General Submarines related discussions

[Pikkozoikum]

On 8/26/2021 at 12:24 AM, BLUB__BLUB said:

Something like the "island parking warning siren" could also be for subs, just working "downward". 

You would need a different signal, otherwise you wouldn't know, if the island is causing it or the ground in case a submarine is close to an island

[BLUB__BLUB]

9 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

You would need a different signal, otherwise you wouldn't know, if the island is causing it or the ground in case a submarine is close to an island

Why different, they do not provide any different stuff for removing pinge (DCP...) either. 

Better not have too many things, else it gets complicated.

[Pikkozoikum]

3 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Why different, they do not provide any different stuff for removing pinge (DCP...) either. 

Better not have too many things, else it gets complicated.

Don't see the logical here. Having DCP as one DCP makes it a tactical tool, that you have to decide, if you want use it or not.

But the flat grounds are mostly arounds islands. You won't be able to know, if the ground is flat, because you will get a island collision warning.

For a comparison it would be like giving DCP a 50% chance, to remove an effect, when ship is moving. You won't know, if it will work or not.

[BLUB__BLUB]

3 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Don't see the logical here. Having DCP as one DCP makes it a tactical tool, that you have to decide, if you want use it or not.

But the flat grounds are mostly arounds islands. You won't be able to know, if the ground is flat, because you will get a island collision warning.

For a comparison it would be like giving DCP a 50% chance, to remove an effect, when ship is moving. You won't know, if it will work or not.

There is no logic, I am just teasing you because you think using DCP for "everything" is OK,

and now you want a separate signal for what basically is the same as running aground. The luxury, wayyy too extravagant!

Subs can even fix it if they do, just go a bit higher - ships often get stuck.

[Pikkozoikum]

57 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

There is no logic, I am just teasing you because you think using DCP for "everything" is OK,

and now you want a separate signal for what basically is the same as running aground. The luxury, wayyy too extravagant!

Subs can even fix it if they do, just go a bit higher - ships often get stuck.

Ships get stuck, but they can see why and that often before, they got stuck. A submarine doesn't know, what is below.

[BLUB__BLUB]

3 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Ships get stuck, but they can see why and that often before, they got stuck. A submarine doesn't know, what is below.

Well, ships also get stuck on stuff that is shallow - that is why there is a signal. 

Not all islands go 90 degrees down... but well, maybe they do not need a different sound... 

[Bracciano_gatto]

On 8/24/2021 at 9:52 AM, Inappropriate_noob said:

Does WG actually use this thread as 'valuable feedback?'

No, they don't need to as long as new players come in and buy whatever.

 

For all the criticism WG gets, I will say this, if only their top management were as good as the art department for the modelling of the subs, just as with all other ships is second to none detail wise.

That, I agree.
 

 

[Pikkozoikum]

4 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Well, ships also get stuck on stuff that is shallow - that is why there is a signal. 

Not all islands go 90 degrees down... but well, maybe they do not need a different sound... 

Eh, but you still get the warning? There is no difference, if you ram the island above the water line or below. That can happen to a submarine as well, you know?
But additionally a submarine can not see, if diving is possible or not

[BLUB__BLUB]

17 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Eh, but you still get the warning? There is no difference, if you ram the island above the water line or below. That can happen to a submarine as well, you know?

See, it is same - no need for a special signal. 

 

17 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

But additionally a submarine can not see, if diving is possible or not

Well, maybe WeeGee can have it automated, just like avoiding islands with other ships. 

On-screen warning, too. Same thing. Of course you can turn it off, like in other ships. 

[Pikkozoikum]

1 hour ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

See, it is same - no need for a special signal. 

Yes, a surfaced submarine can collide with an island. It's not about the island (horizontal plane), it's about the ground (vertical level).

 

1 hour ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Well, maybe WeeGee can have it automated, just like avoiding islands with other ships. 

On-screen warning, too. Same thing. Of course you can turn it off, like in other ships. 

I don't know, I think you don't know the issue xD Automation doesn't solve the issue.

 

 

As submarine there is no information to the ground, until he dives into it. That's like you close your eyes when moving a ship against an island and you open them, when you hit it or passed it

[togMOR]

Am 28.8.2021 um 13:45, Pikkozoikum sagte:

Ships get stuck, but they can see why and that often before, they got stuck. A submarine doesn't know, what is below.

Doesn´t that add to the "diversity" of the sub gameplay in a wonderful and challenging way? ;)

[ba22er]

I did not enjoy my expweience in games with subs weather trying to kill them or playing them. They are too historically inaccurate. First unlimited aircraft on carriers now submersible speedboats with weared unrealistic vision mechanics.

I was looking forward to subs as I play several sub simulators but there is nothing that I can see that makes thes subs rather than sinking ships as they appear to be equiped with windows when underwater. 

Ill give it a few months then possibly try again and if subs are everywhere Ill probably give up playing.

 

[Hugh_Ruka]

20 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Yes, a surfaced submarine can collide with an island. It's not about the island (horizontal plane), it's about the ground (vertical level).

 

I don't know, I think you don't know the issue xD Automation doesn't solve the issue.

 

 

As submarine there is no information to the ground, until he dives into it. That's like you close your eyes when moving a ship against an island and you open them, when you hit it or passed it

There were plenty of instances reported where ships got stuck at nothing without any warning since the underwater world was added.

 

Also the collision warning if for SURFACE collisions. It only tells you there's a huge island in front of you. It does not tell you there's a reef below the surface ....

[Pikkozoikum]

1 hour ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

There were plenty of instances reported where ships got stuck at nothing without any warning since the underwater world was added

I think, they will solve that in future? As far as I know, that are often invisible walls, that caused that

 

1 hour ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

Also the collision warning if for SURFACE collisions. It only tells you there's a huge island in front of you. It does not tell you there's a reef below the surface .... 

Someone suggested to add the same colloision warning for ground. I was just showing the issue

 

[Hugh_Ruka]

9 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I think, they will solve that in future? As far as I know, that are often invisible walls, that caused that

 

Someone suggested to add the same colloision warning for ground. I was just showing the issue

 

sure ... f.e. I did as well ... however for some reason you only think it is of use for submarines ... funny that ....

[Pikkozoikum]

6 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

sure ... f.e. I did as well ... however for some reason you only think it is of use for submarines ... funny that ....

Because it was about submerging

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Shirakami_Kon]

@YabbaCoe

 

Is it really that hard to just do this again?

 

 

You guys already did it in past tests. It's possible to implement a game mode where to test them all you want without ruining the enjoyment of the game for everyone else. May I get an answer as to why it wasn't possible to just do it in a proper way again like previous times?

[Capra76]

6 hours ago, SHDRKN4792 said:

@YabbaCoe

Is it really that hard to just do this again?

 

 

I think it's a case of desperation kicking in.

 

They've been working on this for 2 years, it's been through however many tests both on the live server and in test environments and they all keep coming up with the same answer as from day one, they just do not work in this game, they cannot be made to work in the game.

 

I think they've convinced themselves that maybe if they test it in some kind of different way they'll get a eureka moment, where maybe by changing something by 5% or so it does work after all and then everything is good.

 

It's pure fantasy, but the alternative is that they've spent 2 years on something we all knew wouldn't work from day 1, and that is unlikely to be good news for the careers of some at WG.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

10 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

the alternative is that they've spent 2 years on something we all knew wouldn't work from day 1, and that is unlikely to be good news for the careers of some at WG.

Subs WILL be a total success... no careers will be endangered.... never... because WG follows the Holy Spreadshiet and the Spreadshiet is never wrong... therefor WG cannot be wrong and will ALWAYS be successful... so Subs will be a TOTAL success... because WG wants them to be...

[Gudgeon]

Submarines are just the "Stealth Firing" of 2021. You removed stealth firing in 2017, but this class has brought it back. GG and well played. Stealth firing was deemed broken in 2017, but you have introduced a class whose main mode of operation is stealth firing. Removing stealth firing seemed like a good idea at the time for the developer, so why is it now deemed acceptable?

[Gudgeon]

6 hours ago, Capra76 said:

 

I think it's a case of desperation kicking in.

 

They've been working on this for 2 years, it's been through however many tests both on the live server and in test environments and they all keep coming up with the same answer as from day one, they just do not work in this game, they cannot be made to work in the game.

 

I think they've convinced themselves that maybe if they test it in some kind of different way they'll get a eureka moment, where maybe by changing something by 5% or so it does work after all and then everything is good.

 

It's pure fantasy, but the alternative is that they've spent 2 years on something we all knew wouldn't work from day 1, and that is unlikely to be good news for the careers of some at WG.

 

 

They are being played in ranked, so the spreadsheet will say "Success!". A proportion of the player base has just destroyed the game they like to play. Still, they mainly sail broadside and activate damage control on one fire, so it is not a surprise.

 

[Axilian_1]

Suggestion 

 

Allow BB spotter planes and fighter planes (and CV planes if required) to be able to spot subs if just below the surface  (i.e. not at 40m)  and also have the range of detectability  alter with the depth of the subs (sub at 20m would have a smaller detectability that say at periscope depth)   - this would help a lot with having to chase down the remaining subs at the end of a co-op match 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

8 hours ago, Capra76 said:

 

I think it's a case of desperation kicking in.

 

They've been working on this for 2 years, it's been through however many tests both on the live server and in test environments and they all keep coming up with the same answer as from day one, they just do not work in this game, they cannot be made to work in the game.

 

I think they've convinced themselves that maybe if they test it in some kind of different way they'll get a eureka moment, where maybe by changing something by 5% or so it does work after all and then everything is good.

 

It's pure fantasy, but the alternative is that they've spent 2 years on something we all knew wouldn't work from day 1, and that is unlikely to be good news for the careers of some at WG.

This yes. The mademoisail and Ev1n stream was pretty clear about that lol. They stated that if people play game modes with submarines in it the subs are apparently acceptable, and because of that ready to implement. I'm pretty sure most at Lesta are tired with the stupid things after 2 years of failing to make them even remotely interesting. They will again settle for boring but who cares at this point, much like the carriers. Lestas upper management and design team combo is incapable in designing anything remotely fun and I'm pretty sure, looking at their omissions in the subs after 2 years, incapable of compelling pvp gameplay design in general by now. So sad, the game used to have such potential years ago. The game we have now only gets pathetic gameplay features added.

[mtm78]

On 8/24/2021 at 3:52 PM, Inappropriate_noob said:

Does WG actually use this thread as 'valuable feedback?'

Ofc not, this place was made so they could concentrate all the negative stuff in one thread for it not to clutter the front page all the time, just as with CV reework. 

On 8/27/2021 at 1:43 PM, BLUB__BLUB said:

I think some stuff makes the subs not stronger, just "more troll". 

..which is another way of saying 'toxic' to play against. 

 

31 minutes ago, Europizza said:

So sad, the game used to have such potential years ago. The game we have now only gets pathetic gameplay features added.

Yup, and it all boils down to people who wanted to remake this game into Steel Ocean with better graphics.. ow and WeGreedy not having any morals since lying to your players for YEARS is perfectly acceptable. 

[Pikkozoikum]

2 hours ago, Gudgeon said:

Submarines are just the "Stealth Firing" of 2021. You removed stealth firing in 2017, but this class has brought it back. GG and well played. Stealth firing was deemed broken in 2017, but you have introduced a class whose main mode of operation is stealth firing. Removing stealth firing seemed like a good idea at the time for the developer, so why is it now deemed acceptable?

Torpedos never caused a "gun bloom"?