Submarines in Ranked and Co-op Battles

[Amaha]

14 godziny temu, mtm78 napisał:

 

Say what? You want to give them nuclear reactors? WG advertised this as an historically accurate game, listen to all the mumbo jumbo people have to rattle off when WoWs sponsors a YT video. Submarines in WWII should be SLOWER not faster.

 

Ow wait, that's not fun? I guess the solution to that would be not putting them in the game. 

Yea yea, I heard and read that nonsense about historical accuracy (can't count how many times). This don't work in this game. Sorry.

 

At their current state, subs have extremely low to none game impact. Mostly because lack of speed (And yes, Im know that the real ones was even slower). This makes them literally boring. Less that aircraft carriers, but still boring.

And I'm agree with Your last line. Don't put them in the game.

[mtm78]

19 minutes ago, Amaha said:

This don't work in this game. Sorry.

 

The problem is not that it doesn't really apply irl, I know this very well, it is that they advertise it as such. 

[Redwing6891]

Well, Silent Hunter it ain't... 

[ghostbuster_]

10 hours ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

A comparable case would be you spot a DD but it's behind an island so you still can't shoot it or you spot a CV but you still can't shoot it because it's not in range.

or you spot a sub and you still can't shoot it because it still has some dive capacity left. The restriction on dive capacity needs some improvement, but it's there.

No... this would be comparable with you not being able to shoot a spotted sub because its behind an island or out of your ASW drop range. 

Exactly matches to the example I gave. you cant shoot that DD because it still has smoke left. you have to wait for its smoke to disappear.  

Quote

 

If you are in a cruiser or a BB that doesn't have ASW and a friendly sub spots an enemy sub 9km away from you, be glad that you are now aware of that sub, and that you are 9km away from that sub, and faster than that sub, and that you have a friendly sub next to that sub and that hopefully someone else on your team has ASW which can help deal with the sub so that you don't have to.

and this is not having a freaking counterplay. it is NOT ok. In that example I gave: you can be glad that you see the smoke and know there is a DD. You must hope for your teammates to shoot it because you cant although its right there in front of you. not behind a f island or anything. 

Quote

And when you play a game and you are one of the ships that has ASW make sure you pay attention to enemy subs cos people might rely on you to threaten that sub. Just like every other ship relies on other ships with different capabilties to use them to their fullest. Hardly requires any new player skills to manage subs.

goes for subs aswell. they are incredibly easy to play. and those homing torps revomes any skill factor. 

Quote

 

What a stupid question. "Name me one ship that cant shoot something that it can shoot?"

exactly its dumb af. what you are defending is also dumb af because it turns the answer of this question to yes. 

Quote

Obviously the answer to this question is (almost*) none, because every ship can shoot targets that it can shoot at, if you only care about one rigid set of circumstances where the enemy is both visible and in range. If only I had known many years ago that I could just deal damage to spotted enemies in range and ignore everything else because every ship in the game can deal damage to spotted enemies in their firing range, life would have been so much simpler.

well poor you. well at least you know now. its never late for improvement. 

Quote

 

*But even then you are wrong because you cant damage any spotted enemies that are in your range if they have terrain cover, so under certain circumstances you can absolutely have a spotted enemy in your range that you cannot damage.

this would apply subs too. if a sub is behind an island, you cant shoot it. and I have absolutely no problem with that because sub should be able to use terrain aswell. right now, you can drop ASW behind and islands. but like I said WG should come up with new features or consumables for subs. first of all, ships should have a line of sight to be able to drop dept charges. To give subs the opportunitiy of using the terrain like other ships, WG should change this first. 

Quote

 

Times change, now there are ships that you cannot always damage, even when you can see them and they are in range.

Just like when enemies are behind islands!

this is not the same thing for fck sake. 

Quote

Which is how things are right now, so maybe times have not changed so much. If every ship needs ASW to deal with subs, maybe every ship should also have dive bombers, or at least dutch airstrikes, to deal with enemies that are behind islands.

Because that is how the game works, right? "Every ship in this game capable to deal damage any enemy."

I thing I made it clear that not being able to shoot a target due to terrain is not the same thing with not being able to do anything against a sub which is right next to you. 

Quote

Now you will have to wait between 3 and 7 minutes for a subs dive capacity to run out so that you can shoot it if you don't have ASW. Because you are capable of dealing damage to subs without ASW, you just can't do it simply because they're spotted and in range.

and this means you dont have any counterplay against subs. it this case your skill is also irrelevant since you still cant do crap even if sub is the worst player in the world. 

Quote

 

The only thing funny here is your inability to understand the implications of your own demand.

 

The playerbase really is something else when players with so many games from good clans still come up with such nonsense. " every ship in this game capable to deal damage any enemy" is not an argument, it is your personal expectation.

Well you made quite obvious who is not capable of getting things right. you didnt even get the main point yet. the main point is every ships should be able to at least fight against an other ship. there should be a change of that. Can you return fire to a ship in your DD while being radared? yes you can. you should be able to do the same thing against a sub if it fcks up and gets spotted in your ASW range. 

Quote

Imagine expecting every ship to have ASW, you would have to nerf ASW into the floor for any sub to have any chance of survival and that would make each ships own individual ASW worthless by itself. What would be the point, did you even consider that?

they dont need to nerf ASW at all. Sub gameplay needs some challanges aswell. first of all, ASW range would be 10 km which is even less than subs torpedo range. second of all, sub should try to be stay unspotted. if a sub player gets into the range of ASW and get himself spotted despite having ridiculously low detection range, im sorry but this means that guy just fcked up and other players must be able to punish that poor play. ffs if your timing is good enough,  its imposible to get spotted in a sub. 

Quote

 

It is a team based game. If your complaint was that there is currently no MM rules to ensure that every team has some ASW, that would be totally valid. I've heard of games with 3 subs and no DDs, that is stupid. If the team at least has ASW on it proportional to the number of subs there should be less of an issue. But expecting every ship to have ASW is just stupid. There's no historical precendent for this and it's not good balance either.

Historical precendent doesnt matter when it comes to this game so why even mentioning it? Well this would be another problem ofc. 

Quote

 

As I said above, I am not claiming ASW is correct right now, nor any element of SS. There are still notable changes they should make. But adding ASW to every ship is not one of them.

Its exactly how they should start if they want to keep being that arrogant and iplement subs into every single gamemode. 

[Benser33]

1 hour ago, ghostbuster_ said:

No... this would be comparable with you not being able to shoot a spotted sub because its behind an island or out of your ASW drop range. 

Exactly matches to the example I gave. you cant shoot that DD because it still has smoke left. you have to wait for its smoke to disappear.  

Here is the difference; your example isn't real. You made up some crap about if DDs could make themselves invincible by popping smoke. But subs don't make themselves invincible by being submerged, they remain vulnerable to ASW. Your example is just saying "what IF subs were this ridiculous". I mean sure, if subs did have a button they could press that just made them totally invincible for 70-90s that would be stupid as hell. But they don't.

 

There are tons of scenarios in the game where you cannot damage an enemy. Vision, range, smoke, terrain. Subs being submerged is just another, arguably it is an element of terrain. The fact that you cannot see how being unable to shoot subs because they can submerge is the same as not being able to shoot any other target for any other reason is frankly incredible. Despite your initial claim, you cannot in fact shoot every target all of the time.

 

The problem you have here is that this is new and different. You are so hung up on the fact that sometimes a sub will be in range and visible and sometimes you will be able to attack with ASW and sometimes you wont that you can't even see how completely normal that is. And just because you can't attack it, doesn't mean that no one can.

 

How many times did you not shoot a target because it was not in range? If only you had a ship with more range!
How many times did you not hit a target because you couldn't lock it in smoke? If only you had a ship with radar!

How many times could you not hit a target because your arcs were not high enough to get over the island they hide behind? If only you had higher shell arcs!

How many times will you see a sub right infront of you and not be able to attack? If only you had ASW!

 

But not. every. ship. has. every. thing.

 

1 hour ago, ghostbuster_ said:

this would apply subs too. if a sub is behind an island, you cant shoot it. and I have absolutely no problem with that because sub should be able to use terrain aswell. right now, you can drop ASW behind and islands. but like I said WG should come up with new features or consumables for subs. first of all, ships should have a line of sight to be able to drop dept charges. To give subs the opportunitiy of using the terrain like other ships, WG should change this first.

But subs can already submerge underwater, this is almost entirely superior to geographical terrain cover. They can use terrain just like every other ship if they are surfaced. I don't see why they deserve any added benefits or protection against ASW, they have

 

Why should ASW require line of sight or not work behind islands? I don't see how that would make sense or why that would be generally healthy balance wise. Subs already have an exclusive realm of depth to use to protect themselves and a resource to manage to succeed at doing so, I don't see why they should be assisted in having extra means of concealing themselves beyond what they already have. A sub that is known to a ship with ASW should be vulnerable to it. Other surface ships should be able to use terrain to protect themselves from subs while having the ASW options to attack them while they have the intelligence to do so, not be impeded by terrain. Most of the range balancing of subs seems designed around this life cycle of having ASW that is dependent on little more than intel, in counter to the sub stealth-orientated ethos.

 

1 hour ago, ghostbuster_ said:

and this means you dont have any counterplay against subs. it this case your skill is also irrelevant since you still cant do crap even if sub is the worst player in the world.  

Obviously there is the skill of knowing where a sub is and avoiding the direct area and not ignoring it. Not making yourself a victim is a skill. Subs can't chase anyone down, even the slowest BBs are faster than the fastest subs. If you end up with the worst sub player in the world right next to you in any ship that can do 30knts or more then you really deserve to get killed by them.

 

1 hour ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Well you made quite obvious who is not capable of getting things right. you didnt even get the main point yet. the main point is every ships should be able to at least fight against an other ship. there should be a change of that. Can you return fire to a ship in your DD while being radared? yes you can. you should be able to do the same thing against a sub if it fcks up and gets spotted in your ASW range. 

Don't blame me for "not getting your main point" if you pose your point so unconvincingly.

Yes you can return fire in a DD while being radared, what does that have to do with anything else? Is that supposed to be helpful? Is your priority, when spotted by radar as a DD, to be able to shoot back? Or is it to regain concealment and disengage.

If a sub gets spotted in ASW range it should get ASW attacked. If you don't have ASW that's just too bad.

If a ship managed to get close enough to you that you end up knife fighting it and get torped and can't retaliate because you don't have torps that's just too bad.

If a CV attacks you with planes and you can't shoot any of them down because your AA is poor and you're on your own that's just too bad.

 

Again you complain about something that is absolutely normal and should not pose a massive issue to anyone with even a modicum of versatility to adapt to. If you are so obsessed with having access to ASW all the time then I guess you should only play ships with ASW from now on. Alternatively, adapt what you are doing.

 

1 hour ago, ghostbuster_ said:

they dont need to nerf ASW at all. Sub gameplay needs some challanges aswell. first of all, ASW range would be 10 km which is even less than subs torpedo range. second of all, sub should try to be stay unspotted. if a sub player gets into the range of ASW and get himself spotted despite having ridiculously low detection range, im sorry but this means that guy just fcked up and other players must be able to punish that poor play. ffs if your timing is good enough,  its imposible to get spotted in a sub. 

How can you start this paragraph sincerely with "you dont need to nerf ASW at all" and then immediately propose nerfing it to 10km. Or did you not know up to 13km ASW exists?

And yes, I agree, if a sub gets spotted he should be at high risk of death. But it does not mean that every ship should have ASW or this guy gets spotted and gets 6-12 bombs dropped on them per player. Good luck surviving that. Hence why I said that if you did want to give every ship ASW they would have to be weaker individually so that the combined strike of like 4-6 ships is not guaranteed insta-death.

It would be enough if even 1 player with ASW that could threaten a sub was in range when the sub was spotted, then you wouldn't need ASW on every single ship.

 

2 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Its exactly how they should start if they want to keep being that arrogant and iplement subs into every single gamemode. 

Yeah, they have work to do. Early version of subs didn't have ASW on BBs or cruisers at all. While it makes a lot of sense that ASW cruisers have ASW and BBs having some airstrikes is also fine that doesn't mean it would be okay to oversaturate ships with ASW options. Otherwise it just becomes brainless, always having acces to an I-WIN button instead of promoting intelligence and team play and ship variety, I hardly see that as harmful.

[mtm78]

8 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

Yeah, they have work to do. Early version of subs didn't have ASW on BBs or cruisers at all. While it makes a lot of sense that ASW cruisers have ASW and BBs having some airstrikes is also fine that doesn't mean it would be okay to oversaturate ships with ASW options. Otherwise it just becomes brainless, always having acces to an I-WIN button instead of promoting intelligence and team play and ship variety, I hardly see that as harmful.

This is bull, sorry. You're not promoting intelligence with lacking counter options, you're instead trying to promote teamplay and we all know this sadly doesn't work due to all the dumb and bad players in the game.

 

You sound like one of the people thinking old CV's were to hard to play because DFAA was actually useful? 

[Benser33]

20 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

This is bull, sorry. You're not promoting intelligence with lacking counter options, you're instead trying to promote teamplay and we all know this sadly doesn't work due to all the dumb and bad players in the game.

 

You sound like one of the people thinking old CV's were to hard to play because DFAA was actually useful? 

Sure, it doesn't detract from intelligent play to give every ship ASW as such, but when every ship has ASW then what does any ship really have to worry about? Knowing that there is a ship ahead of you that you are ill-equipped to deal with and acting accordingly is intelligent play. Playing safe and ensuring your survival is often the most important (and most overlooking) and most intelligent thing you can do. Or we can just let every BB drop an airstrike on every sub. DDs should check enemy team composition and make note of ships with radar. Why should subs have to do the same for ASW? Why make it possible to get an advantage on a ship that you know doesn't have ASW? Why make your ship selection in port include consideration towards ASW? Why think at all? Just give it to all of them.

 

Not making ASW universally available makes it a limited resource, and that makes it something to be managed and successfully managing something like that requires knowledge and thought. Unlike AA, I don't think ASW can be spread among all ships because even the weakest ASW could be quite impactful. So, as well as varying degrees of ASW effectiveness there's also ships that just don't have it.

 

And just because most random players are dumb and bad doesn't mean that good players shouldn't have the opportunity to apply teamwork in divisions or when you do encounter those decent players in the wild. Yeah you might fall victim to a sub because the ships with ASW played like crap and got wiped out. But that also incentivises you protecting your DD so they can fulfill an ASW role, or protecting a cruiser that has some ASW, or playing more defensively if you don't have ASW so that you can maintain a safe distance, or position yourself so that if you do have ASW you can utilise it.

 

Maybe this isn't "promoting" intelligence, but intelligent play is certainly desirable to make this work. But it will probably be quite a difficult undertaking to expect the entire playerbase to adapt to what new considerations and strategies are expected of them, especially considering how much it has changed over time.

 

And no, RTS CVs were not even remotely hard to play, stack planes and pick basically any ship and send them back to port in the first 2 minutes, great fun. DFAA did work, but this was just another indication of how flawed the entire concept was, back in the days when you could count ships with impactful AA on one hand because they could either grind planes to dust in miliseconds or do absolutely nothing at all. And this is barely hyperbole. RTS CVs were a mess.

[Gsb2016]

Whether submarines are vulnerable or not, whether ASW should be on every ship are the details for me as opposed to the bigger picture. If we see them in randoms  with say 3 subs, 2 DD and a CV  per team, as is very likely especially when they are first introduced, are BB players going to do anything other than sit back and snipe until they have been dealt with, I certainly would be extremely wary of pushing, I already am in 4 DD 1 CV battles.
 

It is not promoting passive play in the way deadeye was but almost forcing it. This in turn limits the choice of BB to play given you do not know what the matchmaker will throw at you. The mid to long range sniper being far more attractive than the inaccurate brawler, which leads to passive play, it is a vicious circle.

 

Apparently WG are not keen on passive play (why nerf secondary build which were already underpowered in the first place then - different debate) yet are introducing a class the fear of which in RL were the very reason why BB were very cautious about closing on a enemy. It was the threat of the submarine that caused Jellicoe to turn away at Jutland as opposed to pursue further the High Seas fleet.

[mtm78]

26 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

Sure, it doesn't detract from intelligent play to give every ship ASW as such, but when every ship has ASW then what does any ship really have to worry about?

 

Look it is very simple really, WG removed stealth fire because you couldn't counter it on your own which made it a toxic element. While I was arguing with @ghostbuster_ that wasn't that bad it 'just made you have to rely on other on your team'. Took him a while to actually convince me, though I have to admit it wasn't his words just my acceptance that this playerbase can not handle those kind of mechanics in random battles. 

 

You can exchange stealth fire ability with not having ASW and it's the exact same principle, and sadly @ghostbuster_ was right then and is right now. Eventually WG will actually come around and say the same ( just as saying smoke+he was toxic, queue Smolensk  ). 

 

26 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

And no, RTS CVs were not even remotely hard to play, stack planes and pick basically any ship and send them back to port in the first 2 minutes, great fun.

 

You must have been in a BB then and sailing alone, as no if you had a DFAA cruiser with you and payed attention to the minimap this wouldn't happen. Again, this required teamwork and that is why it failed in this game. And only bad DD players or those in a Shimakaze ( or other thicc loli ) would get cross dropped in 2m if they were dumb enough to get spotted trying to cap without knowing where the planes where, or medium to good players if faced with the maybe 200 CV fluffy unicorns which were good enough to even make me fear them in something like a Sims. Ofc, those few good CV players would eventually kill everything, if not directly then by spotting. But thank god that 99% of CV players could not actually do much in 2m unless it's against a player who would sail broadside to enemy team to 'bring as much guns to bear as possible'. 

 

Funny btw, WG changed them because of the skill gap ( edit: didn't want to write skill cap that's a different thing altogether ) , how was that in place when you say they were so easy to play? Then everyone would be good in them, and we all know most CV players during RTS were crap at the game. 

[ghostbuster_]

5 hours ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

Here is the difference; your example isn't real. You made up some crap about if DDs could make themselves invincible by popping smoke. But subs don't make themselves invincible by being submerged, they remain vulnerable to ASW. Your example is just saying "what IF subs were this ridiculous". I mean sure, if subs did have a button they could press that just made them totally invincible for 70-90s that would be stupid as hell. But they don't.

Read again. I said that if some ships wasnt able to deal damage. You would rely on your team mate to shoot that guy in front of you because your ship doesnt have the weapon for it. How is this different? Some ships have ASW and you rely on them. In my example some ships would have armement to shoot that DD. Its the same fcking thing.

Quote

 

There are tons of scenarios in the game where you cannot damage an enemy. Vision, range, smoke, terrain. Subs being submerged is just another, arguably it is an element of terrain.

Again wrong. First of all you can always blind fire into smoke or last seen position or by using the dot on minimap for example during a cyclone. You not being able to do this doesnt mean it doeant work for others.

Range and vision goes for subs aswell nothing changed there. ASW has limited range too afterall. Terrain should too. Like I said ships shouldnt be able to drop dept charges behing an island to give subs the opportunity of using terrain. But not having the armement is completely something different. 

Quote

The fact that you cannot see how being unable to shoot subs because they can submerge is the same as not being able to shoot any other target for any other reason is frankly incredible.

So, your counterplay only depends on a timer against sub. We avree on that. And this is ok? Jesus...

Quote

Despite your initial claim, you cannot in fact shoot every target all of the time.

In your range, you can. You dont even need vision like i just said. Or are you one of those who call people cheater after being hit without getting spotted? 

Quote

 

The problem you have here is that this is new and different. You are so hung up on the fact that sometimes a sub will be in range and visible and sometimes you will be able to attack with ASW and sometimes you wont that you can't even see how completely normal that is. And just because you can't attack it, doesn't mean that no one can.

Doesnt matter if someone else can or not. Every ship should be able to fight back and deal damage. Period.

Quote

 

How many times did you not shoot a target because it was not in range? If only you had a ship with more range!

Omg this is becoming cheap. Im talking about the targets in your freaking range. Literally in your face.

Quote

How many times did you not hit a target because you couldn't lock it in smoke? If only you had a ship with radar!

Believe or not I dont need radwr to hit targets in smoke. What a cheater I am, right? 

Quote

How many times could you not hit a target because your arcs were not high enough to get over the island they hide behind? If only you had higher shell arcs!

Like i said many times by now. While having line of sight. And like i said terrain should work for subs too meaning WG should rework ASW. Or do you wanna keep insisting not to understand?

Quote

How many times will you see a sub right infront of you and not be able to attack? If only you had ASW!

If that was any other class or ship, you could shoot back. But against subs you completely rely on friendly ships with ASW. I dont believe any good player would accept this. This is absolutely no go.

Quote

 

But not. every. ship. has. every. thing.

 

Every ship can damage every ship in their range if terrain allows that ofc. Execpt subs.

Quote

 

But subs can already submerge underwater, this is almost entirely superior to geographical terrain cover. They can use terrain just like every other ship if they are surfaced. I don't see why they deserve any added benefits or protection against ASW, they have

To prevent them being bombed to dead by every ship which has range withour caring about terrain. That would be a balancing factor for example. Imo no need to do that but suggested this as a balancing factor.

Quote

 

Why should ASW require line of sight or not work behind islands? I don't see how that would make sense or why that would be generally healthy balance wise.

Like i said. I wouldnt do such a thing. Only suggested as a balancing factor.

Quote

Subs already have an exclusive realm of depth to use to protect themselves and a resource to manage to succeed at doing so, I don't see why they should be assisted in having extra means of concealing themselves beyond what they already have. A sub that is known to a ship with ASW should be vulnerable to it. Other surface ships should be able to use terrain to protect themselves from subs while having the ASW options to attack them while they have the intelligence to do so, not be impeded by terrain. Most of the range balancing of subs seems designed around this life cycle of having ASW that is dependent on little more than intel, in counter to the sub stealth-orientated ethos.

 

Obviously there is the skill of knowing where a sub is and avoiding the direct area and not ignoring it. Not making yourself a victim is a skill. Subs can't chase anyone down, even the slowest BBs are faster than the fastest subs.

Really? You are saying vermont is faster than balae? (Or whatever the name was) interesting. You might wanna check twice before claiming something. Torpedos are homing tho. Are you aware of this? So, as a non-ASW ship what you can only do is sailing from one island to anotherone? Great game deaing right there.

Quote

If you end up with the worst sub player in the world right next to you in any ship that can do 30knts or more then you really deserve to get killed by them.

Well, 6-7 km more than enough and it doesnt require any skill to sneak up that much considering hydro and radar doesnt spot you. Even than it doesnt matter your torpedos reload really fast. Besides you are doing almost 30 knts. So, BBs cant disengage from that.

Quote

 

Don't blame me for "not getting your main point" if you pose your point so unconvincingly.

Yes you can return fire in a DD while being radared, what does that have to do with anything else? Is that supposed to be helpful? Is your priority, when spotted by radar as a DD, to be able to shoot back? Or is it to regain concealment and disengage.

It depends. There have been many examples where i jsut gunned down radar ships with my harugumu or kitakaze. The thing is, i can do this.

Quote

If a sub gets spotted in ASW range it should get ASW attacked. If you don't have ASW that's just too bad.

Thats just a bad design. Every ship has to be able to defend itself. Subs job is to stay undetected. If it gets spotted it means it misplayed and everyone has to be able to punish it. Defending the opposite is beyond stupid and only inticates lack of game understanding imo.

Quote

If a ship managed to get close enough to you that you end up knife fighting it and get torped and can't retaliate because you don't have torps that's just too bad.

I have guns, dont I? I somehow can fight back.

Quote

If a CV attacks you with planes and you can't shoot any of them down because your AA is poor and you're on your own that's just too bad.

CVs is another story. You cant take a broken class as an example while omplementing a new one. But still every ship has AA (speaking about high tiers). In this case ypu can give ASW to every ship with different strenght. Some could kill a sub with 5 dept charges but some would need 15. 

Quote

 

Again you complain about something that is absolutely normal and should not pose a massive issue to anyone with even a modicum of versatility to adapt to. If you are so obsessed with having access to ASW all the time then I guess you should only play ships with ASW from now on. Alternatively, adapt what you are doing.

Do you have i have a problem with adapting? I have been around since beta and I have never had an issue about that. But this doesnt mean this not having ASW makes any sense and its not stupid/broken call it whatever you want.

Quote

How can you start this paragraph sincerely with "you dont need to nerf ASW at all" and then immediately propose nerfing it to 10km. Or did you not know up to 13km ASW exists?

I gave an example. Some might have 13 some might have 18 some 10 some 8. Just like AA not every ship is supposed to have strong ASW but every ship needs to have one. But nice try. 

Quote

And yes, I agree, if a sub gets spotted he should be at high risk of death. But it does not mean that every ship should have ASW or this guy gets spotted and gets 6-12 bombs dropped on them per player.

If they have the range. Just like when a DD gets apotted and every ship shoots 9-12 shels to that DD.

Quote

Good luck surviving that. Hence why I said that if you did want to give every ship ASW they would have to be weaker individually so that the combined strike of like 4-6 ships is not guaranteed insta-death.

Like I said you can give them different damage values, different range, you can even introduce dept charges with different effective deps.

 

Removed*

 

Quote

Yeah, they have work to do. Early version of subs didn't have ASW on BBs or cruisers at all. While it makes a lot of sense that ASW cruisers have ASW and BBs having some airstrikes is also fine that doesn't mean it would be okay to oversaturate ships with ASW options. Otherwise it just becomes brainless, always having acces to an I-WIN button instead of promoting intelligence and team play and ship variety, I hardly see that as harmful.

Nope that wouldnt be a i win button. Subs are fast enough to get out of drop pattern of dept charges. WG might aswell work the drop pattern and make it smaller to give to subs a better chance of leaving the pattern before dept charges bit. In this cade surface ship player would have to predict and lead with dept charges.  There are so many thing to twist it but tbis is cristal clear that every ship must have ASW. But with different values range or anything. As long as they have the chance to fight back its ok.

[Benser33]

1 minute ago, mtm78 said:

 

Look it is very simple really, WG removed stealth fire because you couldn't counter it on your own which made it a toxic element. While I was arguing with @ghostbuster_ that wasn't that bad it 'just made you have to rely on other on your team'. Took him a while to actually convince me, though I have to admit it wasn't his words just my acceptance that this playerbase can not handle those kind of mechanics in random battles. 

 

You can exchange stealth fire ability with not having ASW and it's the exact same principle, and sadly @ghostbuster_ was right then and is right now. Eventually WG will actually come around and say the same ( just as saying smoke+he was toxic, queue Smolensk  ).

Yeah, well, stealth fire was countered by removing the possibility to do so. Many people complained about the balance concern of stealth firing. But the issue with stealth firing isn't the same as ASW because with stealth firing no one could counter it. It wasn't a matter of some ships could and some ships couldnt.

 

Or I guess CVs could counter it I guess but that's not the same as having 25-40% of the team be able to do so. This is why I say I hope WG addresses some MM concerns like not forming teams that have no ASW on them.

 

7 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

You must have been in a BB then and sailing alone, as no if you had a DFAA cruiser with you and payed attention to the minimap this wouldn't happen. Again, this required teamwork and that is why it failed in this game. And only bad DD players or those in a Shimakaze ( or other thicc loli ) would get cross dropped in 2m if they were dumb enough to get spotted trying to cap without knowing where the planes where, or medium to good players if faced with the maybe 200 CV fluffy unicorns which were good enough to even make me fear them in something like a Sims.

If you had a DFAA cruiser beside you then that just changed the target to someone else. Good CV player would just target someone unprotected. Great CV player would just wipe out the cruiser instead. You could kill a whole GK in the first 3 minutes of a game with all squadrons combined, wasn't impossible to bait DFAA and then just delete them after.

 

12 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

Funny btw, WG changed them because of the skill cap, how was that in place when you say they were so easy to play? Then everyone would be good in them, and we all know most CV players during RTS were crap at the game. 

The skill gap was because CVs were not intuitive, everyone would be good in them in playing them well was more immediately obvious. Most players would pick up a regular RTS style of play, using auto attacks and giving fighters attack orders and such. It was not very difficult to play CVs significantly more efficiently than most players initial perceptions of playstyle. This was because of the poor design of the RTS mechanics generally. But there was also the gap between the players that knew how to play manually well enough to stomp all over the lowest players, but couldn't stand a chance against the unicums. Like I said, a mess all round.

 

[Benser33]

11 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

snip

Your complete inability to not understand a single thing I say is almost offensive.

[mtm78]

2 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

Yeah, well, stealth fire was countered by removing the possibility to do so.

 

So let's agree to remove submarines as well ;)

 

3 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

But the issue with stealth firing isn't the same as ASW because with stealth firing no one could counter it. It wasn't a matter of some ships could and some ships couldnt.

 

No. If I was in a fast ship I could find out where I was spotted from and increase distance ( this requires a team/map which limits the movement of the one spotting me ). If I was in my Yamato, my team all ran to one corner of the map on the opposite side of where I spawned, then I could just as well go back to port. Or if I was in a fast ship, I could try and close the distance with the one spotting me. 

 

Come to think of it, doesn't that sound like the 'teamwork' you're expecting from submarine counters as well? 

 

 

 

 

[Benser33]

12 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

No. If I was in a fast ship I could find out where I was spotted from and increase distance ( this requires a team/map which limits the movement of the one spotting me ). If I was in my Yamato, my team all ran to one corner of the map on the opposite side of where I spawned, then I could just as well go back to port. Or if I was in a fast ship, I could try and close the distance with the one spotting me.

Sure, you could do something about it. I think the point was it was not intended to be a strength that needed to be countered. An explicit counter to stealth firing did not need to exist or was unwanted.

 

12 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

Come to think of it, doesn't that sound like the 'teamwork' you're expecting from submarine counters as well?  

In fact, when talking about RTS CVs we talk about an era where every ship had AA but only a short list had any worth having. Most ship AA was either a 1 or a 10 on the scale of effectiveness with almost no imbetween.

And now here we are with subs and we have another short list of ships with ASW ability. Part of the problem of RTS was there were a short list of ships that could effectively counter CVs. It sounds like it should be the same problem as RTS.

But CVs could strike anywhere any time with little reaction time available, so it's not quite the same.

 

I dont know what ASW changes we are likely to see in the future, but I rather doubt that many more ships will gain ASW capability.

[mtm78]

Just now, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

In fact, when talking about RTS CVs

Nice deflection, I see why you're a quality poster. 

 

I was talking about stealth fire 'counters' being actually quite the same as what you're saying about ASW. You 'use your team and positioning', and 'you shouldn't be able to deal with them alone'.

 

That is literally a toxic gameplay element according to WG. 

[ghostbuster_]

33 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

Yeah, well, stealth fire was countered by removing the possibility to do so. Many people complained about the balance concern of stealth firing. But the issue with stealth firing isn't the same as ASW because with stealth firing no one could counter it. It wasn't a matter of some ships could and some ships couldnt.

 

Or I guess CVs could counter it I guess but that's not the same as having 25-40% of the team be able to do so. This is why I say I hope WG addresses some MM concerns like not forming teams that have no ASW on them.

Why? Back then you heavly relied on your teammates to spot that guy so that he cant farm you while being stealth. Sounds familiar, doesnt it?

Quote

 

If you had a DFAA cruiser beside you then that just changed the target to someone else. Good CV player would just target someone unprotected. Great CV player would just wipe out the cruiser instead. You could kill a whole GK in the first 3 minutes of a game with all squadrons combined, wasn't impossible to bait DFAA and then just delete them after.

Thats considering this GK was alone, he didnt spec AA at all (because even full AA izumo was able to wipe out midway torp bombers.), and he didnt react to drop at all.

Quote

 

The skill gap was because CVs were not intuitive, everyone would be good in them in playing them well was more immediately obvious. Most players would pick up a regular RTS style of play, using auto attacks and giving fighters attack orders and such. It was not very difficult to play CVs significantly more efficiently than most players initial perceptions of playstyle. This was because of the poor design of the RTS mechanics generally. But there was also the gap between the players that knew how to play manually well enough to stomp all over the lowest players, but couldn't stand a chance against the unicums. Like I said, a mess all round.

 

There is still a massive still gap. Thats why some can drop 12 minos and some cant even drop one mino.

RTS CVs at least offered a chance to counter. Right now, your skill doesnt matter if the CV player isnt an utter potato.

[Benser33]

Just now, mtm78 said:

Nice deflection, I see why you're a quality poster. 

 

I was talking about stealth fire 'counters' being actually quite the same as what you're saying about ASW. You 'use your team and positioning', and 'you shouldn't be able to deal with them alone'.

 

That is literally a toxic gameplay element according to WG. 

What deflection? Yes I expect teamwork. If I am one of the few ASW ships on my team I will position accordingly and maintain awareness of where enemy subs are spotted and likely to be and where they will go and who their likely targets might be. If I play in a div which I do often I will be aware of the elements of ASW in the division and communicate about them. I might even attempt to communicate it to random players.

 

But what does this have to do with anything?

 

You are talking about stealth firing cruisers as if this was not a totally arcade mechanic design choice that was considered poorly implemented and later removed because of balance concerns. That is not the same as an intentionally implemented counter to an intentionally implemented series of mechanics. I have never, until this point, heard of stealth firing mechanics being referred to by WG as toxic, but this definition of why they would change stealth firing is ambiguous at best. It was too easy to take advantage of and against players that didnt understand spotting mechanics it only led to further confusion and for players that did it with mostly frustrating. If you try to compare these two things you will find they are not actually the same.

[Benser33]

2 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Says the guy with a tremendous lack of game knowladge.  who thinks that vision is needed to hit a target in smoke. Plebs are gonna keep being plebs i suppose.

When did I ever say that?

[mtm78]

5 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

Yes I expect teamwork

 

The issue is not only that you expect this in a WG game ( ow, we had teamwork in early development, before 'release' .. ), but that you seem to miss the point that this requirement for teamwork and not being able to counter at all on your own was considered toxic by WG at one time. 

 

9 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

It was too easy to take advantage of and against players that didnt understand spotting mechanics it only led to further confusion and for players that did it with mostly frustrating.

 And what makes you think this will be different now? 

[Benser33]

10 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Why? Back then you heavly relied on your teammates to spot that guy so that he cant farm you while being stealth. Sounds familiar, doesnt it?

Is it the same though, mastermind? No, it is not.

10 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Thats considering this GK was alone, he didnt spec AA at all (because even full AA izumo was able to wipe out midway torp bombers.), and he didnt react to drop at all.

Completely worthless contextualisation of a generalised example that does nothing to further the conversation, thank you very much.

11 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

There is still a massive still gap. Thats why some can drop 12 minos and some cant even drop one mino.

RTS CVs at least offered a chance to counter. Right now, your skill doesnt matter if the CV player isnt an utter potato.

Did I say there wasn't?

And right now you aren't guaranteed to lose a game just because you have the less skilled CV player, you also don't get trucked for 100k damage in a single drop, you can't permaspot DDs without sacrificing your ability to attack other ships.

 

CVs are just as powerful and impactful overall as they were before. But they are no longer so horrendously frontloaded with damage, the average CV player isn't as bad as they were with RTS, the average ship can do more varying degrees of damage to attacking enemies, and having a game where the difference between both teams CVs is massive doesn't result in the enemy CV deplaning your friendly CV in the first 5 minutes. And theres the added benefit that the rework at least added new elements to CVs and increased the ability to vary them.

 

Not that the CV rework was an overall success, but I at least enjoy them more than the old ones.

[ghostbuster_]

10 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

When did I ever say that?

"There are tons of scenarios in the game where you cannot damage an enemy. Vision, range, smoke, terrain. Subs being submerged is just another, arguably it is an element of terrain."

 

Apparently according to you smoke and not having vision are reasons for not being able to deal damage.

[ghostbuster_]

12 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

Is it the same though, mastermind? No, it is not.

Smilar. Thats the word I used. Smilar. Kapish? 

Quote

Completely worthless contextualisation of a generalised example that does nothing to further the conversation, thank you very much.

Lol. If you ignore the facts ofc there is nothing to discuss. Get an idea first and then try to discuss.

Quote

Did I say there wasn't?

And right now you aren't guaranteed to lose a game just because you have the less skilled CV player, you also don't get trucked for 100k damage in a single drop, you can't permaspot DDs without sacrificing your ability to attack other ships.

 

CVs are just as powerful and impactful overall as they were before. But they are no longer so horrendously frontloaded with damage, the average CV player isn't as bad as they were with RTS, the average ship can do more varying degrees of damage to attacking enemies, and having a game where the difference between both teams CVs is massive doesn't result in the enemy CV deplaning your friendly CV in the first 5 minutes. And theres the added benefit that the rework at least added new elements to CVs and increased the ability to vary them.

 

Not that the CV rework was an overall success, but I at least enjoy them more than the old ones.

I have already posted maybe 100 times about that. I wont bother with one more. You can check the CV thread if you want. But i can tell you this: RTS CVs werent perfect but rework made it worse because it made the skill of surface ship player irrelevant against a CV player which isnt a complete potato.

[Benser33]

3 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

"There are tons of scenarios in the game where you cannot damage an enemy. Vision, range, smoke, terrain. Subs being submerged is just another, arguably it is an element of terrain."

 

Apparently according to you smoke and not having vision are reasons for not being able to deal damage.

Obviously I meant being able to effectively damage it, not being completely immune, bloody hell... it's more difficult to damage something when blind firing.

 

If you're going to nitpick such stupid nonsense there really is no point bothering to respond to you.

[mtm78]

30 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

You are talking about stealth firing cruisers as if this was not a totally arcade mechanic design choice that was considered poorly implemented and later removed because of balance concerns.

 

No, you're just repeating marketing fluff. There was no balance concern, that's total [edited]. WG said it was TOXIC, frustrating to their playerbase and therefore indeed 'wrongly implemented'. But hey it's WG so I am sure you will be able to find a direct quote saying anything they want you to think at some point in time, even if you have screenshots of them saying otherwise. 

[ghostbuster_]

Removed*

Quote

If you're going to nitpick such stupid nonsense there really is no point bothering to respond to you.

That stupid nonsense was posted by you. Nice at least you started noticing the nonsense in your posts.