General Submarines related discussions

[BLUB__BLUB]

55 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

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

I'd require one more eye though, one watching the minimap,

the others watching the ships that are spotted nearby (and islands not to ram into...).

If I knew where the ping originated from, it would be do-able, but since I do not: problem. 

It still means I'm scanning an empty sea. 

 

Also he can ping about 3x as fast as I can 'repair' it. Sure, he'll ping again. 

[Cuddly_Spider]

33 minutes ago, SmegTheNoob said:

I await your answers with baited breath.

 

There is not a single point you're trying to make which doesn't start with "Have you tried.." or isn't some other interrogative on my own ability to play. As I am anomalously bad at the game, such points are worthless.

 

I can't hit a citadel intentionally, does that mean the developers should increase the citadel hitbox sizes by 100%? Of course not, because this game isn't all about me. You can't hit subs, apparently. Does that mean that subs need to be removed?

 

Ask questions about the game itself and I'll happily get into it with them.

[SmegTheNoob]

2 minutes ago, Cuddly_Spider said:

 

There is not a single point you're trying to make which doesn't start with "Have you tried.." or isn't some other interrogative on my own ability to play. As I am anomalously bad at the game, such points are worthless.

 

I can't hit a citadel intentionally, does that mean the developers should increase the citadel hitbox sizes by 100%? Of course not, because this game isn't all about me. You can't hit subs, apparently. Does that mean that subs need to be removed?

 

Ask questions about the game itself and I'll happily get into it with them.

No. You stated that Submarines can be easily countered by surface ships. Or words to that effect.

I was giving you a bunch of situations where Subs are NOT easily countered by surface ships.

 

I was asking if you had actually managed to do any of those situations.

EG, how many times have YOU actually killed a Sub with a Battleships Air Dropped Depth Charges.

I can count on one hand, how many Subs  I have managed to sink with an air strike. Maybe 3 or 4 times, since they came into the game fully in October last year.

 

But you maintain that Submarines are easily counter-able.

[Figment]

2 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

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

Absolutely. Because otherwise, I should applaud your eternal pessimism and negativity, right?

 

 

 

Come on, you know you're wrong. You're just stubborn. Like devs. You too might be human.

Quote

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

Yes.

 

Not enough changed. ;)

 

 

Obviously I can't tell what's going on in those channels, however, the gist of it seems to have been the same "remove" bandwagon message due to overall lack of faith in adjustments. If I look at CC videos on the topic, it's almost nothing but complaints, it's never constructive about how it could be, just complaints about how OP certain stuff is and how stupid the design is. But never do I hear a constructive narrative argueing in favour of using a specific combination of alternative mechanics. So with that in mind, no, I don't think they were constructive enough and probably mostly responded to status quo if other game beta forums I've been in (plenty) are any indication.

 

You'll tend to have your balance pass people who run the numbers, but they're usualy not very creative with coming up with mechanics, rather than going through what's before them and pondering about adjusting the existing variables on offer. I presume a lot of them were negative for good reason running worst case scenarios.

 

There'll have been some general feedback on what makes it difficult to spot subs and how this can be abused. But in the initial design stages, mostly people focused on the capacity to dolphin in order to avoid damage, as well as the citadel damage upon double ping. That took up so much space most of the rest of the feedback was drowned out. You could tell by the second public test, when there were changes, but the issue of spotting had not been addressed yet. At least they had added ASW for more ships by then (which probably cost a lot of resources).

 

Quote

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.

Depends who we're talking about. There have been numerous incidents sure.

 

Doesn't mean flies suddenly start liking vinegar... Or that you should tar all WG employees with the same brush. Your goal in getting something changed is separate from whether a CC is treated right or got exactly what (s)he wanted. You can be formal, you don't need to drool over them at all, but be polite, critical, constructive, factual, point out profitability vs investment and generally be supportive of change, without going at all threatening. You can critique decisions as bad or whatever, but bite your tongue at times. We're both Dutch. That's hard. I know. But they're in a different culture with a different power distance structure and that also requires a different approach. With a Dutch directness flair, of course. Can't be all subtle now can we.

Quote

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.

Trick is usualy to bypass the idiots. Find someone you can work with to make your case within the company. That's what got me entrances into Sony Online Entertainment. I literally got them to make PlanetSide 2 after 5 years of near complete neglect (at one point they had 1 coder for at most 2 days a week on the original PlanetSide and for at least two of those years, no coders at all. They could maybe spare an Everquest coder once in a blue moon). Unfortunately the access was shut down during pre-alpha and alpha despite being brought in by that CRM on the community council along with another PS1 popular designer (instead, we were asked to help playtest DCUO... It was frustrating like hell.).

 

But, during Beta, I made a name with the new community again and I eventually had direct access to the lead developer and a level designer, but that too took a lot of effort and Gamescom visits. All changes I got them to make, including a complete overhaul of the defensive layouts of bases and base design core concepts were welcomed. That took a LOT of convincing and months of scrapping lots of older things they tried. They couldn't scrap everything that was wrong due to budget constraints and having too many things to do, but it was a lot better afterwards.

 

So although both had my ear for lots of changes post beta. at a point where everyone thought it was a gigantic mess since they had listened to CounterStrike, MoH and BattleField clans on designing the game (and not a single PlanetSide 1 outfit, which all of us veterans of the first game still have a grudge about). Those other players knew nothing about grand combined arms MMOFPS/RTS siege warfare as they were infantry skirmishers with the occasional vehicle involved and the tests they were involved in were threeway local skirmishes on less than a 9km2 area with small groups of 10-50 a side and not representative of the actual game set about conquering 72km2 maps with 2000 players.

 

 

To convince, you need to make your case. Show it's in their interest to do so. Show the investment is worth it. Not just rant at them. This takes time. Investment. And above all, a solidly worked out alternative that they can sell or present to their higher ups. In the case of WG, lower level initiative is probably far smaller than at a west coast studio however. So I presume you'll want to keep the boss on your good side, rather than trample over ego and authority. That just makes it impossible to listen for someone like that, as it would be a huge loss of face and perceived as undermining one's authority.

 

Maybe consider that. Just make cases for better designs. Stroke that ego once in a while. Don't just use the stick. Use honey, carrots. Whatever. You need them to work with you, not against you.

[Figment]

2 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

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'...

Things take forever, because it's not generally so simple.

 

Making changes often requires a long process, testing, etc. In some cases they'll disagree on things (yes the spreadsheets interpretations are a classic...). But "git gud" did of course also apply to some extend and that's true with subs too. However, their spreadsheets did indicate issues they opted to ignore as they had moved on to different projects. In a rigid powerstructure, it's hard to change course. Don't underestimate that. We're used to Dutch handling and we expect much faster changes as your boss trusts you to take the iniative and do the right thing because they trust you to know better. That's not true everywhere and then it takes convincing someone who might have something riding on an existing, flawed system. Including not wanting to be corrected by someone under them, let alone some random forummers.

 

Is that bad? Sure. Is that realistic? Yes. Can you do something about it? Not much.

2 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

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.

That however, is a player's choice. I really don't care about getting uptiered though. It happens, I deal with it.

2 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

- 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.

Game development is not a democracy. I can understand why they wouldn't want to share things they did test, as it could give potential competitors an edge or information what to or not to test. Generally companies dislike showing failed tests anyway, since it would indicate their (new) designs can be flawed or worse than the existing.

2 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

- 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).

You'll have to consider who these people are that proposed it. Good chance they had something to do with that other game. Why innovate if you can look innovative by copying something you've already done elsewhere?

 

And yes stunning in WoT is annoying, but so was getting one shot by artillery or constantly tracked. Getting stunned was less killer for your games, most the time. Stress inducing however.

2 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

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. 

Sure. But people are at this point JUST being negative and not even admitting positive changes were made. Not expecting you to throw a party. Just apply positive reinforcement more often so they'll want to repeat that.

2 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

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.

Sure, but as you might be able to tell from a certain Eastern European leader, admitting you made a very costly mistake for your nation (or company) might seem like the worse option to living in denial and hope the problem solves itself and pretending everything is fine. That would not fly with us, but...

2 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

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.

I didn't expect them to go live yet when they did, as afaic subs wern't ready yet and needed more overhauling, including with some balancing hotfixes they applied last moment. I didn't mind them testing in Randoms however given the larger more represenative pop counts. However, the design was at a point where it was tolerable to me, though I'd never have given it the clearance it got. However, far too much energy was spend on correcting the Removal crowds and addressing fearmongering. Waste of time and space for everyone. Every second spend on that is a time not convincing a dev with quality posts.

2 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

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.

If you play for one evening and get a streak where every match you outperform your usual self, then it's clearly OP. But few did and that's what WG looks at. However, you can show how much easier you have it and just showcase you can outperform every time, no matter the circumstances. That's within the grasp of players. This only takes a couple evenings. Of course, presenting evidence fairly is not in the interest of most the players who just hated having to adapt their play and want something removed to make life easier for themselves

2 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

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

They've shared some data on sub performance some time ago. Suggesting the subs were balanced and didn't excel at damage output etc. It didn't address any underlying gameplay issues.

2 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

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. 

Input is always good, but designing is more than delivering critique. And many designers are narrowminded too. I'm pretty sure proper user experience design is something that's lacking with a lot of programmers though. If you ask the right questions and want to learn, that feedback can be very important for a good design. However, if you ask people "How satisfied were you from this match?", clearly your user experience designers are virtually non-existent.

2 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

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).

In C&C the AI wasn't coded to build a navy at all. In missions where they were scripted to make naval units they could actually deal with it. They just didn't spend time writing an AI that understood naval unit usage.

 

Now, the point there was that WG made something that can be integrated. They're just not at an acceptably enough point yet (they're in the just about tolerable area atm, which is still a number of steps from acceptable to me).

 

However, using your analogy, I'm not tossing out my car, just because the nav system doesn't get updated frequently enough to be useable. They could make it so it's useable, but they won't. Tossing away the car would leave me with nothing. As is, WoWs is at least something and has some stuff to work with subs to the point that subs often die quickly. Had it been a total-loss case, I'd have thrown it away. You wouldn't be here.

2 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

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.

Hence I stated they didn't address the mix of mechanics that they consider part of their core vision of how a sub in WoWs should function. Despite those being the primary culprits. As is, they've got something that is workable, as a Philips function driven television menu. In other words, a small portion of people can handle it either way, hence it needs a massive overhaul to become acceptable to the masses.

2 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

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.

Yet you go along and make those changes. Do you expect people to rant at you over the failures of those that told you how to do something?

2 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

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.

Oh sure. I've worked with plenty designers who made huge errors and refused to see it. It's one of the things that I see happening here too.

 

However, when I said I'm a designer, I'm not saying I get things perfect, I'm working towards solutions for problems / challenges. You're leaning towards just bashing without then steering them in the right direction. And since as you say you (in general, not necessarily you, you. Silly English language) cannot come fathom a solution yourself, many will drop to the conclusion that there is no solution and never will be. And that's just as stupid as sticking with a design that doesn't (quite) work.

 

As engineers we often want to find the best solution, regardless of cost. However, budgets aren't unlimited. Sometimes you have to accept a solution that was barely good enough. And it seems WG chooses that option at this point. And sure, in hindsight later it might have been worth the cost, but we're talking about management decisions who often have limited information and experience on such matters, especially if it's complex.

[Figment]

3 hours ago, Cuddly_Spider said:

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.

Too weak depends on the situation IMO. They're too untouchable in some scenarios and too fragile in others. This has a lot to do with how and when they can get spotted, by who, and what they can do to return fire.

 

Hydro could work with engine power stealth and an ASDIC mechanic could work as an alternative for ships without hydro to get depth charges better on top.

 

However, that still requires subs to be in the direct vicinity of such ships, such that they have to go hide. I'd personally buff dive time, but force subs closer to the surface for engagements and situational awareness, with increased spotting risk by requiring them to sneak up on their targets and stay alive from counter attacks, rather than sit back out of enemy engagement range, eating popcorn and watch the show from a long distance.

 

 

When subs have to get in dangerous areas, decreasing the risk of large sized and airborne ASW would become more acceptable as you'll see more close range engagements where the sub might be uncovered and is more vulnerable to counterattack by ship dropped ASW than today.

[WingedHussar_Adler]

12 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

I'd require one more eye though, one watching the minimap,

the others watching the ships that are spotted nearby (and islands not to ram into...).

If I knew where the ping originated from, it would be do-able, but since I do not: problem. 

It still means I'm scanning an empty sea. 

 

Also he can ping about 3x as fast as I can 'repair' it. Sure, he'll ping again. 

pls do not repair ping if you do not see torps comming and are dangerous......sub see when you clear ping and knows you used repair...and if he is in team he will reportthat and you will burn

[OldschoolGaming_YouTube]

13 hours ago, WarburtonLee said:

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

 

Nice to run into you but as you said, that game was a sheeit show. 2 BBs Vs 2-man Sub division just spamming us with ping and torps all game while we played the sooo fun minigame of "find the invisible submarine" using inaccurate and BS surface markers.  

At least I got my tanking mission done.

[BLUB__BLUB]

2 hours ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

pls do not repair ping if you do not see torps comming and are dangerous......sub see when you clear ping and knows you used repair...and if he is in team he will reportthat and you will burn

Nah I'll use that when I see them coming, and can still avoid them if I remove the ping. 
OR if I cannot avoid them anyway, it is a gamble - repair teh damage, or remove ping. 

As my a$$ is on fire mostly anyway (due to sub spotting) it is an easy choice. 

It still sucks his ping is 3x possible while I can repair only 1x in the same time.

As I need the repair for other stuff as well. 

[WingedHussar_Adler]

5 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Nah I'll use that when I see them coming, and can still avoid them if I remove the ping. 
OR if I cannot avoid them anyway, it is a gamble - repair teh damage, or remove ping. 

As my a$$ is on fire mostly anyway (due to sub spotting) it is an easy choice. 

It still sucks his ping is 3x possible while I can repair only 1x in the same time.

As I need the repair for other stuff as well. 

you know that dds are better spoters than subs due to reduction of spoting range when they are on periscop depth and much lower speed on periscop depth? If sub is spoting out of water she is in great danger of been outspot from dds who have lower detection range then sub?

[BLUB__BLUB]

11 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

you know that dds are better spoters than subs due to reduction of spoting range when they are on periscop depth and much lower speed on periscop depth? If sub is spoting out of water she is in great danger of been outspot from dds who have lower detection range then sub?

I know of no DD that has a lower detection range than a sub, at same tier. 
Somebody in this thread has posted that already. Subs outspot DDs. Not by much, so no problems there. DDs can close or open the range faster.
The point is that they can go close to any not-DD ship, say 3km, at periscope depth. And then they pop up, launch torps, and dive again. 
Even if you manage to put the guns their way, they'll dive and pop up on the other side, and spam torps out of their butt.

 

And you cannot compare spotting range with periscope to at surface.

You can only spot a periscope at 2.5 km or so.  1 second and they dive, and are invisible. 

It is like a DD having an invisibility screen, that can be used on/off whenever he wants. 
On top of that it also has the function that it makes him resistant at all ammo except 'special ammo' which some ships do not even get.

 

[WingedHussar_Adler]

Just now, BLUB__BLUB said:

I know of no DD that has a lower detection range than a sub, at same tier. 
Somebody in this thread has posted that already. Subs outspot DDs. Not by much, so no problems there. DDs can close or open the range faster.
The point is that they can go close to any not-DD ship, say 3km, at periscope depth. And then they pop up, launch torps, and dive again. 
Even if you manage to put the guns their way, they'll dive and pop up on the other side, and spam torps out of their butt.

 

And you cannot compare spotting range with periscope to at surface.

You can only spot a periscope at 2.5 km or so.  1 second and they dive, and are invisible. 

It is like a DD having an invisibility screen, that can be used on/off whenever he wants. 
On top of that it also has the function that it makes him resistant at all ammo except 'special ammo' which some ships do not even get.

 

regarding detection on t8 there are dds that outspots all subs....on tx KM sub has best detection of all ships but USA one has 5.9 detection so there are dds with better detection

 

regarding outspoting it is not quite so easy to define.....for instance sub will not outspot kitting side cause it is too slow and needs to be out of water, also sub will is bad for spoting other dds cause they have small air detectability so sub will spot other dd 3 km from sub on periscop depth.

 

also when on periscop depth, lets use Montana as example - dd wil spot her on 14 km, sub out of water will spot it on 14 km, but sub on periscop will spot her on 10,5 km

 

regarding third point....well yes they can, but there must be some conditions:

- no hydro around

- or if they are submerged somebody else needs to spot

- and third.....from that close range disengaging is not that easy with slow ship and ping will give you away and bombing will be much more precize

- ships must go towards you or you will never get to 3 km to them

 

4. point.....second they submerge ship goes dark and is not spoted anymore meaning nobody can shoot on it

[Cuddly_Spider]

13 hours ago, Figment said:

Too weak depends on the situation IMO. They're too untouchable in some scenarios and too fragile in others. This has a lot to do with how and when they can get spotted, by who, and what they can do to return fire.

 

That's why I love them so much. They rely on strategy and position far more than skill.

 

Quote

 

Hydro could work with engine power stealth and an ASDIC mechanic could work as an alternative for ships without hydro to get depth charges better on top.

 

However, that still requires subs to be in the direct vicinity of such ships, such that they have to go hide. I'd personally buff dive time, but force subs closer to the surface for engagements and situational awareness, with increased spotting risk by requiring them to sneak up on their targets and stay alive from counter attacks, rather than sit back out of enemy engagement range, eating popcorn and watch the show from a long distance.

 

I like this idea. But I think it would have to be balanced by making subs both blind and invisible at maximum depth, regardless of their speed and other variables. I'd also completely remove their ability to communicate positional information on the enemy (or indeed have positional information on the enemy communicated to them) unless they're at periscope depth or on the surface.

 

Subs dueling underwater would not get depth charge help from above, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

 

As it is now, standing off and shooting can yield results, but it mostly useful as harassment tactics than actual attack tactics - those torpedoes are very easy to evade and the ping mechanic ensures that the enemy know they're on their way.

 

 

EDIT: One other change I'd love - get rid of those high power torpedoes (which are pretty useless in my experience) and instead give subs the ability to lay a few mines.

[SmegTheNoob]

25 minutes ago, Cuddly_Spider said:

 

EDIT: One other change I'd love - get rid of those high power torpedoes (which are pretty useless in my experience) and instead give subs the ability to lay a few mines.

Lol, so you want to make Subs even more OP,  by letting them lay mines.

I think Subs have enough tools in their box to attack surface ships, thank you very much.

[BLUB__BLUB]

47 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

regarding detection on t8 there are dds that outspots all subs....on tx KM sub has best detection of all ships but USA one has 5.9 detection so there are dds with better detection

Maybe some, generally though a sub will have lower detection than a DD even surfaced.

But they can deploy their on/of screen at any time. DD cannot, and if he smokes the smoke is visible. 

I'd say subs a have it a lot easier there.

 

47 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

regarding outspoting it is not quite so easy to define.....for instance sub will not outspot kitting side cause it is too slow and needs to be out of water, also sub will is bad for spoting other dds cause they have small air detectability so sub will spot other dd 3 km from sub on periscop depth.

Yes but they sub can just deploy his on/of screen. 

If that DD hasn't got hydro, the sub is gone. And then the DD may be torped with arsetorps if the sub has that.

BTW DD will only spot the sub (and other ships) from his smokescreen at 2km. Atthe same time they'll spot him as well.

The 3km from periscope depth is luxury. 1 km free.

 

47 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

also when on periscop depth, lets use Montana as example - dd wil spot her on 14 km, sub out of water will spot it on 14 km, but sub on periscop will spot her on 10,5 km

Yeah and the difference between 10,5 km and 3 km is a lot. A lot of room to stealth-torp. Most DDs do not get that much wiggle room.

 

47 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

regarding third point....well yes they can, but there must be some conditions:

- no hydro around

- or if they are submerged somebody else needs to spot

- and third.....from that close range disengaging is not that easy with slow ship and ping will give you away and bombing will be much more precize

- ships must go towards you or you will never get to 3 km to them

of course there are a lot of conditions, but remember, that is the same for DDs. 

Also, DDs cannot escape radar, not even in smoke. 

 

47 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

4. point.....second they submerge ship goes dark and is not spoted anymore meaning nobody can shoot on it

Well submerged they still can be bombed, and that radius is quite large (800 m blast radius). 
So you do not really have to know exactly where he is now, you can always guess and it is 'free'. 
Meaning sending those planes does not have a disadvantage for the sender. 
Shooting a DD in smoke will reveal the shooter to the rest of the team. DD advantage there.

 

I do not object to subs being in the game, they SHOULD make the game more fun. 
WeeGee has, unfortunately, made it a shitshow. 

[Dutchy_2019]

3 hours ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

regarding detection on t8 there are dds that outspots all subs....on tx KM sub has best detection of all ships but USA one has 5.9 detection so there are dds with better detection

 

 

I guess I am the one who did the stats Blub_Blub is referring to.

 

T6: One sub has lowest detection of the tier, the other is mid-pack.

 

T8: The Soviet premium has 5.5 detectability, U-190 5.6, and Salmon has 6.0; the only DDs that can compete are Kagero hulls (Kagero, and the premiums Harekaze and Asashio) with 5.4 and Cossack (Premium) with 5.5 km detection - when they are fully specced into it.

 

T10: With 5.9, the only DD with lower detection that I can come up with is Shimakaze with 5.6 detection when fully specced. 

 

So the general point made about low detectability of submarines still stands.

[WingedHussar_Adler]

2 minutes ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

 

I guess I am the one who did the stats Blub_Blub is referring to.

 

T6: One sub has lowest detection of the tier, the other is mid-pack.

 

T8: The Soviet premium has 5.5 detectability, U-190 5.6, and Salmon has 6.0; the only DDs that can compete are Kagero hulls (Kagero, and the premiums Harekaze and Asashio) with 5.4 and Cossack (Premium) with 5.5 km detection - when they are fully specced into it.

 

T10: With 5.9, the only DD with lower detection that I can come up with is Shimakaze with 5.6 detection when fully specced. 

 

So the general point made about low detectability of submarines still stands.

pls stop it....you are just showing bad knowladge of ships.....only sub 6.0 km in tx you can remember is shima? :) comme on mate

[Cuddly_Spider]

2 minutes ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

 

I guess I am the one who did the stats Blub_Blub is referring to.

 

T6: One sub has lowest detection of the tier, the other is mid-pack.

 

T8: The Soviet premium has 5.5 detectability, U-190 5.6, and Salmon has 6.0; the only DDs that can compete are Kagero hulls (Kagero, and the premiums Harekaze and Asashio) with 5.4 and Cossack (Premium) with 5.5 km detection - when they are fully specced into it.

 

T10: With 5.9, the only DD with lower detection that I can come up with is Shimakaze with 5.6 detection when fully specced. 

 

So the general point made about low detectability of submarines still stands.

 

It takes more than a few seconds for a sub to dive out of sight, during which time it is not only visible but extremely vulnerable. A DD can attack a sub on the surface, doing significant damage, and the sub has no way to defend itself or fight back - it must dive.

 

Not only that, but when it dives it slows considerably, and any ships with ASW nearby will drop bombs all over the place in a way which makes a Michael Bay movie look positively serene.

 

A great many of my sub-defeats involve blundering into a DD and being unable to deal with it before it (or the consequences of being found) were upon me.

[NewHorizons_1]

12 minutes ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

T8: The Soviet premium has 5.5 detectability, U-190 5.6, and Salmon has 6.0; the only DDs that can compete are Kagero hulls (Kagero, and the premiums Harekaze and Asashio) with 5.4 and Cossack (Premium) with 5.5 km detection - when they are fully specced into it

... and Lightning @ 5.5km.

[WingedHussar_Adler]

14 minutes ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

 

I guess I am the one who did the stats Blub_Blub is referring to.

 

T6: One sub has lowest detection of the tier, the other is mid-pack.

 

T8: The Soviet premium has 5.5 detectability, U-190 5.6, and Salmon has 6.0; the only DDs that can compete are Kagero hulls (Kagero, and the premiums Harekaze and Asashio) with 5.4 and Cossack (Premium) with 5.5 km detection - when they are fully specced into it.

 

T10: With 5.9, the only DD with lower detection that I can come up with is Shimakaze with 5.6 detection when fully specced. 

 

So the general point made about low detectability of submarines still stands.

all the ships that tx usa sub can encounter and can outspot her

[BLUB__BLUB]

10 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

pls stop it....you are just showing bad knowladge of ships.....only sub 6.0 km in tx you can remember is shima? :) comme on mate

I think my Vampire2 has lower than 6 as well. But the difference is only a few hundred m. 

There are a LOT of DDs though, and most of them have worse concealment than a sub. 
Yes some have better - the thing is that MOST DDs are outspotted by the sub. 

 

5 minutes ago, Cuddly_Spider said:

It takes more than a few seconds for a sub to dive out of sight, during which time it is not only visible but extremely vulnerable. A DD can attack a sub on the surface, doing significant damage, and the sub has no way to defend itself or fight back - it must dive.

Eh well, I have been shotblasted by subs, if you approach from the front (or rear, with some) you eat torps. 
Yes you can shoot them, but this does not kill them immediately at all, since they have same sort op HP as a DD. 
If you attack another DD with a DD, then that DD does NOT have the option to dive away at all. 
He can smoke up... but that means he will not see anything, and can still be hit by guns or torps. 
And some other DDs ga have radar/hydro--> sub doesn't care about radar. 

 

5 minutes ago, Cuddly_Spider said:

Not only that, but when it dives it slows considerably, and any ships with ASW nearby will drop bombs all over the place in a way which makes a Michael Bay movie look positively serene.

Yes ASW is  a problem for subs. I still think they are a LOT less vulnerable than a DD in the same position.

 

5 minutes ago, Cuddly_Spider said:

A great many of my sub-defeats involve blundering into a DD and being unable to deal with it before it (or the consequences of being found) were upon me.

That is the same as playing DDs, if another Dd attacks you, same sort of thing. 

[WingedHussar_Adler]

Just now, BLUB__BLUB said:

I think my Vampire2 has lower than 6 as well. But the difference is only a few hundred m. 

There are a LOT of DDs though, and most of them have worse concealment than a sub. 
Yes some have better - the thing is that MOST DDs are outspotted by the sub. 

 

Eh well, I have been shotblasted by subs, if you approach from the front (or rear, with some) you eat torps. 
Yes you can shoot them, but this does not kill them immediately at all, since they have same sort op HP as a DD. 
If you attack another DD with a DD, then that DD does NOT have the option to dive away at all. 
He can smoke up... but that means he will not see anything, and can still be hit by guns or torps. 
And some other DDs ga have radar/hydro--> sub doesn't care about radar. 

 

Yes ASW is  a problem for subs. I still think they are a LOT less vulnerable than a DD in the same position.

 

That is the same as playing DDs, if another Dd attacks you, same sort of thing. 

exactly 27 dds from t8-10 outspots Balao

[BLUB__BLUB]

5 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

all the ships that tx usa sub can encounter and can outspot her

 

Spoiler

 

That leaves the rest, plus that those DDS HAVE TO SPEC IT else they also cannot outspot a sub. 
That said, I think MOST of the DDS will always spec into it. So, there is a point. 

 

However, WHY would you want the subs to have even better concealment? 
Most DDs have only a little bit more torpedo range than their concealment. 

And this is used to torp larger ships. Not (usually) to torp other DDs. 

I guess the idea is that a sub could torp DDs from stealth? 
Which they can, but they need to do it from periscope depth. 

 

[Dutchy_2019]

30 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

pls stop it....you are just showing bad knowladge of ships.....only sub 6.0 km in tx you can remember is shima? :) comme on mate

 

Well, since I do not have all the T10 DDs, and I cannot be arsed to spend too much time looking the modified detectability values up (WoWs Wiki only gives the base value), yeah, that is why I gave it that conditional.

 

BTW, it the question was of equal tier, NOT 'which DDs they can face in battle' 

 

It still means that subs have a very good concealment compared to the DDs they can face.

[WingedHussar_Adler]

11 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

That leaves the rest, plus that those DDS HAVE TO SPEC IT else they also cannot outspot a sub. 
That said, I think MOST of the DDS will always spec into it. So, there is a point. 

 

However, WHY would you want the subs to have even better concealment? 
Most DDs have only a little bit more torpedo range than their concealment. 

And this is used to torp larger ships. Not (usually) to torp other DDs. 

I guess the idea is that a sub could torp DDs from stealth? 
Which they can, but they need to do it from periscope depth. 

 

i dont want subs to have better surface detection.....i think that is place where they could get legit nerf...no need for them to fave great stealth when gameplay should revolve arpound sumbmerged and periscop depth