Submarines in Ranked and Co-op Battles

[Hugh_Ruka]

23 minutes ago, WWDragon said:

 

Taiho was sunk by the USS Albacore in the Battle of the Philippine Sea right after she launch her attack wave, certainly wasnt alone and on their way home. Likewise Shōkaku was sunk in the very same battle by USS Cavalla when she was in the process of refueling and rearming her planes.

 

USS Wasp was sunk by I-19 also during a refueling and rearming of her planes (ironically enough, for anti-submarine patrols) and she certainly wasnt alone as USS North Carolina, USS Helena, USS Lansdowne, USS Mustinand and USS O'Brien were with her, USS O'Brien was even hit during maneuvering to avoid a torpedo and USS North Carolina was also struck by one, of course that was a taskforce escorting transports carrying the 7th Marine Regiment to Guadalcanal so I suppose "it doesnt count", I suppose Kongo being sunk by USS Sealion doesnt either despite being in a fleet formation (along Yamato and Nagato) moving towards Kure for a reorganization, Urakaze was sunk as well by accident (torpedo missed and hit the destroyer instead), I could bring up USS Liscome Bay, but I think you should get the point by now .

 

Also funny you mention Midway since no US submarine sunk a carrier during that battle, the role of USN submarines was scouting, yes Yorktown was finally sunk by I-68 but how you get a sink ribbon is this game? is it by most damage dealt or by reducing HP to 0? Besides USS Hammann was sunk by I-68 but since I suppose those were torpedoes aimed at Yorktown it doesnt count either,

 

Lets be honest, no matter what I bring up you people will always find something to dismiss it because your mind is already set up, submarines sunk warships in WWII THAT IS A FACT, engagements like Jutland didnt happened in WWII, I should bring up what was the German plan that lead to Jutland involved submarines that didnt work because of a number of reasons but whats the point? No matter what you people wont change your minds so why bother?

What was the majority mission for US, German, British or Japanese submarines ? Was it to take part in fleet actions ?

 

No, their main missions were to work on supply shipping and to scout. Did they sink warships ? Of course, when the opportunity arose they took it. They'd be stupid not to. However, they were not after warships as their main objective.

 

There are no supply/merchant convoys in this game (except Operations). So the main objective of submariners does not exist in the game. Simple as that.

 

Compare that to the other surface classes that had much more varied objectives during the wars (from attacking enemy fleets to raiding supply convoys, shore bombardment, troop escort/delivery etc.).

[Shirakami_Kon]

I mean, there's no point arguing with WG about how much of a bad idea this is. We know them and know exactly how it will play out, this is exactly the same thing with CVs.

 

They've already sink money into bringing subs into the game, NOTHING will stop them being present everywhere. Not only that, but also just like CVs, there will have to be a minimum percentage of the playerbase playing that because of their precious spreadsheets. They've put their money into them, they'll be in the game and YOU'RE GONNA PLAY THEM. People don't like them and don't play them? They'll get buffed, counters will get erased, anything needed, just like with CVs, anything to maintain their wished numbers of them, and we're just gonna deal with it, it's just how it is.

 

But now, to be constructive enough. Subs don't bring anything good to the game other than to themselves, and tbh, tho this is certainly personal opinion they don't seem more fun to play than CVs, hell, they're even worse, so I'm not gonna play them, buffs are not gonna help with this, is their gameplay as a whole that needs and overhaul, because I mean... what's going on for subs really? Launch torps, high effort skillful pinging a bad bad ship twice and watch torps home, except one of your precious CVs that will became immune to it an excessive time because we don't want to hurt those CV players numbers now, do we? Less ships on surface to which actually play against is a horrendous idea too... I mean, you guys at WG have read the drill already.

 

The rest of class is basically jump into a CV that won't be affected by all this if you like them and make sure to grab popcorn to see how it plays out or just wait a few weeks for the general playerbase to test subs and get bored out of their mind of them and their numbers get dumpstered again and things return to normal and watch WG buff them to absurdity trying to keep players on them. The usual we've seen for years with CVs, we know the drill too.

[Schnittlauch_du_sein]

In my opinion submarines aren't a good addition to the game in current state, because the over all gameplay is not fun. 

 

The "testing" in ranked gives me flashbacks from the CV-rework, as the "CV testing" was more like "proof of concept" and the playerbase and the game experience on the live servers had to suffer from from what I and many more player perceived as another testing phase. 

The first implementation in Co-op battle would be fine, but I wonder how accurate the informations of the actual performance of the submarines would be.

[Prophecy82]

1 hour ago, WWDragon said:

 

Taiho was sunk by the USS Albacore in the Battle of the Philippine Sea right after she launch her attack wave, certainly wasnt alone and on their way home. Likewise Shōkaku was sunk in the very same battle by USS Cavalla when she was in the process of refueling and rearming her planes.

 

USS Wasp was sunk by I-19 also during a refueling and rearming of her planes (ironically enough, for anti-submarine patrols) and she certainly wasnt alone as USS North Carolina, USS Helena, USS Lansdowne, USS Mustinand and USS O'Brien were with her, USS O'Brien was even hit during maneuvering to avoid a torpedo and USS North Carolina was also struck by one, of course that was a taskforce escorting transports carrying the 7th Marine Regiment to Guadalcanal so I suppose "it doesnt count", I suppose Kongo being sunk by USS Sealion doesnt either despite being in a fleet formation (along Yamato and Nagato) moving towards Kure for a reorganization, Urakaze was sunk as well by accident (torpedo missed and hit the destroyer instead), I could bring up USS Liscome Bay, but I think you should get the point by now .

 

Also funny you mention Midway since no US submarine sunk a carrier during that battle, the role of USN submarines was scouting, yes Yorktown was finally sunk by I-68 but how you get a sink ribbon is this game? is it by most damage dealt or by reducing HP to 0? Besides USS Hammann was sunk by I-68 but since I suppose those were torpedoes aimed at Yorktown it doesnt count either,

 

Lets be honest, no matter what I bring up you people will always find something to dismiss it because your mind is already set up, submarines sunk warships in WWII THAT IS A FACT, engagements like Jutland didnt happened in WWII, I should bring up what was the German plan that lead to Jutland involved submarines that didnt work because of a number of reasons but whats the point? No matter what you people wont change your minds so why bother?

 

Sorry, but screaming your history lessons doesnt change the facts: 

 

1. This game is an arcade shooter. 

2. History is at best "paint" for the game, since WG bends and breaks history (and physics) as they see fit. 

 

What remains is a class-mechanic that is: 

a) Invulnerable to some ships until lategame or given the average time of a ranked battle, not at all. 

b) Puts another layer of danger and duty to the already overburdened DD class. 

c) Is lame to play with and against.

 

So, given that, what are the benefits exactly in adding this class to the game?

[WWDragon]

31 minutes ago, Prophecy82 said:

Sorry, but screaming your history lessons doesnt change the facts: 

 

1. This game is an arcade shooter. 

2. History is at best "paint" for the game, since WG bends and breaks history (and physics) as they see fit.

So after I was called out I have to keep my voice down like good Soviet and not upset the proletariat?

How about ... no?

 

1. Yes, its a arcade game ... thats a point for classes that traditionally would be too weak in fleet formations despite historically being in fleet formations.

2. Yes, just like I said in 1. And this been true with Destroyers that makes it incredible hypocrite when the argument comes from certain people about other classes.

 

What remains is a class-mechanic that is: 

a) Invulnerable to some ships until lategame or given the average time of a ranked battle, not at all. 

b) Puts another layer of danger and duty to the already overburdened DD class. 

c) Is lame to play with and against.

 

So, given that, what are the benefits exactly in adding this class to the game?

 

a) What ships? They given ASW to about every ship with on the top of my head only CVs and CA having no ASW capabilities and I am not even sure if all CA.

b) Oh noes, the poor destroyers ... the most CUDDLED CLASS IN THE GAME! Oh do bring on the usual "muh survivability statistics" as if that changes anything to "lacks a citadel","AP does 10% damage","CV have unlimited planes and its not fair, unlimited torpedoes is entirely fair and balanced" ... bah.

c) I played in PTS and they were very weak, they are also even with their speed being buffed rather slow ... they only pose a "threat" in cases any other class would pose a threat, depth charges were "fun and engaging" as I mean "your dead now".

 

Submarines are different, I always voiced by extreme opposition to their torpedo mechanics but overall the class have a place in the game however after the DD mafia got their way and had CVs being nerfed into the ground (and still not happy with that) they got airs they can dictate what WG can and cannot implement in the game, like true Bolsheviks they speak for the workers players and under their guidance we will reach true balance (if by balance we mean DDs being completely overpowered and dabbing on every other class), of course anyone with a functional braincell would have realized that WG invested far too much time and resources into this whole class to just flash it down the toilet, we can only hope the class works without being too weak due certain people emotional overreactions or too strong, considering what I experieced in PTS and WG overall bend lately, they seem to be on the weak side as WG rather release lemons, this isnt a Premium were they can shelf it for years until they are happy with it and then release it because that have much lower production costs.

 

Besides people have asked for Torpedo Boats, if WG wants to implement then or Frigates that is another request that have popped up those would be classes that to be competitive would have to be significantly buffed and/or have some radical different mechanics or is the Destroyer the only class that is allowed to be buffed to the point is about as historical as wire-guided torpedoes?

[Hakssor]

47 minutes ago, WWDragon said:

So after I was called out I have to keep my voice down like good Soviet and not upset the proletariat?

How about ... no?

 

1. Yes, its a arcade game ... thats a point for classes that traditionally would be too weak in fleet formations despite historically being in fleet formations.

2. Yes, just like I said in 1. And this been true with Destroyers that makes it incredible hypocrite when the argument comes from certain people about other classes.

 

 

 

 

a) What ships? They given ASW to about every ship with on the top of my head only CVs and CA having no ASW capabilities and I am not even sure if all CA.

b) Oh noes, the poor destroyers ... the most CUDDLED CLASS IN THE GAME! Oh do bring on the usual "muh survivability statistics" as if that changes anything to "lacks a citadel","AP does 10% damage","CV have unlimited planes and its not fair, unlimited torpedoes is entirely fair and balanced" ... bah.

c) I played in PTS and they were very weak, they are also even with their speed being buffed rather slow ... they only pose a "threat" in cases any other class would pose a threat, depth charges were "fun and engaging" as I mean "your dead now".

 

Submarines are different, I always voiced by extreme opposition to their torpedo mechanics but overall the class have a place in the game however after the DD mafia got their way and had CVs being nerfed into the ground (and still not happy with that) they got airs they can dictate what WG can and cannot implement in the game, like true Bolsheviks they speak for the workers players and under their guidance we will reach true balance (if by balance we mean DDs being completely overpowered and dabbing on every other class), of course anyone with a functional braincell would have realized that WG invested far too much time and resources into this whole class to just flash it down the toilet, we can only hope the class works without being too weak due certain people emotional overreactions or too strong, considering what I experieced in PTS and WG overall bend lately, they seem to be on the weak side as WG rather release lemons, this isnt a Premium were they can shelf it for years until they are happy with it and then release it because that have much lower production costs.

 

Besides people have asked for Torpedo Boats, if WG wants to implement then or Frigates that is another request that have popped up those would be classes that to be competitive would have to be significantly buffed and/or have some radical different mechanics or is the Destroyer the only class that is allowed to be buffed to the point is about as historical as wire-guided torpedoes?

There are plenty ships with no ASW. Italian, Russian and Germany BBs don't have ASW. That's like half of them if we include the upcoming BCs. Also half of cruisers don't have ASW, none of the heavies have and even the American CLs don't have ASW.  WG deciding that half of CA/BBs especially the ones that have to come close are rendered useless and have no counterplay against subs. 

WG originally added ASW to everything then changed so it's not about them having production costs, on the opposite, they spent time and money to remove ASW from some ships knowingly.

 

The burden on DDs doesn't affect DD captains, on the opposite, it makes DDs even more impactful but DDs captains can hunt subs as they want. The ones that get screwed are the other classes who depend on DDs to kill the subs and if the DDs die fast in the match they are just food for the subs. The DD "mafia" is actually happy subs are being added, they have ASW all over the board and they are probably the class subs would avoid the most.

[Hanse77SWE]

"Most likely, subs are not wanted by a loud minority."

 

Strange....

 

When I asked in my clan 75% said "No" or "Yes, but in it's own gamemode".

 

Is 75% a minority?

[FellRaven]

kill the goose that lays the golden eggs 

 

 verb + grammar

 

• (idiomatic) To seek short term gain at the sacrifice of long term profit

+1 definitions

TRANSLATIONS kill the goose that lays the golden eggs

 ADD

• зарезать курицу, несущую золотые яйца

   pf
   

  en to seek short term gain at the sacrifice of long term profit

   

  I think this sums up subs.

   

  WG listen to the majority of the player base do not introduce Submarines to Random focus on "Operations" possible with real players on both side so you could have convoy escorts Operation, Protect the CV perhaps or Clear the Wolf Pack but please don't be pig headed and create another CV rework disaster

[BanzaiPiluso]

11 hours ago, MortuaEst_1 said:

The DD "mafia" is actually happy subs are being added, they have ASW all over the board and they are probably the class subs would avoid the most.

I am a dd main. I am not happy at all with the addition of subs. Don't care if a dd fares well against subs, they are just not part of the true essence of the game, same as CVs.

They will die in 6 months, you will see them in 2 out of 10 battles.

WG should really think about a CV-Subs only mode to keep the original game intact.

[Prophecy82]

12 hours ago, WWDragon said:

So after I was called out I have to keep my voice down like good Soviet and not upset the proletariat?

How about ... no?

 

1. Yes, its a arcade game ... thats a point for classes that traditionally would be too weak in fleet formations despite historically being in fleet formations.

2. Yes, just like I said in 1. And this been true with Destroyers that makes it incredible hypocrite when the argument comes from certain people about other classes.

Like 30% hitratio for BBs you mean?

And yea, ofc it sounds silly that a DD can single-handedly burn down a BB. But in both ships sits a player... would be kinda unfair if one ship is immune vs the other, right? Thats why its silly to argument with historical-accuracy in the first place. 

 

Quote

a) What ships? They given ASW to about every ship with on the top of my head only CVs and CA having no ASW capabilities and I am not even sure if all CA.

Obviously your infos are outdated, see @MortuaEst_1 post.

 

Quote

b) Oh noes, the poor destroyers ... the most CUDDLED CLASS IN THE GAME! Oh do bring on the usual "muh survivability statistics" as if that changes anything to "lacks a citadel","AP does 10% damage","CV have unlimited planes and its not fair, unlimited torpedoes is entirely fair and balanced" ... bah.

Kek, sure sure. 

But you are missing the point: 

1. DDs die early A LOT and thats bcs many players shouldnt play them since they are too bad in them.  

2. If you burden DDs -pretty much being exclusively the counter to Subs- with that job and you mix in (1) then you might get that its not a great idea.

It just leads to even worse campfests since everyone will camp border in hope to outlast Subs dive capacity so they may finally do smth vs  them. 

 

Quote

c) I played in PTS and they were very weak, they are also even with their speed being buffed rather slow ... they only pose a "threat" in cases any other class would pose a threat, depth charges were "fun and engaging" as I mean "your dead now".

Your testing wasnt good enough it seems, since you missed the details in (a). 

I get that Subs are weak. But its also lame to play against them... so what is the point of the class if their implementation stinks both ways? 

 

Quote

Submarines are different, I always voiced by extreme opposition to their torpedo mechanics

Guess why you need homing Torps. Bcs the hitratio is so abysmal with normal ones. 

Quote

but overall the class have a place in the game

Yea, but not this way, not with those mechanics. 

 

Quote

 

however after the DD mafia got their way and had CVs being nerfed into the ground

Dont fall for this BS: The "DD-Mafia" is an invention from the CV-Syndicate to scare the BB-Kindergarten and undermine Cruiser-Corporates authority. 

You DO also know that the RP-Change was made for Subs, not for DDs.

 

 

[Prophecy82]

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/188?fbclid=IwAR0PVii8d5WfqqH8QXVUZd4gyphdF4M3WCAQyvRrWjhZQFiDQFBtjNjH1kI

 

Extreme Sub-buffs one (?) week before release? 

What could possibly go wrong? 

 

With buffs that extreme... seems like WG is desperate or drunk (probably both). 

[Heal_My_Bacon]

I am affraid we got another "protected class" of vessels.

 

I can already see prolonged battles with CV's and subs doing hide and seek. How fun and engaging watching 10 minutes of such show. CV's interaction's with surface fleet has been out of balance ever since CV rework. CV's interactions with subs, yeah, not gonna work. I mean you guys have been trying to balance CV's since rework while trying to keep the forced % players playing CV's and it still not really working. CV's and subs were not designed part of this game when it was released, yet stubbornly they were added but core of the game  is the same.

 

Submarines might actually work in the long run but this needs 2 key factors: 1) listen player base when it comes to issues. Do not say you have spreadsheets and put some numbers up. But actually listen all the complains if some complains do come out most, that has probably game effecting quality. Addressing such thing would not just improve game but it would also secure income for WG. Happy players are players who spend money. This is mistake made in CV rework. It was forced and players concerns and apparent problems were never addressed. Forcing submarines without any transparency and interaction between developers and the community will end up in disaster. Not immediately but with in couple of years there will be so little players actually playing this game , all events, ranked etc will become pointless and eventually developing this game will become pointless as well. This just becomes World of Warplanes on seas.  2) introduction of Submarines will need to address number of CV's and Hybrid ships in each team more carefully. Nobody wants this to turn planes vs submarines. Not even WG because it would hurt their premium ship sales. Why would anyone but clueless newbie buy 40+ € battleships if they have no place in meta but for most hardcore masochists?

 

Short term gains in expense of long term gains is only useful in scams or when you need to have money right now. I just wish developer's would listen the community and would have long term design for this game allowing actual improving game experience but as long current leadership in WG is ruling I am afraid this will never happen. That is why I am not spending dime on WoWs at the moment. I see that submarines are coming and nothing can prevent that. I am just hoping introduction will be handled better than CV rework was or captain skill change. Otherwise WG can run 24/7 bot matches as long they bother keep WoWs servers running.

 

Summa sumarum: To make Submarines introduction as successful as possible WG must listen player base. Otherwise this will be as miserable failure as CV rework and Captain skills update. Open easy to access feedback on game client for at least 3 months when introducing submarines and read the feedback. WG must work with the community this matter not against.

[Arty_McFly]

8 posts removed.

Reason: off-topic / trolling / spam / unconstructive

 

Arty_McFly

[FellRaven]

Anyone else noticed that you are unable to Thumbs up certain posts

 

Edit seems those post have been removed

 

 

[akira_yuki]

18 ore fa, gabberworld ha scritto:

 

but they not come to randoms at least not yet. maybe not even this year

But sooner or later they arrive also in random and then in clan battle too or in kots 

Wait for that, weegee don-t listen playerbase suggestion and neither cc or st suggestions too also they don-t accept criticism about everything they made and this topic is the proof about this, look how many post are deleted by mods with variuos reasons.

It-s time to leave this game. for ever.

[gabberworld]

2 minutes ago, akira_yuki said:

weegee don-t listen playerbase suggestion

 

there is one problem with this.

suggestion is made. but when wg not like it they not add that at all.

same goes for any other game company.

 

you know what once other game developer tell me about this. if you not like it go and play something else.

im developer too . i would say for you go and make your own game where you happy with your rules , other way enjoy that what others give you

 

there is no point make wg the ultimatums , if i not get this or get that then i quit

[ungabunga]

17 hours ago, Nagine said:

 

I want them (also was repeatedly stating that in sandbox feedbacks) and glad they were finally introduced. Does that make me a WG shill, so my opinion doesn't count?

 

The current iteration is not realistic, but at least is not totally dumbed down. And it is fun hearing about unrealistic subs speeds or sonars, while all-seeing radars, regenerating planes or drifting warships are ok :)

I want them too!!

[Van_Bazel]

So coop r with9 ships.

Today the average of DD is 3-4 

+2 sub  leaves 3 spots over for CA-BB or CV .

Well done WG another great improvement to mm 

Pathetic

[Ungrim_Baraz]

Hi!

Here I´ll try to give some constructive criticism about submarines.

Foreword: I am a former Closed Beta tester who stopped playing after the introduction of Dead Eye (showcasing your total disregard for community feedback) and enduring way too many f*** ups from your side. Nonetheless I installed now PTS to try subs because, even though I think they should not have been introduced into the game, they are gonna make it (sunken cost fallacy), hence the best outcome would be having them in a suitable spot, and it might, just might, be actually for the better... who knows... At one point in the past I hoped subs could feel up a role which some time ago the game needed, I hoped for subs to evolve into a "dislodging" tool, a vessel capable of sneaking in and praying on camping and island huggers as the game was stale and such a role could not be filled up by other ships, hence I had hopes you´d design subs for such a role. Unfortunately you are just aiming for damage farmers on BBs and not much more...

My feedback after trying PTS:

 

Good things: Art department carrying harder than Sam at Mount Doom...

 

Bad things:

Using DCP to counter the submarine´s ping is not a good mechanic for several reasons. The ping should be impossible to disable by the defender to provide a consistent player experience for the sub: You ping -> something happens, instead right now: You ping -> you do not even know if it will stick (pinging from underwater you have no idea if DCP is currently active on your target or not). Instead of the current binary defense system, the submarine should have to have pros and cons when pinging so that the attacker would decide whetehr to ping or not (player skill based decission).

 

For exmaple, what I suggest is that for each active ping on the defender, its capability for detecting incoming homing torpedoes from the attacking submarine should be greatly increased, maybe as much as the base detectability of said torpedoes per ping. Example of gameplay assuming a base detectability of submarine launched torpedoes of 1.5:

• No ping on target: Usecase if the submarine wants to be sneaky, torpedoes are dumb and unguided, challenging for defender to spot and dodge.
• 1 ping on target: Submarine torpedoes get a small homing effect. The defender gets informed, exactly lilke now, of the direction from which the ping came, and the assured spotting range of the submarine torpedoes is set to 1.5 + 1.5 = 3.0 km
• 2 pings on target: Submarine torpedoes get a higher homing effect (in general, the amount of homing is subject to spreadsheet balance and even subject to upgrades/skills buffs/debuffs: trade offs in skills) and/or speed buff. The defender gets informed, exactly lilke now, of the direction from which the ping came, and the assured spotting range of the submarine torpedoes is set to 1.5 + 2*1.5 = 4.5 km.
  • No torpedo  protection ignoring. This part of the current gameplay only encourages farming damage on BBs and nullifies Nation traits (IJN and Soviet BBs with very decent torpedo damage protection). This whole citadel damage mechanic is brutal (and your proposed torpedo buffs, as of today, are gonna make it worse).

In this way an active defending player would have the chance of maneuvering, and the sub attacker would not have all of its effort thrown out the window by just the press of one button. Moreover a small homing effect (not the damage farming of ignoring torpedo protection) is perfectly aligned with the role I wish Subs could fulfill: praying on stationary targets which even if beginning to move could be tracked well enough by a homing torpedo.

 

In regards to current dmamge output... judging from PTS, yes, I agree subs damage output is rather low, but the whole citadel damage concept makes all that low damage, which you are buffing with the suggested torpedo buffs, unfair unavoidable and unrepairable (because what if DCP is on cooldown, you just cannot do anything at all, and it is not a DoT you can manage or plan for). Again, pinging should not be automatically always better, there should be a trade off for the attacking sub upon which to make the decissions.

 

And now specifically about the DCP counter: It is horrible: You are putting more strain on DCP which is a no go as its main use is to be managed by players (in a careful meditated way, as you have said plenty of times that new players have to learn when to use it and accept eating just one fire etc etc: DCP is used a posteriori of the damage) to take care of their ship, managing DoT or malfunction module operation (damage already inflicted on the ship) which has nothing to do with avoiding incoming potential damage (which might not even happen). It is way too simple to abuse this mechanic and while your torps are reloading (or have missed, or their target has avoided or has been sunk or you are not yet in position to launch...) you just spam pings to fool the opponents making them waste DCP or flee by just pretending as you were gonna attack (I did indeed do this agaisnt human BB players in PTS).

 

DcP must remain a tool to manage received damage, NOT to prevent damage. This is mixing gameplay situations for which CDP was not conceived.

And on top of that you have the mind numbingly stupid and horrendous current situation of CV invulnerability to the pings because of automated and ultra long DCP... Let me remind you the third Yamato class hull , Shinano, converted to CV was sunk by flooding out when being moved from one port to another by a Balao submarine: USS Archerfish...

In summary: I did not hink subs had to be introduced, you do want them, hence I want them being introduced as best as possible. In my opinion the game lacks, or lacked when I did play, a vessel capable of dislodging campers, island huggers, stale engagements and such. For this reason I thought submarines with torpedoes which were, fast, easy to spot and with a small homing effect would be ideal for such role. Counterplay must offer consistent outcomes at both ends of the engagemnt, nothing can depend on just one click of one button which might or might not even be available to be pushed (as DCP competes with plenty of other usecases nowadays to be triggered). Relying always on a double ping as default "go to" attack procedure is boring and leads to no trade off situation in which to decide and leaves no room for the defending player for reaction: The defender is just a passive subject (as surface ships are nowadays when attacked by a CV due to the total crap AA mechanics you left in the game... I wonder whether these paralellisms are not fortituous but intentional...)

It is clear that for quite some time you have worsened the state of the game focussing on nonstop floods of premiums to fuel your subamrine development (now you even pay people to bring newcomers, in other words: the game has degenrated so much and there is so much negative PR around it, you cannot attract new players and older, experienced ones, are not fooled by you). For me this has been a mistake and I find no more enjoyement on the game as it is know, but I do wish that, as you are gonna introduce submarines regardless, it ends this cycle of predatory tactics needed to fuel the black hole of dev. resources which subamrines have been for you. Hence I still have some hopes, once you introduce them, you might free resources to fix the game as everyone demands you to do. For me the current submarine focus on farming BBs via double ping for ignoring torpedo protection and the offered counterplay via DCP use is a deal braker. If this continues as tested on PTS I will not rejoin the game because subs will not help fixing problems but rather creating new ones.

 

On a side note, it is totally hilarious that the three nations with BBs suposedly working at closer ranges: German, Italian and Soviet, have zero ASW measures whilst the other nations (none of which operates at close range, except for a few USN premiums) have aerial dropped depth charges.

 

Lastly, pelase WG, leave me a reply acknowledging you have fully read, understood, taken note and distributed this feedback internally.

Best regards,
A former devote player since CBT.

 

PD: Forgot to mention player number must be increased to account for lower number of surface targets... Your excuse on "the game is balanced around 12 v 12 engagements" is a fallacy: Why then having competitive modes (in which balance is of paramount importance) on differnet player counts? why then having CVs at all which are not part of the surface engagment effectively decreasing the number of surface ships? Why live testing then a new class outside of the "balanced" realm of the random 12 v 12?. Please, do not insult our intelligence, find a better excuse for not being capable/willing of increasing the player number.

[Cybindis]

18 hours ago, Nagine said:

 

I want them (also was repeatedly stating that in sandbox feedbacks) and glad they were finally introduced. Does that make me a WG shill, so my opinion doesn't count?

 

The current iteration is not realistic, but at least is not totally dumbed down. And it is fun hearing about unrealistic subs speeds or sonars, while all-seeing radars, regenerating planes or drifting warships are ok :)

 

The inconsequential minority then. I really recommend you go play an actual sub game. I have cold waters love it and whole heartedly recommend. 

 

"finally introduced" 

 

Nobody wanted them in the outset, they all wanted the cool ships not boats. If we wanted subs and boats there would be mtbs in beta and subs in beta. There werent any because jt was the fantstic idea to have a game about warships.

 

 

"not totally dumbed down" 

 

Frankly this is laughable with the limited charge, 3 depth settings and the most heinous and unforgivable feature of homing torpedoes...... 

 

It is even more dumbed down than the CV rework which was atrocious. 

 

"all seeing radar" 

 

This always has been to do with WGs sketchy implementation of not only ship visibilty, but visibility around islands. The system already struggles enough with spotting of ships around low islands and partially concealed ships. Modelling radar line of sight has not only been a bit too complex for WG to handle but is a result of the testing we all did back in the day that showed that smokes and island ambushes needed something to reign in their power. 

 

"unrealistic sub speeds" 

 

You can get a colorado up to 25 knots, but to do it you have to spec a commander not be spotted and have a flag. 

 

Every other time the colorado goes 19-20 knots because that is the speed it could go IRL. 

 

It means it cannot get into whatever position it wants quickly amd can only chase/run away to a certain extent.

 

In other words it has a balancing factor that it has to take into consideration when making tactical calls. 

Subs as they are now sacrifice nothing in the dive, and with very low conceal are free to go wherever they wish. 

 

Why should subs get free speed when no other ships gets more than the IRL speeds without marginal increases through these newer skills?? 

 

"regenerating planes" 

 

This is part of that stupid rework. It also represents repairs and spares that cvs carried it's not as unflrealistic as you think. It should be related to hangar size but like subs and the rework it was another stupid "balance" decision. 

 

"drifting warships" 

 

Only happens on map borders which is entirely understandable as it is an arena game 

 

 

You havent provided anything on how subs are in any way beneficial. 

 

They arent they are purely detrimental and are just an attempt to churn out content to feed the mill. 

[Felixshoen]

So why even bother making the game even slightly realistic, fun, or playable.  How about each side gets a He-111 armed with Fritx X guided bombs and the american side gets an Enola Gay and Bock's Car.  It'd be great. each battle would only take around 30 seconds so no one would have to waste a lot of time driving around and shooting all those guns.  Way too tiresome.  If wargaming wants to take a giant dump on its game and player base, make it an elephant size dump.

[Maris_Piper]

It would have been so simple to create a seprarate game mode  as in missions maybe convoys as in Narai/Aegis  or similar ok maybe a bit of extra work and new maps, but we need those anyway. Good marketing, Good Rewards could result in turning Pixels into Doller's and keep players happy for once, I just cannot for the life of me see how Destroyers trying to Spot, Dodge Plans and Stay Alive etc can also hunt Submarines. I really do think a great opportunity for extra income has been missed again, perhaps listening could also be profitable just a thought 

[Hanse77SWE]

With the news on the devblog this morning I did yet another facepalm. (ST 0.10.7, changes to submarines - Development blog BETA (worldofwarships.com))

 

T6 U-69 gets a 28% speedbuff to it's torps. A 18% buff to damage and a 3% buff to reload. 73 kts. torps at T6 (!??) Sure, torp detectability gets a nerf of 26% but it's overall a buff.

Those are the slowest torps, the fastest (T10 USN) does 89 kts. A 27% buff from 70 kts.

 

I'll try and play when 0.10.7 goes live but I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling about this. All my alarmbells are ringing and they're usually right.

 

P.S. And buying Congress is out of the question. As someone said: "I want to know what damage the submarines will do before I do anything."

[Van_Bazel]

problems is what ever  we type here , it changes nothing.

Njet Roebels we want.

Amen Wows

[WWDragon]

1 hour ago, Hanse77SWE said:

I'll try and play when 0.10.7 goes live but I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling about this. All my alarmbells are ringing and they're usually right.

 

When WG starts buffing before release and not nerfing, this means they are really underperforming. After all Dutch Cruisers AIR STRIKES? WG IS KILLING THE GAME! REMOVE CVS! AND RADAR! REEEEEE!!!!!!!!  got so mangled WG keep buffing then and they still are terrible even after all those buffs.

 

Concern is when something is introduced and its not changed until release.