distance) coming to you, in a bend. 

Which does NOT trace back to the sub, by the way. And they can have long range, too. Good luck trying to find him, in case he pings again.

And yes you see where they are gonna hit you. Not that it is much help... your 'repair' will return 3x slower than his ping. 
So if you repair... he'll just ping again... and then you can hope to see it... but usually you do not.

Even if you do, hope that he is in range of your RNG-bomb-dump-planes. 

[BLUB__BLUB]

BTW that ping-crap is also BS. The thing you see is some sort of horse-shoe-shaped object in the water. 
But you have no way of knowing if he goes forward, backward or whatever - so WeeGee has now made 'splash damage 800m".

Which is also bullcrap. Because 800m horizontal, and they can only dive 60m vertical hahahaa. 

Also, you cannot rotate these planes, they just drop in a square, basically you should be able to manipulate a line of attack.
So basically they fixed their spaghetti code with more spaghetti code. 

 

What you should actually have is a 'bubble trail' where the torps came from, getting more vague the more time has passed.
And then, if the sub moved above a certain speed, he'd also leave a (large or small) bubble trail. That would make it a lot more fun. 
You could then also have captains with certain skills, like "silent mode" (would enable to go a little bit faster without trail, say 1/4 speed).
Or stuff like "silent propeller" which would give reduced speed, but same sort, so they could go a bit less than half speed.

You'd then have an idea where the sub was, planes would also spot the trail, and dammit stop the automation on CVs,

let them just choose to swap one squad for ASW planes same as some ships can change fighter for spotter plane.
 

[Figment]

13 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

They have rarely done so, and slavishly following players is not what many critics want. [...] Maybe on Reddit, and partially the forums, but I am fairly certain that the vast majority of criticisms on like the CC Discord or SuperTest Discord have been far more civil in their criticisms, pointing out issues, and potential improvements.

The "do my bidding or else" and "there's only one solution which happens to be mine" type postings is excessive here and elsewhere and the fast majority of posts follow the bandwagon outrage model, not constructive critique.

13 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

The fact that they came up with the 'stun-bomb proposal' for support CVs, of course to be mitigated by DCP is an indictment of them. They have also been extremely slow to fixing OBVIOUS issues in game-play, like, say, the CV MM, especially in low tiers, where especially Hosho and Hermes were brokenly OP,  double CV games were the norm, and triple CV games a common occurrence. 

Often the arguments they use publicly to defend their design decisions are either vague, non-descript, farcical, hypocritical or just do NOT make sense. Prime example - since we are talking about submarines - the argument why Okhotnik does not have ASW (historical accuracy), while apart from the name and the looks of some of the submarines, just about anything with the submarine design is as far away from historical reality as possible - BY DESIGN. Similar with the issue of (fighter-)plane spotting by CVs. A majority of players consider it a massive problem, supported by spread-sheet evidence in smaller modes (Ranked / CBs) which become boring of nearly unplayable (and definitely NOT FUN) when CVs are around where that spotting is a major issue. And all we get is 'well, we tested changes internally and they did not work' - sorry, but that is NOT good enough. If you keep the playerbase having to deal with a clearly broken mechanic, then at least have the decency to explain possible changes, and WHY they did not work. Because currently the way the WG Devs are dealing with this has ALL the hall-marks of the devs not caring or being unwilling, and things being a massive smoke-screen.

That's all fun and in no way have I ever said there's not a degree of incompetence, a lot of if not too much trust in their spreadsheet data (and interpretations of them), as well as some detachment with these devs (or really, most the time the original development team on a game is replaced since the new ones tend to either follow bad management more to the letter due to lacking their own authority on the matter and not understanding sufficiently what would happen, or not caring as much). But it's still their game to develop in the way they want. All we can do is make suggestions and I find 95% of the forum populace (I'm not even going to dive into reddit cesspools) to be making only noise and being generally unsupportive of the effort to mitigate poor design choices by driving away devs from forums with their aggressive and offensive behaviour.

 

You see that not just here, but in general forum populations of any fanbase, where the anonymity creates a lowered threshold for toxicity. You always get people who want their favourite thing to be exactly how they personally envision it and they want it yesterday without comprehending any corporate decisionmaking processes, time alotted or required for such projects etc. They're not very good developers themselves, but they want perfection and they want it now and if they don't get it instantly they foam rage and denounce anything they do get.

 

Mind, most of the positive changes to subs have gone unnoticed, because people either didn't recognise them or they were taken for granted. Had there been more sounds of appreciation and encouragement, egging them on in the proper direction of changes and making clear the boundaries of public acceptance, instead of the continuation of "REMOVE SUBS OR ELSE IT GOT EVEN WORSE" we might have seen more of it faster. Most people don't appreciate time investment of what they perceive as a black box where they think their input should result in an (instant) output and get frustrated when it doesn't, or isn't fast enough.

 

You'll notice that a lot of people argue in a way that includes being hit by a sub's torpedo or a dev strike is a clear sign of imbalance, while they cannot show that dev strikes are a very common occurance or under which circumstances they would accept such a dev strike (while always having the double standard that every other class (except CVs?) should have access to dev strike potential. And what really lacks in these discussions is where lines are to be drawn and exactly what would be considered okay.

13 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

Problem is that IMHO the implementation of subs is so abysmal that they cannot be fixed.

The only hope of fixing things is a complete redesign, but I would argue that this - given the constraints of the game as a whole - again a mission doomed to fail. To be able to integrate subs in a PvP (I would also argue even Co-op) with some chance of success would require a complete redesign of the game from the ground up. It is the Square Peg In Round Hole Problem. And Devs have been very clear that they will NOT change anything considering the most problematic issues with sub-implementation (ping / homing, ASW, submarine vs DD interaction). Indeed, some of the gimmicks they intend to introduce are the exact opposite if what IMHO they should do (again, see the Soviet Sub proposal).

"The game" doesn't need redesigning from the ground up, it's BS over the top statements like this that's just adding to the noise and devs can't do anything with. And tbh this argument is designed to support an absolutist statement as it attempts to shut down discussion in favour of removal. It'll never be adhered to, so why even bother stating such nonsense?

 

From what I've seen we're talking more about an octogonal peg for a round hole. The current design got a lot of rough edges and oversimplifications, but nothing that can't be fixed. The interaction between units is relatively easy to redesign, but it requires submarines to be forced to be in range and increase the risk of being exposed. IMO it also requires the introduction of ASDIC mechanics for some surface units and more complex submarine sub-mechanics (like deep-dive escapes, with increased risk of spontaneous floodings). Nothing that can't be coded into the existing game and with existing models.

 

I do think the creativity in the playerbase and with developers is lacking in this respect. When I see posts decrying the implementation of subs in this game some people may even compare it to other sub games they know, but not in specifics of which design elements could be copied, implemented or improved upon and in which sense a more simplified "arcade" if you will, representation makes sense for this game. Very rarely have I seen extensive, proper in-depth discussions and arguments here on how subs should be redesigned and within which sets of limitations from what baseline design.

 

Btw, WoWs' subplay is definitely not the worst sub-play I've ever seen - that reward goes to subs with OP cruise missiles and nuclear torpedoes in the C&C Red Alert Aftermath and Counterstrike expansions.

 

But the subs do need changes, as do many mechanics surrounding them and specs and variables used are in need of overhaul, where tinkering with current variables will not suffice. The pampering of survival rates and all that they're doing is also unnecessary and counter-productive. If they didn't want subs to kill other subs at the start, they could have just placed them a larger distance apart and limit the amount of subs per match to two (I'd also put in subs with the CVs in the MM, 1 of each or 2 of one type to prevent things like 3 subs and 2 CVs out of 9 players in late night games).

 

But I see a lot of changes that can be done on relatively short notice to mitigate most issues with subs and ASW. Unfortunately a lot of people find it much more easy to just give up if at first it doesn't work. And WG in that respect has been pushing one game mechanics combination as a core set to subs. They clearly have their reasons for that, but as you said I find the arguments uncompelling. But telling them to just throw all their effort away or set before them a gigantic undertaking like "redesigning the game from the ground up" is silly, never going to work and just demotivates devs to invest in any mechanics overhaul..

[Cuddly_Spider]

12 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

BTW that ping-crap is also BS. The thing you see is some sort of horse-shoe-shaped object in the water. 
But you have no way of knowing if he goes forward, backward or whatever - so WeeGee has now made 'splash damage 800m".

Which is also bullcrap. Because 800m horizontal, and they can only dive 60m vertical hahahaa.
 

 

800m radius. I refer you to the image here....

 

 

A submerged sub moves very slowly - it really isn't that hard to at least land your bombs in that area and when you do the general fragility of the class insures that you create a big problem for them.

[BLUB__BLUB]

5 minutes ago, Cuddly_Spider said:

 

800m radius. I refer you to the image here....

 

 

A submerged sub moves very slowly - it really isn't that hard to at least land your bombs in that area and when you do the general fragility of the class insures that you create a big problem for them.

Yes, I agree that it is BS mechanic. Because 800m horizontal blast but apparently less than 60m vertical... so indeed that is BS.
It is indeed easy to land bombs, TOO EASY, because of that 800m. But they used the 800m 'blast damage' to fix other BS mechanic. 

And that BS mechanic is that horseshoe that you can only find when you happen to look at the right moment in the right direction. 

 

At least, if it were 'disappearing bubble trails' it would require some judgement/expertise to guess where the sub is. 

Now, you just do not know at all unless you happen to see that 'horseshoe', and after that it is almost guaranteed hit.

Well, as long as you do not have lag and other 'spaghetti code game features'. 

So, now it is LUCK and I'd like to see some SKILL. 

 

[Figment]

37 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Yes, I agree that it is BS mechanic. Because 800m horizontal blast but apparently less than 60m vertical... so indeed that is BS.

Not sure if it's a blast diameter of 60m, but if it is, then assuming the drop goes to 30m, you create a large area at the top and bottom for a flat object can escape damage. if it's a ball of 800m diameter, then the curvature more represents a cilinder at 30m depth. The effect would be this really:

 

37 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

It is indeed easy to land bombs, TOO EASY, because of that 800m. But they used the 800m 'blast damage' to fix other BS mechanic. 

And that BS mechanic is that horseshoe that you can only find when you happen to look at the right moment in the right direction. 

 

At least, if it were 'disappearing bubble trails' it would require some judgement/expertise to guess where the sub is. 

Now, you just do not know at all unless you happen to see that 'horseshoe', and after that it is almost guaranteed hit.

Well, as long as you do not have lag and other 'spaghetti code game features'. 

So, now it is LUCK and I'd like to see some SKILL. 

Agree on the "horseshoe" not being sufficient, but that's because you don't know its orientation from a single horseshoe to give you a lead indicator. Hence I usualy wait for a second to drop the second ASW. The first one I drop immediately. If the sub is far away, I presume it is moving towards me to increase chances of hitting, if it's medium range, I presume it's backing away from me to get easier torp aim for next round. If torps are relatively close I can make out from the origin of the torps in which direction it might be moving.

 

But, it would be nice if the indicator didn't disappear so quickly and maybe give away the nose orientation of the sub.

 

Bubble trail could be done (for diving subs?), but I would rather see a small periscope depth wake as the periscope moves through the water when at periscope depth within 6km distance. When the sub is officially spotted it would show up on the map and with health indicator / silhouette. Perhaps marking a periscope could make it set to "discovered" as well and force a dive. This would force more dives. Combine that with deep water torps at periscope depth and gradually worsening concealment radius at periscope depth and no engaging surface ships below periscope depth and shotgunning enemy ships becomes a much more ambushing skill based event.

[WingedHussar_Adler]

17 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

No, only when you happen to see it when he pings. So IF you know WHEN he is PINGING, YES... but usually, you miss it. 
For example becasue you were, were looking at ships that you CAN see. Not at some random (empty) spot on the map.

 After he has pinged it, you no longfer see it - but you do see the torps (at a certain distance) coming to you, in a bend. 

Which does NOT trace back to the sub, by the way. And they can have long range, too. Good luck trying to find him, in case he pings again.

And yes you see where they are gonna hit you. Not that it is much help... your 'repair' will return 3x slower than his ping. 
So if you repair... he'll just ping again... and then you can hope to see it... but usually you do not.

Even if you do, hope that he is in range of your RNG-bomb-dump-planes. 

well devs implemented the way to see general position of sub by ping and by tracer of that ping.....if you can not watch for it....well to be honest it is a little bit of ltp problem

[WingedHussar_Adler]

19 hours ago, Tanaka_15 said:

:) ehh no point in arguing with you cos you are blind. Yes :) not as broken as CVs but still broken :) 

you die much to subs?

[Dutchy_2019]

8 hours ago, Figment said:

Mind, most of the positive changes to subs have gone unnoticed, because people either didn't recognise them or they were taken for granted. Had there been more sounds of appreciation and encouragement, egging them on in the proper direction of changes and making clear the boundaries of public acceptance, instead of the continuation of "REMOVE SUBS OR ELSE IT GOT EVEN WORSE" we might have seen more of it faster. Most people don't appreciate time investment of what they perceive as a black box where they think their input should result in an (instant) output and get frustrated when it doesn't, or isn't fast enough.

 

There have been quite a few - more rare on the forums, but I am fairly confident that there were more in places like the CC Discord or ST Discord. 

And why should we go out of our way to applaud changes to elements that should NOT have been implemented in the first place, or changes that were blatantly obvious that had to be made? Sorry, but I am not going to applaud someone who was stupid enough to put his hands in boiling water knowingly while he should also know the consequenses for finally, after having been burned badly and getting berated, deciding to only put his hand in just hot water.

 

Should I applaud the devs for canning the insane and idiotic idea of homing torps hitting being automatic citadels? Something that ANY critical thinking dev should have realised was just a stupid idea in the first place, and should NEVER have gotten to the testing phase in the first place?

 

Quote

You'll notice that a lot of people argue in a way that includes being hit by a sub's torpedo or a dev strike is a clear sign of imbalance, while they cannot show that dev strikes are a very common occurance or under which circumstances they would accept such a dev strike (while always having the double standard that every other class (except CVs?) should have access to dev strike potential. And what really lacks in these discussions is where lines are to be drawn and exactly what would be considered okay.

 

Funny, because I see most people complaining about HOW / WHAT ENABLED the sub to devstrike him, not necessarily being devs-struck in the first place. The bolded is a straw-man argument, since you know there is no realistic way for players to actually track that data.

 

 

 

Quote

"The game" doesn't need redesigning from the ground up, it's BS over the top statements like this that's just adding to the noise and devs can't do anything with. And tbh this argument is designed to support an absolutist statement as it attempts to shut down discussion in favour of removal. It'll never be adhered to, so why even bother stating such nonsense?

 

Funny, your statement that subs can be implemented in an acceptable way within the current game design is just as absolutist. And just as my position your personal opinion. 

 

Quote

 

From what I've seen we're talking more about an octogonal peg for a round hole. The current design got a lot of rough edges and oversimplifications, but nothing that can't be fixed. The interaction between units is relatively easy to redesign, but it requires submarines to be forced to be in range and increase the risk of being exposed. IMO it also requires the introduction of ASDIC mechanics for some surface units and more complex submarine sub-mechanics (like deep-dive escapes, with increased risk of spontaneous floodings). Nothing that can't be coded into the existing game and with existing models.

 

I do think the creativity in the playerbase and with developers is lacking in this respect. When I see posts decrying the implementation of subs in this game some people may even compare it to other sub games they know, but not in specifics of which design elements could be copied, implemented or improved upon and in which sense a more simplified "arcade" if you will, representation makes sense for this game. Very rarely have I seen extensive, proper in-depth discussions and arguments here on how subs should be redesigned and within which sets of limitations from what baseline design.

 

Btw, WoWs' subplay is definitely not the worst sub-play I've ever seen - that reward goes to subs with OP cruise missiles and nuclear torpedoes in the C&C Red Alert Aftermath and Counterstrike expansions.

 

That subs in other games (which BTW are in type of game very different to WoWs) is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

 

Quote

 

But the subs do need changes, as do many mechanics surrounding them and specs and variables used are in need of overhaul, where tinkering with current variables will not suffice. The pampering of survival rates and all that they're doing is also unnecessary and counter-productive. If they didn't want subs to kill other subs at the start, they could have just placed them a larger distance apart and limit the amount of subs per match to two (I'd also put in subs with the CVs in the MM, 1 of each or 2 of one type to prevent things like 3 subs and 2 CVs out of 9 players in late night games).

 

But I see a lot of changes that can be done on relatively short notice to mitigate most issues with subs and ASW. Unfortunately a lot of people find it much more easy to just give up if at first it doesn't work. And WG in that respect has been pushing one game mechanics combination as a core set to subs. They clearly have their reasons for that, but as you said I find the arguments uncompelling. But telling them to just throw all their effort away or set before them a gigantic undertaking like "redesigning the game from the ground up" is silly, never going to work and just demotivates devs to invest in any mechanics overhaul..

 

Funny, I think - as stated before - that the requirements for a sub implementation are incompatible. For subs to be successfully integrated into this game roughly the following conditions need to be met:

 

1. The interaction between subs and other classess needs to be perceived - generally - as fun (and I know, this is rather subjective
2. There must be a perceived 'fairness' in the interaction between classes. It must be perceived that classes interacting are operating within the general rule set; this is definitely NOT the case with submarines, and also one of the main problems people have with (some) of the CVs. This, IMHO, is one of the biggest problems with submarines.
3. Any class must be accessible to play to a sufficient number of players - i.e. if the class is too difficult (or perceived as too difficult to play), barely anyone will play that class
4. The class must be designed in such a way that the results of a skill difference between operators are not too extreme, that is to say if one player is mediocre, and the other is good, the outcome of the game is a foregone conclusion (allegedly one of the biggest problems with RTS CV), but also not so easy to play that difference in skill level does not affect the outcome of the game.
5. The interaction between two classes might be such that it counters a particular tactic / strategic deployment (like island hugging or such), but it should not be such that it completely invalidate such strategy, or forces stale game-play or 'bad' game play upon the game. And this is where CVs and subs run into problems ("well, to counter CVs, well, you just have to blob together to combine the AA" as an example).

 

Now look at all the crutches WG has had to implement in the design to meet condition 3. As a consequence, there is a serious issue with condition 2 - there are very few rules that apply to the general classes of subs (the 'no accidental detection, the stupid tankiness, the deliberately misleading PING-locator, etc').

Some anecdotal evidence seems to emerge already that despite all the crutches (and note, many a sub-players and sub-apologists still do not consider them enough) that a skill difference between sub players seems to have too big an impact on determining the outcome of the game. So to me there seems to be a constant conflict between these 5 requirements that simply cannot be balanced within the constraints of the design of the game as a whole.

 

 

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

3 hours ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

well devs implemented the way to see general position of sub by ping and by tracer of that ping.....if you can not watch for it....well to be honest it is a little bit of ltp problem

Surely, it is more like a watching minimap, plus multiple enemies around you. 
When you do not know the subs position there is little use scanning the whole damn empty sea

in the hope of MAYBE catching the ping at just the right moment. Not like you have nothing to do in the game. 

 

In real life, some of the lowest ranks were put on 'sub watch duty'. 

Something like icebergs but a bit different. 

[Cuddly_Spider]

5 hours ago, Figment said:

Bubble trail could be done (for diving subs?), but I would rather see a small periscope depth wake as the periscope moves through the water when at periscope depth within 6km distance. When the sub is officially spotted it would show up on the map and with health indicator / silhouette. Perhaps marking a periscope could make it set to "discovered" as well and force a dive. This would force more dives. Combine that with deep water torps at periscope depth and gradually worsening concealment radius at periscope depth and no engaging surface ships below periscope depth and shotgunning enemy ships becomes a much more ambushing skill based event.

 

The problem with this is the fact that subs are excessively vulnerable already. Generally, as soon as you're spotted it's game over if your opponents aren't completely clueless or unless you're dueling with someone far away from the battle. You flood too easily, catch fire easily, suffer module damage at the merest nudge, and have a very low hitpoint pool.

 

Additionally, subs can (uniquely) be attacked independently of whatever else a ship is doing. A BB can't really attack two opposing ships at once (CQC notwithstanding), unless one is a submarine. Then it's just fire your ASW planes and carry on, it incurs little to no battlefield activity deficit on the part of the attacker.

 

If the splash damage area of depth charges were significantly reduced (to maybe 200m) this idea might well work, but without that alteration I feel this would doom subs to being a useless bit of materiel.

 

 

[Figment]

1 hour ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

There have been quite a few - more rare on the forums, but I am fairly confident that there were more in places like the CC Discord or ST Discord. 

Too rare.

Quote

And why should we go out of our way to applaud changes to elements that should NOT have been implemented in the first place,

Yes why get them addicted on positive reinforcement when you can also just give them vinegar all day long?

 

I’m sure they’re not human beings who get more leniant and accompanying when they feel certain actions are appreciated.

 

 

I mean, you work much harder for a client or boss who just whines and moans about your stuff, than for the client who is understanding and appreciative, correct?

 

You’re a sado-masochist then, right?

 

 

 

 

How about you recognise that Rome wasn’t built in a day, developing and testing such aspects take time and that management and shareholders may interfere and push things life forcing devs to work on more important things than quality of life and refinement?

Quote

or changes that were blatantly obvious that had to be made?

Yeah why would you instead of telling them “that’s it, much better, please keep going” not just tell them “you SOBs you still havn’t fixed my pet peeve! Die in a fire!”

 

I mean, why?

Quote

Sorry, but I am not going to applaud someone who was stupid enough to put his hands in boiling water knowingly while he should also know the consequenses for finally, after having been burned badly and getting berated, deciding to only put his hand in just hot water.

No you are just stupid enough to tell them to sod off when you are dependent on them.

Quote

Should I applaud the devs for canning the insane and idiotic idea of homing torps hitting being automatic citadels? Something that ANY critical thinking dev should have realised was just a stupid idea in the first place, and should NEVER have gotten to the testing phase in the first place?

Yes.

Quote

Funny, because I see most people complaining about HOW / WHAT ENABLED the sub to devstrike him, not necessarily being devs-struck in the first place. The bolded is a straw-man argument, since you know there is no realistic way for players to actually track that data.

Some do.

 

And a strawman is not what you think it is. What you’re describing is an impossible evidence request. But that’s also not true, because players have other ways to showcase that. By sharing evidence like creating a large streak of dev strikes match after match, having massive damage averages for the tier, etc.

 

People generally don’t. Instead, they refused to play subs period (and if they did showed average or below average results, argueing true scotsman sub players would do wonderous things far beyond what regular ships do) and most the time complained mostly about being killed or hit period and finding it unfair that something tracks their movement, ascribing impossible and highly exaggerated characteristics like extremely high accuracy to homing torps. Which is easily disproven by WGs spreadsheet warriors.

Quote

Funny, your statement that subs can be implemented in an acceptable way within the current game design is just as absolutist. And just as my position your personal opinion. 

No, it’s conditional. I’ve described a distinct set of limitations and needs for it to function based on personal observations, yes. But also analyzing the actual complaints and where things go wrong intuitively for a lot of players.

 

I’m a designer. You’re a re-whiner.

Quote

That subs in other games (which BTW are in type of game very different to WoWs) is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

No, it’s not. Saying it could be way worse. A lot of people here are just attentionseeking forum drama queens.

Quote

Funny, I think - as stated before - that the requirements for a sub implementation are incompatible. For subs to be successfully integrated into this game roughly the following conditions need to be met:

 

1. The interaction between subs and other classess needs to be perceived - generally - as fun (and I know, this is rather subjective
2. There must be a perceived 'fairness' in the interaction between classes. It must be perceived that classes interacting are operating within the general rule set; this is definitely NOT the case with submarines, and also one of the main problems people have with (some) of the CVs. This, IMHO, is one of the biggest problems with submarines.
3. Any class must be accessible to play to a sufficient number of players - i.e. if the class is too difficult (or perceived as too difficult to play), barely anyone will play that class
4. The class must be designed in such a way that the results of a skill difference between operators are not too extreme, that is to say if one player is mediocre, and the other is good, the outcome of the game is a foregone conclusion (allegedly one of the biggest problems with RTS CV), but also not so easy to play that difference in skill level does not affect the outcome of the game.
5. The interaction between two classes might be such that it counters a particular tactic / strategic deployment (like island hugging or such), but it should not be such that it completely invalidate such strategy, or forces stale game-play or 'bad' game play upon the game. And this is where CVs and subs run into problems ("well, to counter CVs, well, you just have to blob together to combine the AA" as an example).

That’s all possible.
 

Your claim about 5 is not true. You’re exaggerating extremely. I’m using all those strategies and tactics, while not using strategies and tactics in situations that aren’t suited to them.

 

Or do you Italo DD stealth approach German hydro BBs? Good luck whining about that sort of thing. Don’t do some stuff next to a sub. Done. If you’re a one trick pony that doesn’t know anything else to do with those ships, well “git gud” is always an option. There isn’t one way to play ships, you always have plenty of options around subs. But if you insist on doing something stupid in front of them, well that’s your perogative not to adapt to an in-game situation.

Quote

Now look at all the crutches WG has had to implement in the design to meet condition 3. As a consequence, there is a serious issue with condition 2 - there are very few rules that apply to the general classes of subs (the 'no accidental detection, the stupid tankiness, the deliberately misleading PING-locator, etc').

Some anecdotal evidence seems to emerge already that despite all the crutches (and note, many a sub-players and sub-apologists still do not consider them enough) that a skill difference between sub players seems to have too big an impact on determining the outcome of the game. So to me there seems to be a constant conflict between these 5 requirements that simply cannot be balanced within the constraints of the design of the game as a whole.

As I said before both devs and players (that clearly includes you as well) lack creative thinking. You have a really hard time to create your own vision of design implementation and are mentally very hard bound to the barely different versions the devs have shown you thusfar. Your frame of reference of what the realm of possibilities is has been limited to the combination of mechanics the devs have implemented thusfar and you look at the variables within those constraints rather than introducing and revisiting other mechanics. What the devs did so far was a bunch of balance passes and introducing and redesigning some gimmick tools of subs (including things like oil leaks to track subs) and ASW. Without addressing the more problematic mechanics (ping-repair/homing in particular) that would have made a bigger positive impact.

 

I also stated the devs stuck with a bunch of core mechanics where I don’t think they made the right choices. I’ve elaborated on those points a lot already in several threads by my hand, so I’m not going to expand on that now. (Look up my threads about torpedoes and sub mechanics for multi-page essays).

[Figment]

@Dutchy_2019

 

I just called you unimaginative. By your logic you now feel completely invigorated and inspired to meet my standards. Right?

 

 

Why treat people you need with respect indeed. For the record, I don’t need you. ;)

[Figment]

12 minutes ago, Cuddly_Spider said:

The problem with this is the fact that subs are excessively vulnerable already. Generally, as soon as you're spotted it's game over if your opponents aren't completely clueless or unless you're dueling with someone far away from the battle. You flood too easily, catch fire easily, suffer module damage at the merest nudge, and have a very low hitpoint pool.

 

Additionally, subs can (uniquely) be attacked independently of whatever else a ship is doing. A BB can't really attack two opposing ships at once (CQC notwithstanding), unless one is a submarine. Then it's just fire your ASW planes and carry on, it incurs little to no battlefield activity deficit on the part of the attacker.

 

If the splash damage area of depth charges were significantly reduced (to maybe 200m) this idea might well work, but without that alteration I feel this would doom subs to being a useless bit of materiel.

That’s where WG can work their spreadsheet logic, since that’s just balancing. Getting the core mechanics right is a prerequisite for balancing.

[WingedHussar_Adler]

1 hour ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Surely, it is more like a watching minimap, plus multiple enemies around you. 
When you do not know the subs position there is little use scanning the whole damn empty sea

in the hope of MAYBE catching the ping at just the right moment. Not like you have nothing to do in the game. 

 

In real life, some of the lowest ranks were put on 'sub watch duty'. 

Something like icebergs but a bit different. 

Sub will usually, in 99% use more than one ping. So first time you got pinged just watch the see

[Dutchy_2019]

6 minutes ago, Figment said:

Too rare.

Yes why get them addicted on positive reinforcement when you can also just give them vinegar all day long?

 

I’m sure they’re not human beings who get more leniant and accompanying when they feel certain actions are appreciated.

 

 

I mean, you work much harder for a client or boss who just whines and moans about your stuff, than for the client who is understanding and appreciative, correct?

 

Funny how that seems to have to be a one-way street. 

 

- When we as players ask for certain changes that are obviously necessary, it often takes forever to get them implemented (see limitation of number of CVs in a game, or nerfing of Hosho or Hermes); for a very long time, the people pointing out those problems are addressed with statements like 'git gud' , it is your imagination, and 'the spreadsheet says'...  BTW, similar nice example is the 'you cannot be uptiered more than x percent of the games'; that ONLY holds true if you continuously play the same ship. If you like to play different ships, that stat pretty much goes out of the window, and it is perfectly possible to be uptiered much more often.

- If certain changes are asked for by the player base that seem patently necessary to be made (like say, CV spotting, especially by fighters), the best you can hope for is a 'we are running some potential changes (of course no shred of information on what potential changes) on a private test server', followed by a 'well we considered the changes we came up with having a negative impact upon the game, thus they will not be implemented, so suck it up!'; no explanation or anything, and in its phrasing the exact same BS we hear everyday from managers and such to just go ahead with their plans, and dismiss any concerns of people who have to deal with the results.

- When they do make changes people like - like say, get rid of homing - reactions were more positive. And next thing they do, is bring homing back. Same with the rocket rework because of the completely one-sided CV vs DD interaction, only to be shortly thereafter followed by CVs with gimmicks that completely invalidate those changes (the skip-bombing Soviet CVs being a nice example).

- Or the best of all: We already have many people saying DCP is overworked, we already have added another mechanic (homing torps) that stresses DCP even further, but "Hey! Let us propose to introduce another mechanic - which in another game from the same company got an overwhelmingly negative response - that stresses DCP even more." (yes, I am talking about the stun-bomb proposal).

 

Sure, I will work harder for a client or boss who is appreciative; but I do NOT expect to be praised constantly for pretty much basic stuff.

 

And sure, there will always be people who complayin, and it is impossible to keep everyone happy 100% of the time. 

 

But when certain criticisms are spread amongst all layers, and include MANY people who normally are neutral, positive or take a 'wait and see' approach, maybe all those people have a point, you know, and you might be on the wrong track.

 

6 minutes ago, Figment said:

 

How about you recognise that Rome wasn’t built in a day, developing and testing such aspects take time and that management and shareholders may interfere and push things life forcing devs to work on more important things than quality of life and refinement?

 

I am well aware of that issue, and I have on these forums repeatedly stated that was part of the problem. Note that that opinion was consistently dismissed by many of the sub-proponents and apologists, and could include you as well.

 

6 minutes ago, Figment said:

And a strawman is not what you think it is. What you’re describing is an impossible evidence request. But that’s also not true, because players have other ways to showcase that. By sharing evidence like creating a large streak of dev strikes match after match, having massive damage averages for the tier, etc.

 

What means? I would be very interested. BTW, the examples you mention as 'evidence' are completely irrelevant to what I in my post stated could well be the actual problem for many. It is completely irrelevant to the HOW / UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES people were dev struck. And you are smart enough to know that you are setting impossible conditions, simply because of the many variables involved which cannot be controlled by a player, and time constraints in real life (and other considerations) for the VAST majority of the player-base. There are very few LittleWhiteMouses around playing this game.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Figment said:

People generally don’t. Instead, they refused to play subs period (and if they did showed average or below average results, argueing true scotsman sub players would do wonderous things far beyond what regular ships do) and most the time complained mostly about being killed or hit period and finding it unfair that something tracks their movement, ascribing impossible and highly exaggerated characteristics like extremely high accuracy to homing torps. Which is easily disproven by WGs spreadsheet warriors.

 

Funny you mention spreadsheet warriors. I have yet to see any spreadsheet.

 

6 minutes ago, Figment said:

No, it’s conditional. I’ve described a distinct set of limitations and needs for it to function based on personal observations, yes. But also analyzing the actual complaints and where things go wrong intuitively for a lot of players.

 

I’m a designer. You’re a re-whiner.

 

I have come across designers who share my opinion, not yours. Also, you know, sometimes a fresh look from outsiders - i.e. NON-designers / devs - to what is going on is actually a good thing. 

 

6 minutes ago, Figment said:

No, it’s not. Saying it could be way worse. A lot of people here are just attentionseeking forum drama queens.

 

Yes it is irrelevant. If my car is absolute crap because of design flaws / issues, it is completely irrelevant to say that I should simply accept it because there are motorcycles, trucks and tanks that are even worse. It still means the car as designed is a failure. The fact that all of these vehicles are motorized does not automatically make the argument relevant. If ANYTHING your reference to those other games proves the point about how difficult it is to integrate something like a submarine in a more general game (i.e. a game NOT designed around the submarine, but designed around other ship classes (or even something else) and their interactions) in a way that works for everyone (sub players, their opponents, game devs and management).

 

6 minutes ago, Figment said:

That’s all possible.
 

Your claim about 5 is not true. You’re exaggerating extremely. I’m using all those strategies and tactics, while not using strategies and tactics in situations that aren’t suited to them.

 

Or do you Italo DD stealth approach German hydro BBs? Good luck whining about that sort of thing. Don’t do some stuff next to a sub. Done. If you’re a one trick pony that doesn’t know anything else to do with those ships, well “git gud” is always an option. There isn’t one way to play ships, you always have plenty of options around subs. But if you insist on doing something stupid in front of them, well that’s your perogative not to adapt to an in-game situation.

As I said before both devs and players (that clearly includes you as well) lack creative thinking. I also stated the devs stuck with a bunch of core mechanics where I don’t think they made the right choices. I’ve elaborated on those points a lot already in several threads by my hand, so I’m not going to expand on that now. (Look up my threads about torpedoes and sub mechanics for multi-page essays).

 

Yup - and you are perfectly right, just because you happen to be a 'designer'; you know, I can come up with all kinds of creative solutions to spice up a structure and make it look good. But if the core design of said structure is flawed, at best it will camouflage some of the flaws, but in the end the structure will fail / will never operate to a standard satisfactory to the majority (if at all). You know that the unwillingness to actually go back and adress the core design and try to keep things running by coming up with 'creative solutions' to work around core problems, more often than not at some point becomes a dead end, causing things to fail; and in the end cause even more trouble than going back to the drawing board would have cost.

 

In my line of work, we are constantly bombarded with 'creative solutions' to the problems we face by people from the inside and outside, especially the 'inside experts' - who proclaim expertise based on their (theoretical) training or they have ended up in a certain position in the field. But the vast majority of those are simply doomed to failure simply because the basic preconditions needed to make those solutions work simply do not exist - and as long as those basic preconditions are not seriously altered, the vast majority of those creative solutions will fail dismally at some point, and the only thing we can hope for is that those solutions have not made things far worse when their failure becomes evident.

 

There have been plenty of times where 'designers' got things seriously wrong but were unable or unwilling to see it, while 'non-designer' outsiders could see the problems emerging, or even predict them well in advance. And yes, even though I might not be able to come up with a solution to a problem, I and many others might still be very capable of judging - once proposed - the solution on its merits and think whether it has a chance of working in the first place.

[Cuddly_Spider]

48 minutes ago, Figment said:

That’s where WG can work their spreadsheet logic, since that’s just balancing. Getting the core mechanics right is a prerequisite for balancing.

I agree with you there completely. However the mechanics of sub play is very different from anything else in the game, and presents a significant challenge from a balancing perspective.

 

I myself feel that they are a very worthy addition and the developers have done superbly well with them, but they do have some flaws and are a little too weak at the present time.

 

I think making their subsurface stealth dependent on their engine power, increasing their inertia to compensate, and reducing the splash damage area of depth charges would do a lot to buff and nerf them in the right ways in order to make them a distinct class that fits into the game better. But that's just, like, my opinion man.

[WarburtonLee]

Just got into a game with @OldschoolGaming_YouTube and im in Izumo with him on a flank with 2 enemy subs in a div. I got instantly reminded why i dont play randoms anymore, only ranked. 2 bad, becouse when ranked out means no more playing. And its gonna take one hell of a long time to grind the lines ive resetted with only free xp. But whatever, this game is going down the drain fast. Its actually incredible when you think of this game as it was in 2016 and now

[Dutchy_2019]

55 minutes ago, Figment said:

@Dutchy_2019

 

I just called you unimaginative. By your logic you now feel completely invigorated and inspired to meet my standards. Right?

 

 

Why treat people you need with respect indeed. For the record, I don’t need you. ;)

 

Fantastic logic you are applying here again (and also you are applying your usual twisting / distorting of statements by others here).

 

BTW, do you have any evidence that there was too little constructive feedback in the CC or ST Discord?

 

O yeah, and at some point, to be treated with respect, you also have to earn respect by doing the same to others. In many ways, I find WG as a group / institution towards us (and whether that is devs or some other department) severely lacking since I have gotten involved in this game. 

 

You can never satisfy the idiots, but you might be able to satisfy the moderates or interested. And maybe even convert some of the others.

[SmegTheNoob]

15 minutes ago, Cuddly_Spider said:

I agree with you there completely. However the mechanics of sub play is very different from anything else in the game, and presents a significant challenge from a balancing perspective.

 

I myself feel that they are a very worthy addition and the developers have done superbly well with them, but they do have some flaws and are a little too weak at the present time.

 

I think making their subsurface stealth dependent on their engine power, increasing their inertia to compensate, and reducing the splash damage area of depth charges would do a lot to buff and nerf them in the right ways in order to make them a distinct class that fits into the game better. But that's just, like, my opinion man.

Ha ha, you really are a funny guy.

"The developers have done superbly well with them". Are you attempting to take the p___ here?

 

If the developers had done superbly with the implementation of Submarines, don't you think there would not be such negativity towards Submarines on the forums and elsewhere?

 

Oh and while we are conversing on here.

I am still waiting for an answer from you, to the questions I put to you, a good few pages back.

To save you going to look for them, I will repeat them here for you.

Quote

OK Mr Cuddly.

You claim that there are effective counters to Submarines.

I want to challenge you on that statement with the following questions:

 

1. Have you tried to chase down a Submarine in a Destroyer to drop depth charges on it? What I am getting at is, have you managed to sink a Sub with a Destroyer, without ending up putting your destroyer into the firing line of other enemy ships.

 

2. Have you tried to chase down a Submarine in a Cruiser to drop depth charges on it and sink it? Same example as above. Can you chase down a Submarine in a Cruiser without getting shot at from other enemy ships?

 

3. How many Submarines have you managed to sink with air dropped depth charges from a Cruiser? Note that some air drops, drop only 1 bomb.

 

4. How many Submarines have you sunk with air dropped depth charges from a Battleship?

 

5. Have you even managed to damage a Submarine with Battleship air dropped depth charges?

 

6. How do you feel when you are playing a slow battleship with just a range of 6km on its air dropped depth charge strikes? How does it feel when a Submarines just sits at 7km from your battleship and constantly sonar pings you, and sends stupid homing torpedoes your way? How does it feel when you know that you cannot even respond to that Submarine because it is out of the range of your air strikes? How does it feel, knowing that even if you use your damage control to counter a Submarine, the Submarine can just sonar ping you again.

 

7. How do you feel about the proposed Soviet Submarines? Submarines, that if they enter the game in the current state, will be able to out run most Destroyers on the surface.

 

Those are enough questions to be going on with for now.

Good luck trying to come up with some sensible answers.

 

I await your answers with baited breath.

 

I repeat, WARGAMING WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO BALANCE SUBMARINES FAIRLY.