[PSA] Submarines participating in Random Battles in update 0.10.9.

[arttuperkunas]

6 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

Doesn't really help any point made, Euro. People hate subs, we all get it. At great risk of having a lot of people hate on me some more, I personally like having them in the game. We all need to learn to tolerate differences in opinion. I still think they need lots of tweaking, as do cv's, but the resistance in this forum is often unjustified and highly anecdotal.

 

I can tolerate differences in opinion (like you liking subs) no problem.

 

What I can't tolerate is playing in games with subs (and CVs too, now that you mention it). It's not a question of "let everyone have their own fun" when the fun of the 1/10 pisses on the fun of the 9/10 of other players in the match.

[Tanaka_15]

16 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

You've got a point here, but the irony is that many people love cv players on their own team when they seal that win in a game..or when they help them against an enemy ship...this is based on my own experience of course ,seeing it in more than numerous battles and even lately in ranked when sub players have been congratulated for helping someone out of a bad situation or subs saying thank you to others and it being acknowledged. So is it we only hate those subs and cv's that target us, but not when they're on our team and not when we ourselves play them?  There is a more than dedicated resistance to change going on here me thinks. Food for thought.

Nach, CVs just make gameplay worse. All games wit 0 cvs are better than with cvs. It is not improtant if a CV help me or not, the share fact there is a CV in game makes match worse than it could be. Subs in this way will be way more toxic, cos if they want they can be invisble. It is just toxic and bad for game. 

[SodaBubbles]

23 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

You've got a point here, but the irony is that many people love cv players on their own team when they seal that win in a game..or when they help them against an enemy ship...this is based on my own experience of course ,seeing it in more than numerous battles and even lately in ranked when sub players have been congratulated for helping someone out of a bad situation or subs saying thank you to others and it being acknowledged. So is it we only hate those subs and cv's that target us, but not when they're on our team and not when we ourselves play them?  There is a more than dedicated resistance to change going on here me thinks. Food for thought.

When people play well you should thank them. Even a player like me who wants to play in a cancer-free environment can praise a CV for doing well. 

But that hardly changes things, for I am also aware that the game is not just about me, but about all 24 players in it, and our CV just made the red players miserable. Mostly, when I see our CV hitting red ships, I feel sorry for them. I don't feel any sense of joy, because I know they have had their game ruined in many cases. Knowing that, I have never played CVs against humans, and never will. 

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, MortuaEst_1 said:

You make no sense. CVs and subs are in perfect safety 90 % of the match. Rock-paper-scissors is for BBs-CAs-DDs, subs and CVs don't follow this rules. There is no class that counters them and they can attack without risking themselves.

That is the main thing indeed. For CVs this is not fixable, since their "main body" is not involved and they can attack where they like.

So what we get then, is a certain "balance/negation" for (well, sort of) the ammo that gets delivered.
For subs though, this should be fixable since they physically need to be near the "delivery".

The question is, how much risk-vs-reward is WeeGee gonna apply. 

[BLUB__BLUB]

37 minutes ago, SodaBubbles said:

When people play well you should thank them. Even a player like me who wants to play in a cancer-free environment can praise a CV for doing well. 

But that hardly changes things, for I am also aware that the game is not just about me, but about all 24 players in it, and our CV just made the red players miserable. Mostly, when I see our CV hitting red ships, I feel sorry for them. I don't feel any sense of joy, because I know they have had their game ruined in many cases. Knowing that, I have never played CVs against humans, and never will. 

The thing is, 100% sure the reds also get a CV. And to do well for your team, you need to whack the other team as much as possible. 

Since that means that, if they get a CV, yours also will get a CV, I'd rather have a good one than a bad one. 

 

This is also why I started to play CV, sort of. Other reason is because we got Ark Royal (and they said it would be bad with the slow planes).

But main thing, because I realised there would be a situation where you have a choice, but it would be a disadvantage to your team. 

And we did get that, when WeeGee decided to put CVs in Clan Battle. Which I knew they would do. Result:

If you do not have at least a savvy CV player in CB, you're lots of times just screwed. 

 

Same thing is gonna happen with subs. So I will play subs, and try to GitGud. Or hope we have one player in the team that has GitGud.

Meanwhile we can only hope WeeGee takes the criticism and fixes the subs. Because 100% we'll get them in randoms, and finally in CB as well.

 

BTW I do also feel sorry sometimes, but also for the poor cruisers, when I blap them in one shot sailing my fat BB at a spot where they cannot even shoot back.

Subs COULD be less griefing if WeeGee takes appropriate action, the question is, will they. And yes they have a bad record... 

 

[Zigiran]

On 10/1/2021 at 5:33 PM, YabbaCoe said:

Good point over there. 

I will try to ask about this and will return with the answer, while I will get one (most likely on Monday).

Will the answer be posted here in this topic (that is getting very, very long) or in a dev blog / news article?

[Procrastes]

21 hours ago, Shaka_D said:

A question I now have is, how many of these contentious mechanics and additions are really that harmful to gameplay if WG got the balance right? But to get the balance right, they have to be implemented because noone wants to play test servers forever when the live game is more rewarding? The point still remains that a lot of opinions here are just that, opinions, based on our own preferences within the game. Mine is I like the added variety afforded by subs, though they need more fixing, but i feel the exact same way about classes that other people here (who hates subs) enjoy playing. Just preference is all. There are some things that need looking at, but I cannot see that we need to negate an entire class just because it suffers similar, now accepted, previously contentious drawbacks offered by other classes.

You make valid points here. And if Wargaming were actually focusing on maintaining the overall game balance, I'm sure it wouldn't be impossible for them to deliver a good and balanced product. Unfortunately for us (the players), Wargaming don't particularly want either CV:s or submarines to be balanced; they want them to be popular. Or at least not so impopular as to fail to reach their pre-determined player quotas. 

 

There was a time when I actually wanted CV:s in the game, for the same reason you give: Because I felt that they added variety and thus made the gameplay more dynamic. They still do; unfortunately they also hurt the overall tactical layout of the game in ways that outweigh their benefit (or so I feel, anyway). This is all the more vexing because it is completely unneccessary: Fixing the balance issues with regard to CV:s would actually not be all that hard. All it would take, basically, is the removal of the most odious and degrading special perks and invulnerabilities that the CV class is currently saddled with. Let CV captains activate their own consumables just like captains of other ship classes. Give CV:s burn and flooding durations just like regular ships. Make airplane losses relevant, so that good plane-keeping is rewarded while cynical waste of the lives of virtual pilots is not.

 

Submarines are harder to balance well within this game. The main reason for this is that the WW2-era submarine way to wage war was to stalk their targets silently, over time, and then conduct a deadly sneak attack while simultaneously avoiding any direct contact with enemy warships. This sort of warfare lends itself eminently well to replicate in simulator games, but is harder to fit into an arcade-style game like World of Warships. WoWs is all about fleet action and ship-to-ship combat, which any right-thinking WW2-era submarine captain would have stayed well away from.

 

Balancing subs in WoWs is thus a bit of a challenge, but it shouldn't be impossible. The best way to go about it would probably be to make them into the ultimate high risk, high reward-class; much like destroyers already are. Setting up a well executed submarine attack should be hard, and mistakes should be punished severely - but success should be able to yield good results. The main difference between a sneaky torpedo destroyer and a submarine with this set-up would probably be the level of maneuvering and forethought that would have to go into making a successful attack run. Patience and planning - or what passes for it in an arcade context anyway - would be the key. This would also be a better representation of how submarines actually worked in a real WW2 setting.

 

This is obviously not the path Wargamimg have chosen. They have instead made submarines into the ultimate low risk, low reward class, able to (at least initially) avoid most forms of incoming fire while launching alternating pings and homing high-speed/low-damage torpedoes at faraway targets. Enemy submarines and destroyers are the only real threat*, but the latter ones can often be outspotted in time to get them shot up or driven away by allied surface ships. Unless taken out by an enemy that can actually both spot and attack it, a submerged submarine will spend most of its time in battle performing a mind-numbingly boring routine of ping-torp-ping again click-and-play, until either the battle is won or an enemy ship equipped with hydro and depth charges appears on stage and sinks it. Maybe I'm being a bit picky here, but this is not my idea of fun and engaging gameplay.

 

You ask if we should negate an entire ship class just because it suffers a number of contentious drawbacks? If there is a way forward to overcome those drawbacks and restore balance to the Force game, and if Wargaming is committed to devote resources to this end, then no, maybe not. But I'm sorry to say that I, personally, see no signs of such a commitment from Wargaming. On the contrary, their handling of the CV rework and other issues these past years suggests quite the opposite. We are obviously going to have submarines in the game from now on, and I think the game will be the worse off for it.

 

 

* Unless the plane-dropped depth charge weapon that most cruisers and battleships are reputedly going to have from now on is way more effective than I've been led to believe?

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

5 hours ago, Shaka_D said:

Doesn't really help any point made, Euro. People hate subs, we all get it. At great risk of having a lot of people hate on me some more, I personally like having them in the game. We all need to learn to tolerate differences in opinion. I still think they need lots of tweaking, as do cv's, but the resistance in this forum is often unjustified and highly anecdotal.

 

A few examples of highly contestable additions to the game - which in my opinion at the time only served to ruin gameplay - was radar, rpf and the overpowered indefensible nature of cv's in the pre-rework state (though not fond of the current workings either) ...I loved playing dd's and these mechanics /aspects changed the game for me in a massive way. I've since come to learn different approaches to playing my ships and to play other classes more. The point is, what can we do about any of it other than to adapt or die trying, or to make good on our threats and leave the game?

 

A question I now have is, how many of these contentious mechanics and additions are really that harmful to gameplay if WG got the balance right? But to get the balance right, they have to be implemented because noone wants to play test servers forever when the live game is more rewarding? The point still remains that a lot of opinions here are just that, opinions, based on our own preferences within the game. Mine is I like the added variety afforded by subs, though they need more fixing, but i feel the exact same way about classes that other people here (who hates subs) enjoy playing. Just preference is all. There are some things that need looking at, but I cannot see that we need to negate an entire class just because it suffers similar, now accepted, previously contentious drawbacks offered by other classes.

 

I think this is all more about a more general mistrust in WG and their intentions. They have fallen from favour by a long way and players in the forum are naturally peeved off with them.

^^

 

I don't hate subs. I don't hate people who like subs. I want subs. I want carriers. But sadly WG is incompetent so far. Sweeping critique under the 'WG sucks' rug is silly, no offence. It's weird that you think after 3 years it is normal that cv's still needs lots of tweaking, and in the same breath dismiss the sub critique as unjustified and anectdotal. The carrier 'anecdote' by now is spanning 3 years already ^^

 

I played a bit of sub in coop, just to see how the systems are setup. I find it bizarre that I can ping a BB, fire 1 set of homing torps, ping the BB again, lose the lock because the BB uses DCP, lock a ping again after the DCP protection stops, that same set of torps locks on again, after which I'm again able to lock a ping on the BB which causes those torps to citadel the BB. And all of that undetected. It's bizarre that I can launch two sets of torps at a ship, kill it with 1 torp and then redirect the torps that missed into the next ship behind it by pinging, locking twice and citadelling that one too. It's bizarre. Fun? Sure, against bots. But doing this to people in pvp? Nah. That's just garbage.

 

Just watch this clip to the end. These 2 attacks are .

 

 

And sure, it's 'anecdotal' in the sense that this all happened in 1 single bot match (!), but that actually makes it even worse ^^ What it boils down to is that what I am able to do is unsuitable for pvp. Some elements are fine: grafics, animations, diving feels cool etc. The rest, mosty the pvp gameplay, is broken.

 

Giving every ship ASW is like giving every ship radar and hydro 'because DD's'. And that is where it shows the incompetence: the DD-BB tangent was hard too in the early days, but the original design team actually made it work without giving every ship radar and hydro. Because WG decided subs need to be fast to be fun, that design choice actually breaks the DD-SS tangent. The best ASW is currently airdrops launched by BB's, not ship launched depth charges. It's all a bit silly.

[Shaka_D]

40 minutes ago, Europizza said:

^^

 

I don't hate subs. I don't hate people who like subs. I want subs. I want carriers. But sadly WG is incompetent so far. Sweeping critique under the 'WG sucks' rug is silly, no offence. It's weird that you think after 3 years it is normal that cv's still needs lots of tweaking, and in the same breath dismiss the sub critique as unjustified and anectdotal. The carrier 'anecdote' by now is spanning 3 years already ^^

 

I played a bit of sub in coop, just to see how the systems are setup. I find it bizarre that I can ping a BB, fire 1 set of homing torps, ping the BB again, lose the lock because the BB uses DCP, lock a ping again after the DCP protection stops, that same set of torps locks on again, after which I'm again able to lock a ping on the BB which causes those torps to citadel the BB. And all of that undetected. It's bizarre that I can launch two sets of torps at a ship, kill it with 1 torp and then redirect the torps that missed into the next ship behind it by pinging, locking twice and citadelling that one too. It's bizarre. Fun? Sure, against bots. But doing this to people in pvp? Nah. That's just garbage. 

 

Just watch this clip to the end. These 2 attacks are .

 

And sure, it's 'anecdotal' in the sense that this all happened in 1 single bot match (!), but that actually makes it even worse ^^ What it boils down to is that what I am able to do is unsuitable for pvp. Some elements are fine: grafics, animations, diving feels cool etc. The rest, mosty gameplay, is broken.

 

Giving every ship ASW is like giving every ship radar and hydro 'because DD's'. And that is where it shows the incompetence: the DD-BB tangent was hard too in the early days, but the original design team actually made it work without giving every ship radar and hydro. Because WG decided subs need to be fast to be fun, that design choice actually breaks the DD-SS tangent. The best ASW is currently airdrops launched by BB's, not ship launched depth charges. It's all a bit silly.

Thanks, that's some great feedback. I use the reference of 'tweaking' to simply mean I don't wholeheartedly agree with cv's (or subs) in their current state and feel changes are still needed, though as mentioned still feel they belong in the game. They are fun to play though (personally that is). Unlike some others, your post above makes it more clear and defines your key issues - but you've at least conceded that cvs and subs have a place in the game.... just not as they are now. I largely feel the same, but obviously don't feel all the things you list are particularly bad. In particular, your point on the ASW launch by BB's being more effective than depth charges by dd's is extremely valid. Maybe subs can ping and launch from too far currently, and need to get amongst the enemy fleet to be effective? Maybe dud menchanics need to be introduced and the risk thereof being far higher the further away you launch torps?

 

The waters are very muddied on this one., though I expect that if people have accepted cv's and their relatively low numbers in battle, would it not be possible subs undergo the same acceptance and limitation?

 

[Cippalippus]

So, subs are indeed coming in random battles. Guess that they want to kill their own game.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

40 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

Thanks, that's some great feedback. I use the reference of 'tweaking' to simply mean I don't wholeheartedly agree with cv's (or subs) in their current state and feel changes are still needed, though as mentioned still feel they belong in the game. They are fun to play though (personally that is). Unlike some others, your post above makes it more clear and defines your key issues - but you've at least conceded that cvs and subs have a place in the game.... just not as they are now. I largely feel the same, but obviously don't feel all the things you list are particularly bad. In particular, your point on the ASW launch by BB's being more effective than depth charges by dd's is extremely valid. Maybe subs can ping and launch from too far currently, and need to get amongst the enemy fleet to be effective? Maybe dud menchanics need to be introduced and the risk thereof being far higher the further away you launch torps?

 

The waters are very muddied on this one., though I expect that if people have accepted cv's and their relatively low numbers in battle, would it not be possible subs undergo the same acceptance and limitation?

 

I understand. To me there are some glaring issues, and some will have concequences for the near future as well. Binding the existing DCP function to countering ping locks is an impossible choice as far as I can see. I get the idea behind it, but it will fail. DCP timing is balanced around mitigating assured fire and flooding damage. DCP currently has no knob to tweak ping mitigation other then up and down time. And because of that, WG/Lesta has manouvred themselves into an impossible situation where once released it will be very hard to properly balance situations like I've show earlier where a BB can do everything right but still get citadelled by the same set of torps. They won't be able to tweak DCP and will have to resort to absurd measures like we have seen in carrier and AA balancing, where 100 m long vessels can't be spotted by airplanes at ranges as close as 2,6 km.

[Andrewbassg]

5 hours ago, Shaka_D said:

You've got a point here, but the irony is that many people love cv players on their own team when they seal that win in a game..or when they help them against an enemy ship...this is based on my own experience of course ,seeing it in more than numerous battles and even lately in ranked when sub players have been congratulated for helping someone out of a bad situation or subs saying thank you to others and it being acknowledged. So is it we only hate those subs and cv's that target us, but not when they're on our team and not when we ourselves play them?  There is a more than dedicated resistance to change going on here me thinks. Food for thought.

You see that's not that simple. i don't like Cv's up to the point that I stayed away from T10 completely, I played T9 and ranked, mainly because earning chat bans and reporting people is not fun. Like at all. But even I complemented Cv players when they played git gud. Which is in my book recognizing situations and using their capabilities for the team and the win.

 

As for subs i played ranked on 2 servers and on one made it to the qualifications for gold. And I give up. Arguably T6  (bronze) is balanced. Subs can do stuff but can be hunted. And it is fun. T8 no, not really, and T10 is a just a frakkin bad  joke. You know why? Because the environment gets exponentially lethal, but so do subs. All of that while they already possess significant advantages over surface classes.

And yes Wedgie is not even attempting to balance them or address these issues. And you know why? Because they self admittedly already have a target, a popularity target in place. So...TF we even talk about?

[anonym_cwVecOS6ecVy]

1 hour ago, Europizza said:

where a BB can do everything right but still get citadelled by the same set of torps

And on top of having to DCP around the subs getting even more vulnerable against ALL other classes (floodings, fires) while playing the objective.

[AndyHill]

6 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

I was wondering - has there been any further info from WG on next steps about the removal of homing as of yet? 

Whatever you are on right now, I want it. No, I need it. Immediately. Lots of.

[Gvozdika]

3 hours ago, Shaka_D said:

Thanks, that's some great feedback. I use the reference of 'tweaking' to simply mean I don't wholeheartedly agree with cv's (or subs) in their current state and feel changes are still needed, though as mentioned still feel they belong in the game. They are fun to play though (personally that is). Unlike some others, your post above makes it more clear and defines your key issues - but you've at least conceded that cvs and subs have a place in the game.... just not as they are now. I largely feel the same, but obviously don't feel all the things you list are particularly bad. In particular, your point on the ASW launch by BB's being more effective than depth charges by dd's is extremely valid. Maybe subs can ping and launch from too far currently, and need to get amongst the enemy fleet to be effective? Maybe dud menchanics need to be introduced and the risk thereof being far higher the further away you launch torps?

 

The waters are very muddied on this one., though I expect that if people have accepted cv's and their relatively low numbers in battle, would it not be possible subs undergo the same acceptance and limitation?

 

 

Erm... you might want to rephrase that. For a decent percentage of the playerbase (myself included) - rework CVs remain the most despised and hated thing ever to sully the team-list. They remain contentious, toxic and even by WG's own admission - very much a 'something to improve' three years later. Ever wonder why the forum isn't currently awash with complaints about CVs being dropped from Clan Wars? Hmmm? After all, such an accepted class being removed from competitive? Surely not.

 

Indeed for a heft chunk of people - a no-CV game is a positively beautiful thing to behold. If WG wheeled out a random battle mode where CV-games and non-CV games could be selected by the players prior to entering the MM - you'd have 99% of us merrily playing ship vs ship while the CV players would be stuck in the queue waiting for a match until the thermal death of the universe. Which would be incredibly funny. Which is probably why WG won't give us that option..... boo.*

 

* Seriously - give me that option WG and I'll go out and buy a premium ship tomorrow. 

 

 

[lovelacebeer]

5 minutes ago, Gvozdika said:

 

Erm... you might want to rephrase that. For a decent percentage of the playerbase (myself included) - rework CVs remain the most despised and hated thing ever to sully the team-list. They remain contentious, toxic and even by WG's own admission - very much a 'something to improve' three years later. Ever wonder why the forum isn't currently awash with complaints about CVs being dropped from Clan Wars? Hmmm? After all, such an accepted class being removed from competitive? Surely not.

 

Indeed for a heft chunk of people - a no-CV game is a positively beautiful thing to behold. If WG wheeled out a random battle mode where CV-games and non-CV games could be selected by the players prior to entering the MM - you'd have 99% of us merrily playing ship vs ship while the CV players would be stuck in the queue waiting for a match until the thermal death of the universe. Which would be incredibly funny. Which is probably why WG won't give us that option..... boo.*

 

* Seriously - give me that option WG and I'll go out and buy a premium ship tomorrow. 

 

 

Whilst I am absolutely on the same page as you in such feelings, I get the impression WG are banking on people enduring Submarines. They might be hated and complained about (heck maybe the players will get reported a lot) but unless people stop playing random battles WG really won’t care. 
 

Hence their intransigence and just shoving subs in, they are confident we will submit.

[geschlittert]

8 hours ago, King_Of_The_Potatoes said:

Well it's plain to see nothing at WG is changing I was willing to give them a chance even came back for the last few weeks but safe to say time for a break again. Thank god I got a massively modded version of Skyrim to start again so time to strap my armour back on and leave this stinking port behind. 

You should try Enderal if you havent done that yet, could be elder scrolls 6 :)

[Asatori]

Here's an idea for WG.

 

Leave the depth charges, since we obviously enjoy dropping them, but remove the submarines.

 

I think this solution will leave everyone satisfied. 

[Redcap375]

People enjoy dropping deapth charges.... 

 

That's one of the most cringeworthy things I have ever heard them say. 

 

They treat the majority of the playbase like complete simpletons. However, are they wrong or simply talking at their level? 

[IGL]

Well, guess I'll have to shift my daily negative reports now from CV to SUB players. 

 

 

[Capra76]

8 minutes ago, IGL said:

Well, guess I'll have to shift my daily negative reports now from CV to SUB players. 

 

Maybe we should ask WG to increase the number of daily reports allowed, if we have to report both submarine players and CV players we're definitely going to need more.

[Pedro_McCloud]

18 minutes ago, IGL said:

Well, guess I'll have to shift my daily negative reports now from CV to SUB players. 

 

 

I'm abit lost, why would you neg sub players? Sounds like you just want to blame the person easiest?

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 47 Minuten, Redcap375 sagte:

People enjoy dropping deapth charges.... 

 

That's one of the most cringeworthy things I have ever heard them say.

A reaction instead of ignorance proves interest.

WG is employing stalker logic.

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 18 Minuten, Pedro_McCloud sagte:

I'm abit lost, why would you neg sub players? Sounds like you just want to blame the person easiest?

If someone shoots you with a gun... are you blaming the gun shop owner who offered and sold it to him, or the dude who bought it and decided to shoot you?

[PaP_Mentoles]

2 minutes ago, MementoMori_6030 said:

If someone shoots you with a gun... are you blaming the gun shop owner who offered and sold it to him, or the dude who bought it and decided to shoot you?

Of course not mate. I'll blame the bus driver that took him at the store