Submarines in Random Battles

[ColonelPete]

7 minutes ago, dN00b said:

The straight going torpedoes are not going to work and I already told you why.

And I explained to you that they will work.

[S_h_i_v_a]

Told you already: separate game mode.

But you still say you are listening to us, while you are ignoring us.

 

Diablo 2 just resurrected.

[SlavicNoOb]

11 minutes ago, tom_kat said:

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.

I have been addressing individual points for a while now... the same points over and over. And I still do not get an answer to the one question I asked. No one has the courage to answer it. If submarines are dealing the damage they should be dealing for their tier, what is the issue? Who cares if the torps curve, don't curve, fly, if the subs use rail-guns, or some kind of micro nukes? If the average damage output of Tier 8 submarines is, I don't know, lets say 60k, and it is actually 60k, what does it change if the torps run straight or not?

The answer is: it doesn't. It changes nothing. You just want rework because you want the subs out and you want them out for good. And those of of you that say, oh no I don't mind submarines, I just want them balanced, you are being dishonest. You do NOT want submarines, and all of this rework talk is just an attempt to bully Wargaming into taking the off the public servers for rework. Once this happens, you will start the second phase of your campaign which is: Wargaming don't bring the subs back, no one wants them...

Dirty play, very dirty.

And calling me troll is just an attempt to get rid of the messenger when you cannot kill the message. You can't out-argue me with reason, so you are making an Ad hominem attack on me personally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[SlavicNoOb]

10 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

And I explained to you that they will work.

And I disagree.

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, dN00b said:

And I disagree.

Obviously, when you cannot even play torpboats. But that is not the problem of the mechanic.

[SlavicNoOb]

13 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

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.

Your idea of "put down" is what I call debating.
And I was called out for my stats and my number of battles first, quite a few times, before I did it.
Call me for a civilized discussion when your argument for why there should be no submarines is something more than: because I feel like it, i.e. I just don't like them. No one cares about your feelings. You don't like them, I do.

[Pikkozoikum]

7 minutes ago, dN00b said:

And I disagree.

 

18 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

And I explained to you that they will work.

 

I think they would work as well. But it would need to rework the gameplay (in terms of spotting mechanics against submarines)

And it would only solve the issue with "mimimi, I don't like homing torps", but people would complain then about something "stealth subs one hit me without any notification" or similar.

So it would only shift the complaints ^^'

[Smegger213]

2 minutes ago, dN00b said:

I have been addressing individual points for a while now... the same points over and over. And I still do not get an answer to the one question I asked. No one has the courage to answer it. If submarines are dealing the damage they should be dealing for their tier, what is the issue? Who cares if the torps curve, don't curve, fly, if the subs use rail-guns, or some kind of micro nukes? If the average damage output of Tier 8 submarines is, I don't know, lets say 60k, and it is actually 60k, what does it change if the torps run straight or not?

The answer is: it doesn't. It changes nothing. You just want rework because you want the subs out and you want them out for good. And those of of you that say, oh no I don't mind submarines, I just want them balanced, you are being dishonest. You do NOT want submarines, and all of this rework talk is just an attempt to bully Wargaming into taking the off the public servers for rework. Once this happens, you will start the second phase of your campaign which is: Wargaming don't bring the subs back, no one wants them...

Dirty play, very dirty.

And calling me troll is just an attempt to get rid of the messenger when you cannot kill the message. You can't out-argue me with reason, so you are making an Ad hominem attack on me personally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Who cares what the average damage of subs is. It does not matter one jot.

What matters in my mind is, how good or bad it is to play surface ships against subs.

I think its bad, so bad that I have quit playing.

I am not going to roll out in my slow US BB, just to waste a repair party to break the pings.

When even if I did use the repair, I would probably just get pinged again, then get stuck facing 4 to 6 torps that I cannot avoid.

 

Judging by the comments in this thread alone, YOU ARE THE ONLY PLAYER THAT LIKES SUBS AND WANTS THEM TO STAY.

What I mean by put down is this: You just will not shut up.

We all get it that you LOVE subs, god you have told us all enough already.

There is no need to come back against EVERY player on here that disagrees with you.

I think Wargaming have got the message that you love subs.

But I tell you this, you are a minority in this regard.

[tom_kat]

11 minutes ago, dN00b said:

You just want rework because you want the subs out and you want them out for good. And those of of you that say, oh no I don't mind submarines, I just want them balanced, you are being dishonest. You do NOT want submarines, and all of this rework talk is just an attempt to bully Wargaming into taking the off the public servers for rework. Once this happens, you will start the second phase of your campaign which is: Wargaming don't bring the subs back, no one wants them...

These are guess, based on... You only know.

 

12 minutes ago, dN00b said:

You can't out-argue me with reason

Well, many of we did already. With many reasons in fact.

And calling that an ad-hominen makes my day. moreover when I did a post with logical reasons that, obviously, you didn't like just by fast forwarding on the next post.

Here you have, my philosopher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

Good day

[SlavicNoOb]

26 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

Who cares what the average damage of subs is. It does not matter one jot.

What matters in my mind is, how good or bad it is to play surface ships against subs.

I think its bad, so bad that I have quit playing.

I am not going to roll out in my slow US BB, just to waste a repair party to break the pings.

When even if I did use the repair, I would probably just get pinged again, then get stuck facing 4 to 6 torps that I cannot avoid.

 

Judging by the comments in this thread alone, YOU ARE THE ONLY PLAYER THAT LIKES SUBS AND WANTS THEM TO STAY.

What I mean by put down is this: You just will not shut up.

We all get it that you LOVE subs, god you have told us all enough already.

There is no need to come back against EVERY player on here that disagrees with you.

I think Wargaming have got the message that you love subs.

But I tell you this, you are a minority in this regard.

In this video he explains very well why submarines are not as bad as people think they are and that most of the people complaining simply do not know the mechanics and how to counter the submarines and their torps, and he has ~400 likes and ~100 dislikes. That makes 80% of people that agree with him and 20% that do not agree. So I'm the only one that likes submarines, right?

Again, you say "What matters in my mind is, how good or bad it is to play surface ships against subs.". So in your mind it matters how it feels to play surface ships against subs? See, feelings again. The world doesn't run on feelings, it runs on logic. Try going to the bank and tell them I feel like you need to give me a million bucks, or euro, see how it goes.

"I am not going to roll out in my slow US BB, just to waste a repair party to break the pings."
Well, apparently wargaming has decided that you will roll out your slow bb and waste a DCP It's not a repair party, it is a DCP, and that exactly shows that you do not know what you're talking about, which explains your aversion towards submarines--you simply do not know how to play against them. And it's not the first time you call it a repair party, you did it in the other thread for submarines in ranked.

"Judging by the comments in this thread alone, YOU ARE THE ONLY PLAYER THAT LIKES SUBS AND WANTS THEM TO STAY."
Do not yell at me. Using caps for one word to make it stand out is one thing, but writing entire sentences in caps is the equivalent of yelling, and is considered extremely rude. This is your last warning before I report you.
 

[SlavicNoOb]

58 minutes ago, tom_kat said:

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.

I saw no arguments. I saw:
"I don't like submarines"
"Submarines should not be in random"
"Submarines are not ready"
"Submarines are not balanced"
"Homing torpedoes are bad"
etc etc etc

You call those arguments? To me they look like generalized complaints with nothing concrete to point out.

[tom_kat]

1 minute ago, dN00b said:

I saw no arguments. I saw:
"I don't like submarines"
"Submarines should not be in random"
"Submarines are not ready"
"Submarines are not balanced"
"Homing torpedoes are bad"
etc etc etc

You call those arguments? To me they look like generalized complaints with nothing concrete to point out.

You don't see what you don't want to see.
https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/155237-submarines-in-random-battles/?do=findComment&comment=4026760

[Smegger213]

3 minutes ago, dN00b said:

In this video he explains very well why submarines are not as bad as people think they are and that most of the people complaining simply do not know the mechanics and how to counter the submarines and their torps, and he has ~400 likes and ~100 dislikes. That makes 80% of people that agree with him and 20% that do not agree. So I'm the only one that likes submarines, right?

Again, you say "What matters in my mind is, how good or bad it is to play surface ships against subs.". So in your mind it matters how it feels to play surface ships against subs? See, feelings again. The world doesn't run on feelings, it runs on logic. Try going to the bank and tell them I feel like you need to give me a million bucks, or euro, see how it goes.

"I am not going to roll out in my slow US BB, just to waste a repair party to break the pings."
Well, apparently wargaming has decided that you will roll out your slow bb and waste a DCP It's not a repair party, it is a DCP, and that exactly shows that you do not know what you're talking about, which explains your aversion towards submarines--you simply do not know how to play against them. And it's not the first time you call it a repair party, you did it in the other thread for submarines in ranked.

"Judging by the comments in this thread alone, YOU ARE THE ONLY PLAYER THAT LIKES SUBS AND WANTS THEM TO STAY."
Do not yell at me. Using caps for one word to make it stand out is one thing, but writing entire sentences in caps is the equivalent of yelling, and is considered extremely rude. This is your last warning before I report you.
 

There you go again, replying with put downs and insults.

So what if I call it as repair party. Everybody else knows what I mean.

Report away. Posting in CAPS is not against the forum rules.

I am doing it just to highlight a point.

[SlavicNoOb]

1 minute ago, Smegger213 said:

There you go again, replying with put downs and insults.

So what if I call it as repair party. Everybody else knows what I mean.

Report away. Posting in CAPS is not against the forum rules.

I am doing it just to highlight a point.

Calling you out for not knowing the basic terminology is neither an insult nor a put down. If I had insulted you, you would have reported me already, lets be honest.
Posting in caps and addressing someone in caps is not exactly the same thing.

[Smegger213]

10 minutes ago, dN00b said:

Calling you out for not knowing the basic terminology is neither an insult nor a put down. If I had insulted you, you would have reported me already, lets be honest.
Posting in caps and addressing someone in caps is not exactly the same thing.

Whatever. I am sick and tired of responding to your pathetic attempts at justifying the greatness of subs in WoWS.

I will say it yet again, you are in the minority.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

3 hours 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.

 

Let's be clear about one thing: I don't want a radical rework. I want and always wanted traditional non-homing torpedoes on submarines. The radical change is not to move back from homing torpedoes to non-homing torpedoes. The radical rework was to try out homing torpedoes in the first place. All I am arguing is to undo this unnecessary step. It's not radical to reject a radical change.

 

What disappoints me is how we arrived at this stage of homing torpedoes. Wargaming has reassured us they would be extremely cautious and sensitive about the introduction of submarines. They told us they would take extra long time and test a lot and - have a laugh - the tests would be open-ended. But in this long period of testing no extra feedback was collected. I can't remember any discussions going on. I can't remember an open dialogue or qualitative survey. If anybody at Wargaming had ever asked the question in this forum "Do you think homing torpedoes are what makes submarines enjoyable/a good addition?", the loud and clear answer from the community would have been a firm "No."

 

What's the point of taking extra time to tailor something to the needs of the game, if you don't get feedback on the core design? What's the use of asking players how happy they are with submarines on a scale of 0 to 10? How can you possibly extract detailed feedback from that?

 

So the question can never be what the problem would be with balancing a radical change, but why such a radical change as homing torpedoes should be necessary and what would be the problem with balancing the class before thinking of such radical changes. I'm sure all players can have the usual impact on the game with normal torpedoes, tweaked to the play style.

 

Quote

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.

 

The statement that "submarines are perfectly fun for the players that want to play submarines" is, by logic, wrong. You assume that (a) everybody who is criticising subs is against any form or shape of submarine in the game and that (b) those who want to play them, by impliciation are fine with their current state. As I said, I am not against submarines per se. So I feel excluded by your statement.I liked the submarines in the Halloween event. It was fun and it had unguided torpedoes.

I am willing to play any class that promotes the core strength of this game, which is a good simulation of the physics of naval battle, and the interaction between players, which is not driven by who has the best reflexes, like in other shooters, but by a way of thinking yourself into the opponent and predicting your shots correctly. This is the strength and, as far as torpedoes are concerned, the challenge.

 

We got automated secondary artillery. We got automated AA. Now we get homing torpedoes. At this point we are closer to change main guns to auto-aim than we are to get the three aforementioned weapons into an intellectually challenging mode of operation. WoWs is getting ever closer to become a casual Micky Mouse mobile game and that is imo what drives players away.

 

I gotta jump back and forth a bit, so please bear with me:

 

You allege that the people who criticize submarines are - how did you put it? - intellectually dishonest.

I will be a very nice guy and not take this personal. Otherwise I would feel inclined to violate the forum rules on profanities.

 

I'm completely honest, which is why I've declared repeatedly that I would be willing to play submarines myself and tolerate them as opponents, if they wouldn't use homing torpedoes. Such a statement would not serve any hidden agenda to keep subs away.

Now I'm coming back to the first part of your post. You accuse us of delaying subs. The irony is that in fact we would have got submarines earlier into the game, if Wargaming had not designed such a new way of torpedo attack. They would still have needed to balance diving capacity and design the underwater world. Tho, the underwater world could be very rudimentary and be refined once they actually got the subs right. But subs would be closer to an acceptable release than they are now, if the communication with the community would have been bilateral.

 

Also, I think we, the people giving critical feedback are a link to the players that Wargaming loses or already lost on submarines. We are willing to give specific feedback rather than a flat "no". I specifically asked a friend, what about the design of subs he opposes and in what form he would accept them to the point of not leaving the game. We are basically doing Wargamings homework. We are telling Wargaming how to design submarines in a way that does not make people leave, maybe in a way that even makes them enjoy subs.

 

You see with less binary thinking and a bit more openness, nobody has to leave, but a compromise can be found.

[Zespetjest]

35 minutes ago, dN00b said:

In this video he explains very well why submarines are not as bad as people think they are and that most of the people complaining simply do not know the mechanics and how to counter the submarines and their torps, and he has ~400 likes and ~100 dislikes. That makes 80% of people that agree with him and 20% that do not agree. So I'm the only one that likes submarines, right?

Again, you say "What matters in my mind is, how good or bad it is to play surface ships against subs.". So in your mind it matters how it feels to play surface ships against subs? See, feelings again. The world doesn't run on feelings, it runs on logic. Try going to the bank and tell them I feel like you need to give me a million bucks, or euro, see how it goes.

"I am not going to roll out in my slow US BB, just to waste a repair party to break the pings."
Well, apparently wargaming has decided that you will roll out your slow bb and waste a DCP It's not a repair party, it is a DCP, and that exactly shows that you do not know what you're talking about, which explains your aversion towards submarines--you simply do not know how to play against them. And it's not the first time you call it a repair party, you did it in the other thread for submarines in ranked.

"Judging by the comments in this thread alone, YOU ARE THE ONLY PLAYER THAT LIKES SUBS AND WANTS THEM TO STAY."
Do not yell at me. Using caps for one word to make it stand out is one thing, but writing entire sentences in caps is the equivalent of yelling, and is considered extremely rude. This is your last warning before I report you.
 

Why don't you post Sea Lord Mountbatten's next video about submarines instead of reposting same one?

[SlavicNoOb]

36 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

Let's be clear about one thing: I don't want a radical rework. I want and always wanted traditional non-homing torpedoes on submarines. The radical change is not to move back from homing torpedoes to non-homing torpedoes. The radical rework was to try out homing torpedoes in the first place. All I am arguing is to undo this unnecessary step. It's not radical to reject a radical change.

 

What disappoints me is how we arrived at this stage of homing torpedoes. Wargaming has reassured us they would be extremely cautious and sensitive about the introduction of submarines. They told us they would take extra long time and test a lot and - have a laugh - the tests would be open-ended. But in this long period of testing no extra feedback was collected. I can't remember any discussions going on. I can't remember an open dialogue or qualitative survey. If anybody at Wargaming had ever asked the question in this forum "Do you think homing torpedoes are what makes submarines enjoyable/a good addition?", the loud and clear answer from the community would have been a firm "No."

 

What's the point of taking extra time to tailor something to the needs of the game, if you don't get feedback on the core design? What's the use of asking players how happy they are with submarines on a scale of 0 to 10? How can you possibly extract detailed feedback from that?

 

So the question can never be what the problem would be with balancing a radical change, but why such a radical change as homing torpedoes should be necessary and what would be the problem with balancing the class before thinking of such radical changes. I'm sure all players can have the usualy impact on the game with normal torpedoes, tweaked to the play style.

 

 

The statement that "submarines are perfectly fun for the players that want to play submarines" is, by logic, wrong. You assume that (a) everybody who is criticising subs is against any form or shape of submarine in the game and that (b) those who want to play them, by impliciation are fine with their current state. As I said, I am not against submarines per se. So I feel excluded by your statement.

I am willing to play any class that promotes the core strength of this game, which is a good simulation of the physics of naval battle, and the interaction between players, which is not driven by who has the best reflexes, like in other shooters, but by a way of thinking yourself into the opponent and predicting your shots correctly. This is the strength and, as far as torpedoes are concerned, the challenge.

 

We got automated secondary artillery. We got automated AA. Now we get homing torpedoes. At this point we are closer to change main guns to auto-aim than we are to get the three aforementioned weapons into an intellectually challenging mode of operation. WoWs is getting ever closer to become a casual Micky Mouse mobile game and that is imo what drives players away.

 

I gotta jump back and forth a bit, so please bear with me:

 

You allege that the people who criticize submarines are - how did you put it? - intellectually dishonest.

I will be a very nice guy and not take this personal. Otherwise I would feel inclined to violate the forum rules on profanities.

 

I'm completely honest, which is why I've declared repeatedly that I would be willing to play submarines myself and tolerate them as opponents, if they wouldn't use homing torpedoes. Such a statement would not serve any hidden agenda to keep subs away.

Now I'm coming back to the first part of your post. You accuse us of delaying subs. The irony is that in fact we would have got submarines earlier into the game, if Wargaming had not designed such a new way of torpedo attack. They would still have needed to balance diving capacity and design the underwater world. Tho, the underwater world could be very rudimentary and be refined once they actually got the subs right. But subs would be closer to an acceptable release than they are now, if the communication with the community would have been bilateral.

 

Also, I think we, the people giving critical feedback are a link to the players that Wargaming loses or already lost on submarines. We are willing to give specific feedback rather than a flat "no". I specifically asked a friend, what about the design of subs he opposes and in what form he would accept them to the point of not leaving the game. We are basically doing Wargamings homework. We are telling Wargaming how to design submarines in a way that does not make people leave, maybe in a way that even makes them enjoy subs.

 

You see with less binary thinking and a bit more openness, nobody has to leave, but a compromise can be found.

I do not see what non-submarine players, let alone submarine players, would gain from removing homing torpedoes. The pinging mechanic that goes with homing gives submarine players something to do, keeps them busy. Trying to get double ping involves some skill and judgement (and smart surface ships change direction and/or speed to make this even harder). With straight torpedoes nothing would change for the surface ships, they would get torped as they are now. And the pinging also gives the surface ships a bearing (direction) on the submarine, kinda useful...

Calling someone intellectually dishonest is not an insult in any shape or form. It is something I could see, and I'm sure I have seen, actual intellectuals such as university professors call each other during debates.

-Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception". Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.

I saw a lot of what that last sentence describes in this thread. I don't remember exactly who said what, so it might not have been you, but generally most people being against subs did what that sentence describes.

[SlavicNoOb]

1 minute ago, Do_not_give_money_to_WG said:

Why don't you post Sea Lord Mountbatten's next video about submarines instead of reposting same one?

I haven't seen it. Between playing wows, being sick, and posting on this thread, I do not have too much time for youtube videos. Feel free to post it yourself, I will watch it.

[Charaid]

 

[Smegger213]

6 minutes ago, Monalie said:

 

Isn't that a video from the same guy that said subs weren't that bad for the game?

Nice to see non consistent videos from a YouTuber lol.

[SlavicNoOb]

13 minutes ago, Monalie said:

 

Yes yes, he makes a pro-submarine vid, gets 400 likes and 100 dislikes, and a bunch of angry comments. Now 100 dislikes is only one fifth from the total likes/dislikes on the video, but that's still 20% of his audience.

So... he makes a followup video where he is more critical towards submarines to appease those 20% of his audience and not lose them. So was your point again..?

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, Smegger213 said:

Isn't that a video from the same guy that said subs weren't that bad for the game?

Nice to see non consistent videos from a YouTuber lol.

And it has even more upvotes and less downvotes...

[SlavicNoOb]

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

And it has even more upvotes and less downvotes...

Ofc it does, that's just his regular audience, and now those 20% of submarine haters that disliked the previous video didn't dislike this one. Your point?

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, dN00b said:

Ofc it does, that's just his regular audience, and now those 20% of submarine haters that disliked the previous video didn't dislike this one. Your point?

But the upvotes from the previous video were not his regular audience?