General Submarines related discussions

[Hedgehog1963]

I have no intention of playing submarines, yet I have spent a good 5 minutes dismissing dozens of zero skill commanders.

[Procrastes]

On the subject of the ongoing daily submarine/coal bundles: They are kind of Christmas reversed, right? Where the nice kids are the ones to get the coal?

[Nov_A]

As this seems the right topic to ask, does anyone have the source from WG's silent majortiy claim on submarines? Cant find anything by skimming the dev blog.

[lovelacebeer]

14 minutes ago, Nov_A said:

As this seems the right topic to ask, does anyone have the source from WG's silent majortiy claim on submarines? Cant find anything by skimming the dev blog.

I would also be very curious to see the source for such a claim. However they will never show it too us because the truth would almost certainly be: 

[Nov_A]

5 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

I would also be very curious to see the source for such a claim. However they will never show it too us because the truth would almost certainly be: 

 

I meant the claim itself.

[DeviousDave02]

22 minutes ago, Nov_A said:

I meant the claim itself.

I think it was a response to player complaints from a community manager in one of the News articles IIRC.

 

No idea which one though, (was a while ago now, before the CC exodus) but it went something along the lines of a player saying "Why are Subs being shoe horned into the game when no one wants them?" to which the response was (again something along the lines of) "You can't say that as our data shows that a significant portion of the player base DOES want Submarines to be in the game and has asked for them via the forums/feed back polls etc."

 

No data was provided to back up the claim though. (so take it with a truck load of salt)

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

 

@YabbaCoe So, isn't the last trajectory supposed to be unguided or is that going to be implemented in the upcoming patch? Because it sure as hell doesn't look like it when this bot DD tries to avoid my bizarre torpedoes spread totally homing in on him up to impact :P

Also, the last part of the battle we ended up just twiddeling our thumbs as the last AI sub never got spotted ever. I know AI gets 'repaired' to avoid this in coop, what have you done to help random battles against battle endings like that?

 

And then there is this gem, my second match where I torp guide ping kill one ship and redirect the torps that didnt hit that ship to the next ship behind it with time enough to cause citadels on both, homing up to impact looks like. Moments later I ping and launch at a BB bot, who DCP's my ping while my torps are underway. The DCP protection against pings is short so I manage to double ping the BB when his DCP protection evaporates and I guide that same set of torps into his citadel without any issues and cita kill him. Really? This is ready to release on random?

 

 

 

I dont get it. I just hopped in to see how this stuff actually works, and it's ridiculously easy to spam this stuff about.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

4 hours ago, Europizza said:

I dont get it. I just hopped in to see how this stuff actually works, and it's ridiculously easy to spam this stuff about.

"Working as intended, comrade.. how else would we be able to attract any players to this atrociously boring fun and engaging gameplay" - attributed to an unknown designer at WG

[Procrastes]

15 hours ago, DeviousDave02 said:

I think it was a response to player complaints from a community manager in one of the News articles IIRC.

 

No idea which one though, (was a while ago now, before the CC exodus) but it went something along the lines of a player saying "Why are Subs being shoe horned into the game when no one wants them?" to which the response was (again something along the lines of) "You can't say that as our data shows that a significant portion of the player base DOES want Submarines to be in the game and has asked for them via the forums/feed back polls etc."

 

No data was provided to back up the claim though. (so take it with a truck load of salt)

Since the very term "silent majority" implies silence, i.e. absence of communication, I would be curious to hear how this claimant managed to discern what this silent majority wants...?

On a more general note, it can be quite practical for a claimant to have a silent majority to hand as a way of justifying an otherwise unjustifiable decision, since this majority could - by virtue of being silent - presumably be relied upon not to make any awkward noises to dispute the claim. This kind of silent majorities can be quite influential; they have even been know to win elections in certain democratically challenged states.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

11 minutes ago, Procrastes said:

This kind of silent majorities can be quite influential; they have even been know to win elections in certain democratically challenged states.

Considering where WG comes from, they have probably a lot experience with such "silent majorities and their advantages". And a democratically challenged mindset.

[General_Alexus]

Ok WG (I actually believe you are reading here inspite of the pointless discussions)

It seems like you made a 180° on how to design the Subs:

You wanted American Subs to "snipe" and German subs to CqB and designed them this way, than you noticed that backlaunched Torps are needed for CQB and now you change the nation roles around.

I am fine with that (even questioned you motives here myself regarding to backlaunced torps), but dont only just change the Torp stats and call it a day.

Be sure you look at dive-time, concealment and consumabels.

The battery-consumabe and higher Dive-cap on German subs was meant to help in CQB for example and was not touched by the the upcomming changes.

An idea would also be to make the dive-time-recovery on subs different for the nations (as in the multiplier you want to set to x3 for everyone) to make the nations more unique.

[Pikkozoikum]

2 hours ago, General_Alexus said:

Ok WG (I actually believe you are reading here inspite of the pointless discussions)

It seems like you made a 180° on how to design the Subs:

You wanted American Subs to "snipe" and German subs to CqB and designed them this way, than you noticed that backlaunched Torps are needed for CQB and now you change the nation roles around.

I am fine with that (even questioned you motives here myself regarding to backlaunced torps), but dont only just change the Torp stats and call it a day.

Be sure you look at dive-time, concealment and consumabels.

The battery-consumabe and higher Dive-cap on German subs was meant to help in CQB for example and was not touched by the the upcomming changes.

An idea would also be to make the dive-time-recovery on subs different for the nations (as in the multiplier you want to set to x3 for everyone) to make the nations more unique.

I was thinking about the same, though  you could also see it like, that the germans "counterplay" against close combat submarines is that consumable, so they are not totally fucked. Because the rear torpedos are pretty effective. With only front torpedos, the turning around can take ages

[Frothtoma]

I read your "changes" to  the submarine warfare, but i can not skip the feeling that your internal testing team does not function. If i (as a novice player) can detect the problems that we will encounter now with the subs, you should also know them (and prevented them).

 

The "hit-sequence" for the sub will now be: Ping, 1 torp, if ping stays, next torp, if ping ends next ping all torps, result is certain kill.

And, as for the "all ships get ASW" there is something inherently flawed if you follow that by: EXCEPT. Result is that you still have ships that can be hunted down by subs that have no way to detect or attack the sub. 

If you need suggestions how to improve the sub gameplay, concider subs to a) only able to fire torps on periscope depth b) always be vicible to a pinged ship, regardless of depth or range c) limit the range of the ping d) reduce the homing effect, or delete it completly.

[Pukovnik7]

On 10/3/2021 at 4:07 PM, DeviousDave02 said:

I think it was a response to player complaints from a community manager in one of the News articles IIRC.

 

No idea which one though, (was a while ago now, before the CC exodus) but it went something along the lines of a player saying "Why are Subs being shoe horned into the game when no one wants them?" to which the response was (again something along the lines of) "You can't say that as our data shows that a significant portion of the player base DOES want Submarines to be in the game and has asked for them via the forums/feed back polls etc."

 

No data was provided to back up the claim though. (so take it with a truck load of salt)

But of course, not only they did not provide data to back up that claim, but they also did not provide data that said "majority" wanted submarines in the MAIN GAME MODES.

 

I am one of those who supported introduction of submarines, and I still think they are a good idea - but only in their own game mode, akin to Operations.

[Camperdown]

On 10/3/2021 at 4:07 PM, DeviousDave02 said:

I think it was a response to player complaints from a community manager in one of the News articles IIRC.

 

No idea which one though, (was a while ago now, before the CC exodus) but it went something along the lines of a player saying "Why are Subs being shoe horned into the game when no one wants them?" to which the response was (again something along the lines of) "You can't say that as our data shows that a significant portion of the player base DOES want Submarines to be in the game and has asked for them via the forums/feed back polls etc."

 

No data was provided to back up the claim though. (so take it with a truck load of salt)

A significant portion can be anything as low as 20%. I don't buy it 

[VOID17]

I have one questions that I can't find answer to, maybe anyone from WG can explain me. I played Subs on PTS year ago (maybe more) and it was fine testing new mechanics on a test server.  

WG released subs into Ranked, which was my favorite game mode, did all ranked seasons apart from this one. Subs in current state dont work for me. (apart from other issues). 

Now they are releasing them into random battles. and as WG claims they are still in testing mode. so what if I'm not interested in something that is still in testing? I have 0 Interest ZERO! in testing something that involves WG future releases. (if I wanted test ships i would have happily apply as a tester and use PTS) but I'm NOT. so the only option I come up with is to take another vacation. but what about my premium account? will i be compensated for not playing while you test your subs in random?

 

WG please just give me one GOOD reason why I should invest my time and test subs when its YOUR Job to do it and get it right? I dont get paid for testing your new gimmicks. I have enough things going on in life which does not include your company..... 

 

I already get frustrated when most of my premium ships get nerfed and because of that most of the ships are not the same when I spent money on them!. and now this.... 

 

Last apology was so promising. but as always disappointing just after few weeks....  

 

SO I guess I'm really taking vacation not interested in having more anxiety, frustrations and getting toxic chat bullying.  (Because for the past months this game only gives you those 3, If anyone played ranked can understand me lol )

 

[Gvozdika]

12 hours ago, Camperdown said:

A significant portion can be anything as low as 20%. I don't buy it 

Hell, according to some studies 4-8 % of the population at various points throughout history are classified as clinically insane. This is a significant proportion.

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2765347

 

In other totally unrelated news - WG are aiming for a playerbase popularity of subs of around 4-8%. Total coincidence of course and it would be wrong to draw comparisons......

 

[Shaka_D]

When considering the future, I'm looking forward to buying my first premium sub.....does this make me a bad person? Also wish I could see the look on the face of a sub-hater who eventually gets a ship in an SC , and it's a sub. Yes I know, I shouldn't joke about such things, but damn this topic is hot!

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

35 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

When considering the future, I'm looking forward to buying my first premium sub.....does this make me a bad person? Also wish I could see the look on the face of a sub-hater who eventually gets a ship in an SC , and it's a sub. Yes I know, I shouldn't joke about such things, but damn this topic is hot!

If the subs turn out to be random grief machines I might be playing subs exclusively ^^

[Shaka_D]

1 minute ago, Europizza said:

If the subs turn out to be random grief machines I might be playing subs exclusively ^^

That might be a solution to the sub problem..encourage eveyryone to play them to break the anticipated 4-8% barrier, haha.

[DJKariSmatiK]

Hello,
I'm disgusted I put a little money in this game.
Now because of the submarines I partly don't have fun anymore.
The more submarines there are, the more I stop the game.
If I wanted a submarine game I would have bought silent hunter!
sign,
a sad player

[Nibenay78]

Just got up to silver ranked because I decided I might as well play ranked instead of random. Playing BB is for sure an excessively unenjoyable affair now. I had no problem with RTS CVs being VERY STRONG against BB, which I played most at that time.

 

But constant abnormal-cell-growth CVs all the time in ranked while being pinged by invisible griefers who just dive the last 5 minutes of the game despite it being lost takes the piss.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

10 hours ago, Shaka_D said:

When considering the future, I'm looking forward to buying my first premium sub.....does this make me a bad person? (A)

Also wish I could see the look on the face of a sub-hater who eventually gets a ship in an SC , and it's a sub. (B)

Yes I know, I shouldn't joke about such things, but damn this topic is hot!

Answer to A: Yes

Answer to B: I'd be happily selling each and every sub that I would get from a SC without a bit of hesitation or remorse. And I even kept the Krispy Kreme I got from the first SC that dropped a ship on me...

[Gvozdika]

Reposted from thread talking about torpedoes in particular.

 

If WG actually wanted to make the torps work without totally going comic-book. 

 

1) Remove homing + ping - back to straight runners only. Y'know, like EVERYONE else has to use... I know, aiming is hard but you can do it if you put your minds to it WG! The ping/homing stuff is stupid and widely derided. Just drop it. 

 

2) Max out the damage on a single torp to IJN levels. If you get whacked by one it'll hurt. Get whacked by a spread and bye.

 

3) Shorten the range to IJN F3 levels (6-8km). Requires the sub player to put themselves at risk of detection/counter-attack if they wish to get at someone. No camping back and spamming pings/torps from the 2nd line.

 

4) Keep the artificial speed boost for both subs and torpedoes if need be. Artificial speed compression in WOWS is a thing.

 

5) Increase torpedo reload to DD levels - no spamming torps out every 40s. 

 

6) Make subs much more agile on the surface - retain the sluggish handling when underwater. Encourage sub players to use their ships on the surface as much as possible - relying on the underwater dynamic only when attacking/escaping. 

 

What you end up with is a short-range ambush predator that has to get close to do it's damage - the emphasis actually matching the RL sub modus operandi. However, as with a DD torpedo strike - it has the ability to do a lot of damage in a salvo - making it a high risk, high reward playstyle. It also means that ASW becomes more important - since a sub allowed to get close can do lots of damage (much like an unspotted DD).  

 

Sub vs. sub? Well WG are happy to have CV players unable to counter eachother - so why should the new cuddled class be any different. Reduce total dive capacity to make endgame sub vs. sub fights a purely surface affair. Like it often actually was in real life. 

 

There we go - Gvozdika has solved submarines in 2 minutes while drinking his before-work cup of tea. No spreadsheet required. I'll send the invoice in the post to WG HQ for my services (TBF I'll also stick this in the feedback thread - not that anyone from WG actually reads it). 

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

37 minutes ago, Gvozdika said:

1) Remove homing + ping - back to straight runners only. Y'know, like EVERYONE else has to use... I know, aiming is hard but you can do it if you put your minds to it WG! The ping/homing stuff is stupid and widely derided. Just drop it.

The ping concept is deeply flawed, I agree. To put it more succinctly....

 

Ping Pongs!