Submarines in Random Battles

[SlavicNoOb]

16 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

No. You are doing something. You are bringing your team closer to victory. You get rewarded.

Sorry, but I did not meet Subs that suicided into me, yet. They all stayed hidden when I was near with my DD.

The ram tactic works against destroyers. If you play sub and you know a destroyer is about to finish you, a last resort move is to ram. You might or might not kill it, but you will damage it for sure. Against other ships it doesn't work at all. And you can ram the DD just by surfacing from under it, you don't even have to go at speed towards it.

I actually did this yesterday expecting both the DD and my sub not to survive, but to my surprise the sub survived. I loled seconds before being finished by his buddies. It was fun tho. :)

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, dN00b said:

The ram tactic works against destroyers. If you play sub and you know a destroyer is about to finish you, a last resort move is to ram. You might or might not kill it, but you will damage it for sure. Against other ships it doesn't work at all. And you can ram the DD just by surfacing from under it, you don't even have to go at speed towards it.

I actually did this yesterday expecting both the DD and my sub not to survive, but to my surprise the sub survived. I loled seconds before being finished by his buddies. It was fun tho. :)

It still does not happen to me. My sub opponents, for some reason, are quite eager to survive. I have no clue what is wrong with them...

[SlavicNoOb]

10 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

It still does not happen to me. My sub opponents, for some reason, are quite eager to survive. I have no clue what is wrong with them...

Maybe they're afraid of you..

And when you are at the end of your dive capacity so you cant go at max depth, and the dd is about to finish you, while his buddies are around so just surfacing and torping him is not a good idea because you can miss and not hit it at all, and your health is low, ram is the best option.

[SlavicNoOb]

1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

I don't ignore your point. So far you have never made that point you just made. You have argued about subs being balanced and belonging into the game and whatnot. The point that you find homing torpedoes to be the key property that makes submarines fun for you, has never been brought up so far.

 

Then there is nothing more to be said. You like the homing, which I find ridiculous and a noob mechanic. I like the complexity of unguided torpedoes, which you fail to have an impact on your battles with. So there is a difference in opinion that cannot be solved. I want a complex game and you want an arcade hubba-bubba shooter.

 

 

So what? I increase the damage and I even increase the speed, so they reach their distant target faster. This makes torping at longer range equal to torping at closer range, cause all that matters is how much time passes between firing the torp and the torp hitting. A fast torpedo leaves less time for the target to find a reason to change its course, ergo the torpedo hits with a higher probability. Problem solved.

 

All in all I find the way of this discussion quite annoying. You have turned this official feedback threat, whose purpose it is for everyone to leave their ideas and opinions, into your private discussion. It's not appropriate to claim every second post in this topic and dump your comment on every single opinion everybody else posts. You aren't moderating this topic, but suffocating it, for the purpose of supressing every opinion you don't like. You are not the sole person of interest. Maybe leave some room for people to share their feedback. Write less and read more. Reading educates. If you want to discuss something specifically you can always create your own speshul topic.

 

Your theory about faster non-homing torps has a HUGE flaw. Those fast torps that work great at mid and long ranges, will be ridiculous at close range. it will be like firing bullets and not torps. Maybe we should put railguns on the submarines...now that might not be such a bad idea

And I have not turned the discussion into anything. Wargaming can see quite well what anti sub players are saying, what I am saying, how many people are pro, how many against, the quality of the arguments, etc. Besides, it's not just Europe, there are Russian forums, Asian forums, American forums, etc. But you would prefer this thread be an echo-chamber of anti-submarine sentiment I suppose.

 

[KillStealBoss]

On 10/7/2021 at 2:35 AM, dN00b said:

First of all a BIG THANK YOU to WG for finally adding submarines in random battles. Hopefully we will see them in the tech tree soon...

So the Bogue will have something to hunt , be ready for depth charge spam.

[OldSchoolFrankie]

Submarines need a rework.

[SlavicNoOb]

This!!

[ZeMalm]

2 hours ago, dN00b said:

This!!

Yes this sure shows why we do not need or want Subs in randoms.

[ZeMalm]

10 hours ago, OldSchoolFrankie said:

Submarines need a rework removal.

Fixed that for you.

[SlavicNoOb]

1 minute ago, ZeMalm said:

Yes this sure shows why we do not need or want Subs in randoms.

Ahh, thank you for your elaborate explanation of why what he says in the video shows that we do not need subs in randoms. Great analysis...

[ZeMalm]

3 minutes ago, dN00b said:

Ahh, thank you for your elaborate explanation of why what he says in the video shows that we do not need subs in randoms. Great analysis...

Thank you. Nice to see that you are finally coming to senses.

[SlavicNoOb]

1 minute ago, ZeMalm said:

Thank you. Nice to see that you are finally coming to senses.

All I heard him saying was that submarines are not the boogieman that they are blamed to be, and that one area where fixing might be needed is the distance where torps stop homing in on cruisers.

[ZeMalm]

49 minutes ago, dN00b said:

All I heard him saying was that submarines are not the boogieman that they are blamed to be, and that one area where fixing might be needed is the distance where torps stop homing in on cruisers.

So where was he himself in danger?

[Smit21]

 How to kill game, tutorial step by step made by WG.

[Freidenker_251]

14 hours ago, dN00b said:

Your theory about faster non-homing torps has a HUGE flaw. Those fast torps that work great at mid and long ranges, will be ridiculous at close range. it will be like firing bullets and not torps. Maybe we should put railguns on the submarines...now that might not be such a bad idea

 

That would be no flaw at all if proper balancing is tried - the torpedoes just needed to be given a long enough time it takes them to activate. This would prevent cruisers / destroyers getting punished by default for trying to drop their ASW as the sub couldn´t just sit there and wait until the enemy ship is close enough and has no chance to dodge the torps anymore. In addition to that subs could get access to different types of torpedoes:

 

1. Quicker reloading ones with less damage and better range

2. Slower reloading ones with high damage and worse range

 

This would allow to be rewarded for the proper choice of torpedoes used and add a high risk + high reward element to their gameplay - u can try and close in to use the heavy damage torps for killing slower ships with a lot of HP while risking to fail miserably and die due to misjudging the situation and getting cought.

 

Subs still do not fit into the game at all and should be at least moved to their own seperate mode, but if implementing them is inevitable, I´m sure this would be a far better concept to test and work on then the homing torp non-sense WeeGee is trying to push through right now.

 

15 hours ago, dN00b said:

And I have not turned the discussion into anything.

 

Come on, you can´t be serious there - the last 4 pages of this thread are lliterally nothing else but people explaining why subs in their current state are bad for the game vs. your "no subs r awesome lul" troll posts.

 

15 hours ago, dN00b said:

Wargaming can see quite well what anti sub players are saying, what I am saying, how many people are pro, how many against, [...]

 

Exactly - so they know there is you, the other hardcore sub fan and WeeGee´s shill #1 against the rest of the forum.

 

15 hours ago, dN00b said:

[...]  the quality of the arguments, [...]

 

Good point - so let´s hope they´ll take their time before listening to people who come up with things like the well known HE spamming Minotaur

[Smegger213]

4 minutes ago, Freidenker_251 said:

Come on, you can´t be serious there - the last 4 pages of this thread are lliterally nothing else but people explaining why subs in their current state are bad for the game vs. your "no subs r awesome lul" troll posts.

 

 

 

What you really mean is the fact that the whole of this thread is full of a certain player just answering back to everybody that hates subs.

He has to spam crap back at us, because he cannot let go of the fact that more players hate subs than players that like them.

 

BTW the poll now has 410 players voted, but still 88% hate subs in randoms.

 

[HMS_Kilinowski]

19 hours ago, dN00b said:

Your theory about faster non-homing torps has a HUGE flaw. Those fast torps that work great at mid and long ranges, will be ridiculous at close range. it will be like firing bullets and not torps. Maybe we should put railguns on the submarines...now that might not be such a bad idea

 

All surface ships have different ammo types. So submarines can have different torps: (a) torps with a long arming distance for long range; fast heavy hitters, maybe with a deepwater property, and (b) torps for close defence with a short arming distance and either lower damage or preferably slower speed. There is no flaw in my theory, even less so a huge flaw and even less so a HUGE flaw. No childish emoji will change that.

 

Quote

And I have not turned the discussion into anything. Wargaming can see quite well what anti sub players are saying, what I am saying, how many people are pro, how many against, the quality of the arguments, etc. Besides, it's not just Europe, there are Russian forums, Asian forums, American forums, etc. But you would prefer this thread be an echo-chamber of anti-submarine sentiment I suppose.

 

Isn't that a pretty arrogant thing to say? This topic is not created by some player. The creator is a Wargaming employee. If anything, he might be biased towards suggesting submarines, in their current state, are a fine addition to the game. But we happily give him the benefit of a doubt and say this topic is neutral. So it does not attract any opinion in particular. We are not talking about some nazi forum, where only nazis are members and confirm each other in their ideas. This forum is neutral. The people who find their way into this topic are all the people who have anything to say about "Submarines in Random Battles", as the topic specifies.

 

Where is the mass of people who are happy with submarines? Why are they not posting how content they are with this addition here, in this neutral feedback topic? You did. It was important to you, even so important, that you are hardly doing anything else. You're even hardly playing the game anymore cause you spend so much time making it your personal crusade to preemptively dismiss any post here critical to submarines. And still there are hardly any people who back your ideas, hardly a positive reaction to your posts, lots of negative reactions, lots of people who find their way here, just to say they don't like how subs work right now or even subs at all and finally lots of positive reactions to their posts (apart from the one flat downvote from you).

 

I mean if I made a topic about "how much would you enjoy a paper cut on your nipple?" and all people agree there are better things in life, that's not an echo chamber. If most people agree something is manure, it likely is manure and the people are not in an echo chamber. In fact the person who maintains it's chocolate, against a majority, is well advised to question whether he/she/* may be in an echo chamber.

 

I appreciate you've moved on to posting meme pics of dead people to try and gain a sentiment of expertise, but it just doesn't work, does it?

 

[Pikkozoikum]

3 hours ago, dN00b said:

All I heard him saying was that submarines are not the boogieman that they are blamed to be, and that one area where fixing might be needed is the distance where torps stop homing in on cruisers.

There is a distance, where torpedos stop homing. It's 720m or 360m (double ping) for cruisers.

 

1 hour ago, Smit21 said:

 How to kill game, tutorial step by step made by WG.

He could have dodged the first attack without dcp. But he uses DCP and gets a flood from a DD. With the flood from the DD he is too slow and the second attack becomes undodgeable.
I would have used DCP right at the beginning. I would try to dodge, look how the torps would hit me and decide right before the impact, if I would use DCP or not. The torp damage can be tanked, when dcped.

 

 

[Smegger213]

3 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

There is a distance, where torpedos stop homing. It's 720m or 360m (double ping) for cruisers.

 

He could have dodged the first attack without dcp. But he uses DCP and gets a flood from a DD. With the flood from the DD he is too slow and the second attack becomes undodgeable.
I would have used DCP right at the beginning. I would try to dodge, look how the torps would hit me and decide right before the impact, if I would use DCP or not. The torp damage can be tanked, when dcped.

 

 

This is all created by Wargaming's garbage idea to use the repair party consumable to break sonar torp lock.

I as a BB player, need the repair party to heal damage. I don't want to waste it for stupid sub locks.

But I am forced to choose to waste a repair to break sonar lock. So then it is on cooldown.

But the sub can just lock you again, and then you find 4 to 6 torps baring down on you from close range, that you have no chance of avoiding.

 

Wargaming could have easily created an additional consumable to break sonar pings, but they had to come up with the dumbest idea ever, by linking it with the repair party.

[Halderic]

Well, on my side, I think I must have missed an episode but I wonder how you can destroy a submerged submarine as a Dutch cruiser or CV ???

[Pikkozoikum]

2 hours ago, Smegger213 said:

This is all created by Wargaming's garbage idea to use the repair party consumable to break sonar torp lock.

I as a BB player, need the repair party to heal damage. I don't want to waste it for stupid sub locks.

But I am forced to choose to waste a repair to break sonar lock. So then it is on cooldown.

But the sub can just lock you again, and then you find 4 to 6 torps baring down on you from close range, that you have no chance of avoiding.

 

Wargaming could have easily created an additional consumable to break sonar pings, but they had to come up with the dumbest idea ever, by linking it with the repair party.

BBs can dodge the torpedos pretty good, they stop homing at 2.1 km and give your ~9s of reaction time. That's similar to Shimkaze torpedos.

[SlavicNoOb]

A forum is a place where discussions are held, between two or multiple sides. It's irrelevant if there is one person on one side and 10 people on the other. As long as the discussion is civilized and on topic, I do not see what the issue is. And I am not trolling, or just saying submarines are awesome, I made argument, my core argument boiling down to a single question to all of you that do not like submarines: why is it a problem for you that Wargaming balances the battle performance of the submarines by tweaking parameters such as reload speed and damage output of their torps, i.e. why do you insist on more radical changes when the balancing can be achieved in a fast and simple manner by tweaking those parameters?

What would be the problem with submarines balanced in such a way? I cannot see one. My best guess to why you keep insisting on radically changing the way the submarines work, is that not a single one of you is being straightforward with your motives. The reason why you insist on radical rework is that you hope that this will make Wargaming take the submarines back from live matches and random to do the rework, which will take time like a year or two or more... and maybe, just maybe, completely scrap the project in the end.

That is why you want radical rework and you do not want them to be just balanced by tweaking parameters. And you know very well that what I have said, that if they need some balancing so that they're not op or under-performing, it can be done by tweaking parameters, and it can be done fast.

And since you do not want to admit this openly for obvious reasons, we cannot have a proper debate. You are being intellectually dishonest, while any serious debate on a forum depends on intellectual honesty. Otherwise it is not a debate but a bunch of monologues.

So please stop inventing these convoluted reworks when they're not needed. Submarines are perfectly fun for the players that want to play submarines. The only thing that might need balancing is the damage output. Maybe some of them are dealing more damage than they should on average, and some are dealing less. If so, this needs to be fixed, and only Wargaming knows this based on the statistics they gather from this testing.

One other thing that might need tweaking might be the distance when they stop homing and go in a straight line. For instance this distance right now for BB is 2.1km. I can't recall from the top of my head what it was for Cruisers and DDs.

The straight going torpedoes are not going to work and I already told you why. Submarine to submarine combat is just not happening with non-homing torps. Period.
 

[ZeMalm]

2 minutes ago, dN00b said:

So please stop inventing these convoluted reworks when they're not needed. Submarines are perfectly fun for the players that want to play submarines

Well yes, they may be fun for players that want to play submarines. But for players who dont there are just not fun in any way. But you got one thing correct, we dont need a rework (WG showed with CV rework that reworks is not something they are cable of) 

[tom_kat]

3 minutes ago, dN00b said:

A forum is a place where discussions are held, between two or multiple sides. It's irrelevant if there is one person on one side and 10 people on the other. As long as the discussion is civilized and on topic, I do not see what the issue is. And I am not trolling, or just saying submarines are awesome, I made argument, my core argument boiling down to a single question to all of you that do not like submarines: why is it a problem for you that Wargaming balances the battle performance of the submarines by tweaking parameters such as reload speed and damage output of their torps, i.e. why do you insist on more radical changes when the balancing can be achieved in a fast and simple manner by tweaking those parameters?

What would be the problem with submarines balanced in such a way? I cannot see one. My best guess to why you keep insisting on radically changing the way the submarines work, is that not a single one of you is being straightforward with your motives. The reason why you insist on radical rework is that you hope that this will make Wargaming take the submarines back from live matches and random to do the rework, which will take time like a year or two or more... and maybe, just maybe completely scrap the project in the end.

That is why you want radical rework and you do not want them to be just balanced by tweaking parameters. And you know very well that what I have said, that if they need some balancing so that they're not op or under-performing, it can be done by tweaking parameters, and it can be done fast.

And since you do not want to admit this openly for obvious reasons, we cannot have a proper debate. You are being intellectually dishonest, while any serious debate on a forum depends on intellectual honesty. Otherwise it is not a debate but a bunch of monologues.

So please stop inventing these convoluted reworks when they're not needed. Submarines are perfectly fun for the players that want to play submarines. The only thing that might need balancing is the damage output. Maybe some of them are dealing more damage than they should on average, and some are dealing less. If so, this needs to be fixed, and only Wargaming knows this based on the statistics they gather from this testing.

One other thing that might need tweaking might be the distance when they stop homing and go in a straight line. For instance this distance right now for BB is 2.1km. I can't recall from the top of my head what it was for Cruisers and DDs.

The straight going torpedoes are not going to work and I already told you why. Submarine to submarine combat is just not happening with non-homing torps. Period.
 

The funniest thing of all: diverse arguments were giventh to you by diverse kind of players, more or less experienced, and you made a fast forward to the next post on this thread arguing vague terms, experience that you have over the rest and even memes. Seeing the whole thread, the only reason why are you expending so much time on this is, as some others said, simply you are a troll.

 

Good day my sir.

[Smegger213]

4 minutes ago, dN00b said:

A forum is a place where discussions are held, between two or multiple sides. It's irrelevant if there is one person on one side and 10 people on the other. As long as the discussion is civilized and on topic, I do not see what the issue is. And I am not trolling, or just saying submarines are awesome, I made argument, my core argument boiling down to a single question to all of you that do not like submarines: why is it a problem for you that Wargaming balances the battle performance of the submarines by tweaking parameters such as reload speed and damage output of their torps, i.e. why do you insist on more radical changes when the balancing can be achieved in a fast and simple manner by tweaking those parameters?

What would be the problem with submarines balanced in such a way? I cannot see one. My best guess to why you keep insisting on radically changing the way the submarines work, is that not a single one of you is being straightforward with your motives. The reason why you insist on radical rework is that you hope that this will make Wargaming take the submarines back from live matches and random to do the rework, which will take time like a year or two or more... and maybe, just maybe, completely scrap the project in the end.

That is why you want radical rework and you do not want them to be just balanced by tweaking parameters. And you know very well that what I have said, that if they need some balancing so that they're not op or under-performing, it can be done by tweaking parameters, and it can be done fast.

And since you do not want to admit this openly for obvious reasons, we cannot have a proper debate. You are being intellectually dishonest, while any serious debate on a forum depends on intellectual honesty. Otherwise it is not a debate but a bunch of monologues.

So please stop inventing these convoluted reworks when they're not needed. Submarines are perfectly fun for the players that want to play submarines. The only thing that might need balancing is the damage output. Maybe some of them are dealing more damage than they should on average, and some are dealing less. If so, this needs to be fixed, and only Wargaming knows this based on the statistics they gather from this testing.

One other thing that might need tweaking might be the distance when they stop homing and go in a straight line. For instance this distance right now for BB is 2.1km. I can't recall from the top of my head what it was for Cruisers and DDs.

The straight going torpedoes are not going to work and I already told you why. Submarine to submarine combat is just not happening with non-homing torps. Period.
 

What an utter croc of crap statement to come out with.

YOU HAVE GONE OUT OF YOUR WAY TO PUT DOWN EVERY PLAYER WHO HAS SAID ON HERE THAT THEY HATE SUBS.

That includes such abuse as stat shaming and calling us out and out liers.

So don't come the civilized discussion crap, because you have been anything but civilized.

 

Oh and submarine combat should not exist.

Did one sub sunk any other sub during WW2, I think not.