Submarines in Random Battles

[anonym_cwVecOS6ecVy]

6 minutes 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.

Sealord is a teacher. He has to be diplomatic. Also he is a buddy streamer. You should not fetch game design analysis and meta recommendations from him. He lacks that kind of knowledge.

[Smegger213]

6 minutes 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?

So he posts a vid saying subs are good, it gets 397 likes.

But he posts another vid saying subs are not good, that gets over 693 likes.

1st vid has over 8k views, 2nd vid has over 12k views.

 

But to say the 2nd vid was just to appease the sub haters that may subscribe to his channel, is just silly.

Remember the first video was just his first impressions, now after a few days/weeks playing with subs, maybe he has formed a more balanced view.

So he puts out another video, this time with a new view that subs are bad for the game.

Its obvious that he has just come to the same conclusion as most of us commenting in this thread.

Subs are bad for the game, except for you that is.

 

If you like subs that much, why don't you go play the game U Boat or the Silent Hunter series of games.

You can get a proper sub fix fit those games.

[SlavicNoOb]

Anyway, WarGaming I think the submarines are ready. Of course balancing of damage, reload, distance before homing stops, etc., might be needed, but that is only known to you from the data you're getting from this test, and I'm sure that you will balance them where and if needed.

This is my last post in this thread. I feel the debate between myself and the detractors is exhausted, arguments have been made, and now it has started to rapidly deteriorate and be focused on me instead of submarines or rational arguing for or against submarines. So, as it is unlikely that any additional benefit will come from my participation in this debate, I am not going to participate anymore, as I do not want to waste yours nor my time.

Eagerly awaiting the arrival of the submarines in the tech tree.

Regards,
dN00b

[HMS_Kilinowski]

Dear Wargaming,

 

I present to you the feedback of a friend of mine who left the game because of the submarines. I specifically got in contact with him and hope you value this effort, as normally you wouldn't get any more feedback from people who have moved on. So this is hopefully a good piece of qualitative insight. This player has bought ~75% of the premium ships and spent a lot on ingame ressources, loot boxes and premium time. He's not a whale, but pretty close. Most of all, he had 20k+ battles and played for 5 years.

 

I give you my word that I am not changing the content of his message. I will just edit out the profanities in italics and brackets, as you can imagine he is slightly frustrated. So without further ado, here it is, do with it as you see fit:

 

Quote

Subs -unlike CVs- were never a part of fleet battles, in fact CVs largely replaced fleet engagements while subs were always largely limited to attacking civvy ships or transport ships.
Subs never had 90kt torps, especially not 90kt torps that could out-turn a rudder shift T10 DD (also the do NOT stop tracking you at a certain distance, that is pure WeeGee [nonsense]).
The entire game has been skewed to suit subs, since their announcement waaay back when i had hair there has been a slow, but, sure movement to reduce the number of domination battles, upping the number of standard battles (which SUCK) and also the addition and proliferation of epicentre battles, which also suck. If there are no caps at all or the cap area is massive it suits the subs. CV rocket planes now fire guns before launching, which was apparently to make DD play more comfortable. [nonsense]. The very timing of the change of that mechanic was ALL about subs. Don't get me wrong, anything that [defecates] on CV players is awesome by me, but, these Russian [pl. top end of the male genital] can't be honest about that.
All the other ways they can affect gameplay adds to it. There are now effectively up to 6 DDs a side or more when the soft limits are applied, that makes other classes tougher to play. The ping mechanic is stupid as well. If DDs have to fire and hope, subs can as well.
Subs are being given mythical speeds to make them more usable..........well, i argue New York, New Mexico, Colorado, Queen Elizabeth, Warspite etc. etc. etc. would ALL be more usable if they could keep up with fleets as well. What's right for one should be right for all, but, let's just make that one class exempt from  thoswe particular realities so we can shoehorn them in.
The average person that will enjoy subs are likely to be pubeless little [persons of evil spirit and below average intelligence] that are furiously [performing sexual acts on themselves] while [messing] up what was a basically acceptable game for everyone else
These are all reasons, but, the reality is they are simply the straw that broke the camel's back. It is just that final thing, added to everything else that made me say [I'm out] to it. I'm just done with their [excrement]

 

[300ConfirmedKills]

Vor 7 Stunden, Smegger213 sagte:

snip

 

 

Oh and submarine combat should not exist.

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

Think again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_U-864

[Benser33]

and technically also USS Tang sank herself with her own torpedo.

[fubar]

I have had some good times reading these posts 

 

Wanted to mention something about those homing torpedoes in the game that Germans had something similar in 1943, acoustic torpedo, which basically homed in on ship's propeller noise. Ofc these were not the magical weapon for the Germans in the end, because at this stage of the war their subs were destroyed way before they were even able to spot ships. And Allies had knowledge of these new torpedoes even before they were even in use - 

 

Quote from the book. Highly recommend the book btw

Quote

 

The G7e acoustic torpedo had a guidance system which homed in on the noise of the propellers. This weapon had an advantage over the standard torpedoes in that it did not need precise aiming since it steered itself towards the sound of a ship’s propellers.

Freeman, Richard. Atlantic Nightmare: The longest military campaign in World War II (p. 307). Lume Books. Kindle Edition. 

 

About the counter measures

Quote

 

There were three principal counter-measures to the acoustic torpedo; two required no technical development. A vessel going very slowly made too little noise for the torpedo homing device to function. Alternatively, a fast vessel could easily outrun these torpedoes. The third option was to tow a noise-making device to act as a decoy.

Freeman, Richard. Atlantic Nightmare: The longest military campaign in World War II (p. 309). Lume Books. Kindle Edition. 

 

 

[fubar]

And about subs sunk by other subs (for @Smegger213)

 

https://uboat.net/fates/sub-sunk.htm

 

that same site has funny detail about launching a acoustic torpedo  

 

Quote

The weapon was designed to lock onto the loudest noise after a run of 400m from its launch. This often proved to be the U-boat itself and standard issue-orders were to dive immediately to depth of 60m after launch froma bow tube while a stern shot was to be followed by a complete silence in the boat. Two U-boats were almost certainly lost when hit by one of their own T5 torpedoes, U-972 in Dec 1943 and U-377 in Jan 1944.

 

MEIN GOTT!!! did we launch a torpedo ?!?  DIVE DIVE DIVE! 

[tom_kat]

17 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I will just edit out the profanities in italics and brackets, as you can imagine he is slightly frustrated.

That was the best part of all. Because I feel the same in the same words.

[Smegger213]

9 hours ago, fubar said:

And about subs sunk by other subs (for @Smegger213)

 

https://uboat.net/fates/sub-sunk.htm

 

that same site has funny detail about launching a acoustic torpedo  

 

 

MEIN GOTT!!! did we launch a torpedo ?!?  DIVE DIVE DIVE! 

Whatever.

 

You know when the makers of Trivial Pursuit released the first version of that game, loads of players contacted them and said "you got the answers to some questions wrong".

Guess what they said.

"Yes we know, trivial isn't it"

 

So what if 1 or 2 subs were sunk by another sub in WW2.

My point is that it was a very rare occurrence as to be a non event.

[fubar]

11 hours ago, Smegger213 said:

Whatever.

 

You know when the makers of Trivial Pursuit released the first version of that game, loads of players contacted them and said "you got the answers to some questions wrong".

Guess what they said.

"Yes we know, trivial isn't it"

 

So what if 1 or 2 subs were sunk by another sub in WW2.

My point is that it was a very rare occurrence as to be a non event.

There were 24 subs sunk by other sub. And if you are thinking that subs sunk thousands of ships then you are probably counting merchantships which should not be counted because they are not WARships. And this is a World of Warships game although there are now some merchantships in one of the battle modes. 

Quote

 

Allied Naval losses (all causes) in the North Atlantic, 1939-1945
The Royal and Commonwealth Navies lost 76 ships, ranging in size from Fleet minesweepers to the battle cruiser ‘HMS Hood’.  In addition, the US Navy and Allied navies lost a further 24 warships.  Most naval losses were caused by U-boats.

(Sources: Captain S W Roskill, The War at Sea, 3 vols. (1960); Naval Historical Branch, Ministry of Defence)

 

Link to the above: https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/battle-of-atlantic-0/cost-of-battle-1

 

These numbers equal to 3,4 subs sunk by sub per year of war, and 14,3 warships sunk by year of war. ("most" has been translated to 100%) That ratio is not non event in my opinion.

 

But please continue bickering, I just wanted to interject some facts and pause the silliness of this thread (it was you @Smegger213  who brought WW2 into discussion).

[Smegger213]

2 hours ago, fubar said:

There were 24 subs sunk by other sub. And if you are thinking that subs sunk thousands of ships then you are probably counting merchantships which should not be counted because they are not WARships. And this is a World of Warships game although there are now some merchantships in one of the battle modes. 

Link to the above: https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/battle-of-atlantic-0/cost-of-battle-1

 

These numbers equal to 3,4 subs sunk by sub per year of war, and 14,3 warships sunk by year of war. ("most" has been translated to 100%) That ratio is not non event in my opinion.

 

But please continue bickering, I just wanted to interject some facts and pause the silliness of this thread (it was you @Smegger213  who brought WW2 into discussion).

Whatever.

Do you really think I give a T___?

 

I just wanted to point out that sub on sub attacks were few and far between in reality.

 

Oh and there is no silliness in this thread that I can see, unless you count the guy that just would not shut up.

[Miragetank90]

On 10/13/2021 at 11:39 PM, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

I give you my word that I am not changing the content of his message. I will just edit out the profanities in italics and brackets, as you can imagine he is slightly frustrated. So without further ado, here it is, do with it as you see fit:

 

 

Something to add to that - the secondary accuracy ''rework''.

imo this was primarily done with subs in mind. 

[HMS_Kilinowski]

3 hours ago, Miragetank90 said:

 

Something to add to that - the secondary accuracy ''rework''.

imo this was primarily done with subs in mind. 

 

... which would be counterintuitive. The reason to introduce the toxic homing torpedoes was to compensate high risk with high reward. One would think that less risk of getting destroyed is generally favored by the players, even if the rewards come in more continuously. WG created the homing torpedoes to try and solve an imbalance that was forced upon the game by lots of counters and restrictions to submarines. Originally they would have fitted in quite nicely, could maybe have taken he role of super-torpedo-boats and be matched as DDs.

 

Somehow WG reminds me of a phenomenon of my childhood, when you would create something and not allow your parents to see it, before it was finished, to increase e amou of srprise/delight and sometimes shock. I had hoped Wargaming would use the long development process to frequently exchange ideas directly with the community, the customer, so to speak.

Not doing so, they imo created the "Homer":

 

Now the sunk cost forces them to ignore the flaws of the design and declare it a success, even if it is not one yet or might never be one and, depending on where they move from here on, even if they risk backfire into the success of the entire game.

 

Ofc they can still save this, if they finally decide to start the dialogue. Unfortunately this has not been their philosophy. They rather produce fancy expensive video-monologues than have a friendly chat.

[Disciplyne]

The math is simple. (New mechanic of submarines ^ weak or zero counter ability) + (smoke ships + HE spam) + CV = 100% unenjoyable  gameplay

 

(x^y) + z + c = 0-1

[Miragetank90]

2 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Somehow WG reminds me of a phenomenon of my childhood, when you would create something and not allow your parents to see it, before it was finished

 

Childhood? Even now at 31, my parents don't see my work until it's ready 

[HMS_Kilinowski]

After 2 div mates already quit the game for good in a friendly clan, now, for the first time, a player from my own clan is leaving the game due to the submarines.

 

 

Thanks, Wargaming. Do you know how much effort it is to get good players for the clan? This was one. We find them, we get them into the flow and then you make them leave.

[OMG_Noob]

How many of you in random battles saying "Well done Sub"? 

Give me your honest answer please!

 

First they hate you

then they accept you

afterwards they will need you

 

After all this is just a game!

Try to enjoy the game or you have New World... 

You know what I mean 😏 

[OMG_Noob]

On 10/6/2021 at 11:00 AM, The_EURL_Guy said:

Let's talk about the changes to rental submarines.

Read it on the portal

By the way well done WG.

 

Back in 2015 I moved from WOWP because you messed up the wonderful game and time in wowp. 

 

Then I posted about that I was looking forward to submarines in this game. But most people just laughed at me. 

 

 However I moved from EU to NA because EU wg system.

Any way good luck people 

[SlavicNoOb]

First Kraken with a submarine!!



Btw Wargaming, these submarine detractors, among them some youtubers too, will never accept submarines. They are complaining about the homing, the invisibility the this the that--those are just excuses. If you listen to them you might just stop adding stuff to the game period, with the exception of maybe more battleships. A million battleships--fine, anything else--NOT FINE!! That is their logic. These people exist in every mmo community, they do not want changes, and it's best to just ignore them, which is pretty much what you have done with CV and other stuff, so just keep up the good work!

[mg106]

3 hours ago, dN00b said:

First Kraken with a submarine!!

Seeing your stats change in the last weeks since the introduction of the subs as well as this result above shows me enough that the subs aren`t properly balanced yet. I can understand that you like playing them, seeing by the shear amount of posts which easily exceeds the number of battles. However assuming that the subs are fine as they are, while a big majority of the forum clearly does not like playing with/against subs, is like living in that facebook bubble ("I`m right, while rest of the world is wrong"). 

[SlavicNoOb]

1 minute ago, mg106 said:

Seeing your stats change in the last weeks since the introduction of the subs as well as this result above shows me enough that the subs aren`t properly balanced yet. I can understand that you like playing them, seeing by the shear amount of posts which easily exceeds the number of battles. However assuming that the subs are fine as they are, while a big majority of the forum clearly does not like playing with/against subs, is like living in that facebook bubble ("I`m right, while rest of the world is wrong"). 

Maybe my stats changed because playing in ranked/gold league forced me to play better... I spent two entire sprints not being able to move past rank 5 in the first one and past rank 7 in the second sprint. I was blaming bad players, tried playing after 11PM in order to avoid the kids, nothing helped.

Then I started looking for mistakes I make, not look for fault in others, and I started seeing good results with both the Kremlin and the U-2501, same ships I used before.

So yeah, submarines helped me improve my stats...as if the matchmaking doesn't put equal number of submarines on both teams. So why is my team winning more on average, i.e. my stats improving if there are equal number of submarines on each team in all battles? Logic...try it, it works wonders.

[mg106]

34 minutes ago, dN00b said:

Maybe my stats changed because playing in ranked/gold league forced me to play better... I spent two entire sprints not being able to move past rank 5 in the first one and past rank 7 in the second sprint. I was blaming bad players, tried playing after 11PM in order to avoid the kids, nothing helped.

Then I started looking for mistakes I make, not look for fault in others, and I started seeing good results with both the Kremlin and the U-2501, same ships I used before.

So yeah, submarines helped me improve my stats...as if the matchmaking doesn't put equal number of submarines on both teams. So why is my team winning more on average, i.e. my stats improving if there are equal number of submarines on each team in all battles? Logic...try it, it works wonders.

Looking at your winrate: most people try a few games in subs and quit afterwards, while you play continuously (126 games in subs in total of the 197 games you played last 2 months). It clearly shows that you put way more time into subs than other players, while in comparison you are not that strong in other classes. Furthermore the fact that you start playing when subs were added after a long period shows that you were eager to play subs (which I can understand).

 

However winning significantly more games in subs relative to other classes skews your opinion a bit. You think you`ve found finally a class in which you excel, however this does not necessary mean that you are good in it, it could mean that the class is way stronger than the other classes (thereby making it easier to farm more damage in a game, which is reflected in your stats). As the stats in your other classes are relatively poor, I think your general skills at playing the game (this includes: positioning, map knowledge, ship knowledge, prediction of team/enemy movement, etc.) is not that good, therefore I assume that the reasons you excelling at subs particular is probably a combination of:

1. the time you put in relative to other people playing subs

2. the class being stronger than other classes.

 

Seeing how other people react on subs on this forum, youtube and reddit I get the feeling that the class is overperforming against some classes and that counterplay for these classes against subs is not that well worked out. Furthermore if the class was underperforming, then your winrate would not get that high when playing subs (as you would maybe take out the other sub, but wouldn`t do that much damage against other classes). Therefore I assume it is more the 2nd reason than the first 1.

[SlavicNoOb]

Am 18.10.2021 um 14:22, mg106 sagte:

Looking at your winrate: most people try a few games in subs and quit afterwards, while you play continuously (126 games in subs in total of the 197 games you played last 2 months). It clearly shows that you put way more time into subs than other players, while in comparison you are not that strong in other classes. Furthermore the fact that you start playing when subs were added after a long period shows that you were eager to play subs (which I can understand).

 

However winning significantly more games in subs relative to other classes skews your opinion a bit. You think you`ve found finally a class in which you excel, however this does not necessary mean that you are good in it, it could mean that the class is way stronger than the other classes (thereby making it easier to farm more damage in a game, which is reflected in your stats). As the stats in your other classes are relatively poor, I think your general skills at playing the game (this includes: positioning, map knowledge, ship knowledge, prediction of team/enemy movement, etc.) is not that good, therefore I assume that the reasons you excelling at subs particular is probably a combination of:

1. the time you put in relative to other people playing subs

2. the class being stronger than other classes.

 

Seeing how other people react on subs on this forum, youtube and reddit I get the feeling that the class is overperforming against some classes and that counterplay for these classes against subs is not that well worked out. Furthermore if the class was underperforming, then your winrate would not get that high when playing subs (as you would maybe take out the other sub, but wouldn`t do that much damage against other classes). Therefore I assume it is more the 2nd reason than the first 1.

Or maybe I play subs because I like subs. And maybe you're better in classes you like playing than ones you like but not as much.


Are subs to blame that one sub player ends up on top here and the other one on the bottom?

And try something else.. maybe my stats improve because I play with captains that are trained as opposed to most people in random. And I have more experience. And in ranked I never see another submarine player that has upgraded his submarine while I have all upgrade slots filled on mine. Is the submarine as a class OP because I win because the other sub player has 40% less dive capacity because he/she didn't upgrade the boat? Is it my fault that the other players do not upgrade their submarines?

 

edited
 

[mg106]

14 minutes ago, dN00b said:

And try something else..

I guess my analysis hit home a bit too hard, hit a few citadels in your broadside ship :D

 

21 minutes ago, dN00b said:

Is the submarine as a class OP because I win because the other sub player has 40% less dive capacity because he/she didn't upgrade the boat? Is it my fault that the other players do not upgrade their submarines?

So what you are saying is that the upgrades/commander skills need to be nerfed for a beginner to have a better chance of getting stuff done in the game? 
 

22 minutes ago, dN00b said:

Don't blame the subs, and use some logic, you look silly otherwise.

12 minutes ago, dN00b said:

When I hear "but submarines make the game worse" is like I'm hearing "but brawndo has what plants crave, it's got electrolytes".

I guess you are not open to any form of discussion, so why are you still here? It`s like a politician shouting out his opinion with his fingers in his ears. What are you trying to achieve? You don`t want to listen to anyone, so why should we listen to you?