Submarines in Random Battles

[tom_kat]

Had some games on TX with subs, let me please share my experience and opinion (which can be wrong, of course):
- Playing with my Halland, match with 3 subs and 1 dd per team. Entered a cap, outspotted by sub, focused and destroyed. "Oh, you should had ran away"... Well I tried but after the Repair Party used to fix engine and 2 fires I was attacked by that hard-to-use mechanic wich we can call "ping-and-forget"... Yes, that you know which requires lots of game awareness and experience when torps follow a target.
- Playing with my Z52, match with 2 dds and 2 subs per team. Spotted a sub, hydro on, he submerged, he was unspotted ¿? Deep charges, 6 hits, team mates using their anti sub weapons (5-6 ships attacking a sub) and... Sub survive managing to get behind 2 BBs and torping them ¿?

- DesMo time, 2 sub, 2 dd and...CV. Well, I think CV and subs players did have fun. The rest of players wich standed on lanes 1 and 10 as rubber ducks didn't.

- Moskva. No subs, no CVs... Hard game that lasted almost 19 minutes. The funniest of all.

 

Introducing a new mechanic that, for sure, gonna make the game even more campy and passive it's not a good idea. If you disable any map awareness, positioning, pushing or any other game condition other that people waiting as far as they can until someone is spotted to farm him, does not make any game funnier simply does the opposite.

 

I think that If you add a new mechanic, aka sonar and homecoming torpedoes, you must add a new countermeasure. Repair Party for fires, floods and damaged modules... And one else when you are pinged by sub. 

 

And talking about subs countermeasures: I'd seen players passing through ships while being attacked without any problem and almost no damage received... I think this must be reworked too.

 

As I said before these are my opinions, I can be, for sure,  wrong.

[SlavicNoOb]

18 minutes ago, tom_kat said:

Had some games on TX with subs, let me please share my experience and opinion (which can be wrong, of course):
- Playing with my Halland, match with 3 subs and 1 dd per team. Entered a cap, outspotted by sub, focused and destroyed. "Oh, you should had ran away"... Well I tried but after the Repair Party used to fix engine and 2 fires I was attacked by that hard-to-use mechanic wich we can call "ping-and-forget"... Yes, that you know which requires lots of game awareness and experience when torps follow a target.
- Playing with my Z52, match with 2 dds and 2 subs per team. Spotted a sub, hydro on, he submerged, he was unspotted ¿? Deep charges, 6 hits, team mates using their anti sub weapons (5-6 ships attacking a sub) and... Sub survive managing to get behind 2 BBs and torping them ¿?

- DesMo time, 2 sub, 2 dd and...CV. Well, I think CV and subs players did have fun. The rest of players wich standed on lanes 1 and 10 as rubber ducks didn't.

- Moskva. No subs, no CVs... Hard game that lasted almost 19 minutes. The funniest of all.

 

Introducing a new mechanic that, for sure, gonna make the game even more campy and passive it's not a good idea. If you disable any map awareness, positioning, pushing or any other game condition other that people waiting as far as they can until someone is spotted to farm him, does not make any game funnier simply does the opposite.

 

I think that If you add a new mechanic, aka sonar and homecoming torpedoes, you must add a new countermeasure. Repair Party for fires, floods and damaged modules... And one else when you are pinged by sub. 

 

And talking about subs countermeasures: I'd seen players passing through ships while being attacked without any problem and almost no damage received... I think this must be reworked too.

 

As I said before this are my opinions, I can be, for sure,  wrong.

Do me a favor. Play a a hundred, or even better few hundred battles with a sub, record how many times you end up on top, how many middle, how many on bottom. How many times you survive the battle. How many wins vs how many losses.

After you do that, come back and tell us how OP subs are.

Now, I'm not saying submarines do not need more balancing and fine tuning. What I am saying is, to have an accurate picture where submarines are and if and how much work they need, everyone that complains should have few hundred battles in them, ideally 500.

Otherwise you're just telling a one sided story, that of the surface ships. And that is a distorted snapshot of the current situation.

Thank you.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

56 minutes ago, dN00b said:

Do me a favor. Play a a hundred, or even better few hundred battles with a sub, record how many times you end up on top, how many middle, how many on bottom. How many times you survive the battle. How many wins vs how many losses.

After you do that, come back and tell us how OP subs are.

Now, I'm not saying submarines do not need more balancing and fine tuning. What I am saying is, to have an accurate picture where submarines are and if and how much work they need, everyone that complains should have few hundred battles in them, ideally 500.

Otherwise you're just telling a one sided story, that of the surface ships. And that is a distorted snapshot of the current situation.

Thank you.

 

BBs staying 10km behind the cap when there is only a single sub in the game is not a one sided story, it's a game changer ... and for the worse. Just cause you - once in your WoWs career - experienced some success playing a ship, doesn't mean you can put your interest over the health of the game. I can understand the feeling. If a player is successful with a new ship type, where he failed in the old ones, he wants that class in the game, cause it spares him the trouble of finally learning the old classes. But it's not the job of a game developer to dump any number of roles into a game until even the last person unwilling to do his/her/* home work has found an easy way to succeed. You only succeed in a new class cause WG likes to release new content in an initially broken state. It's like we saw those Clemson mains jump into Hoshos after the CV rework. Why? Cause the reworked CV class was such an enrichment to the game?

 

Stop trolling cause nobody buys that you are serious anyway.

 

On 10/7/2021 at 3:29 AM, dN00b said:

Wargaming, if I get a free name change, hereby I give you permission to change my game name from 'dN00b' to 'iLOVEsubmarines'.

 

And btw, talking economics. WG, here is your new sub main. He asks to be renamed for free and has all his premium ships from the armory for coal and FXP. For that you lost players with 100+ premiums in port, paying for premium time for 5 years and dumping their money into every loot box event you offered. Good luck paying your bills with that.

[tom_kat]

16 minutes ago, dN00b said:

Do me a favor. Play a a hundred, or even better few hundred battles with a sub, record how many times you end up on top, how many middle, how many on bottom. How many times you survive the battle. How many wins vs how many losses.

After you do that, come back and tell us how OP subs are.

Now, I'm not saying submarines do not need more balancing and fine tuning. What I am saying is, to have an accurate picture where submarines are and if and how much work they need, everyone that complains should have few hundred battles in them, ideally 500.

Otherwise you're just telling a one sided story, that of the surface ships. And that is a distorted snapshot of the current situation.

Thank you.

Do me another favor, please. Play as many games as I have through almost the last 6 years and through all the game reworks, new mechanics and balances introduced and then come here and tell me that I need to play more to not have a distorted snapshot of the current situation.

Thank you.

[Zespetjest]

42 minutes ago, dN00b said:

Do me a favor. Play a a hundred, or even better few hundred battles with a sub, record how many times you end up on top, how many middle, how many on bottom. How many times you survive the battle. How many wins vs how many losses.

After you do that, come back and tell us how OP subs are.

Now, I'm not saying submarines do not need more balancing and fine tuning. What I am saying is, to have an accurate picture where submarines are and if and how much work they need, everyone that complains should have few hundred battles in them, ideally 500.

Otherwise you're just telling a one sided story, that of the surface ships. And that is a distorted snapshot of the current situation.

Thank you.

Or better yet, do me a favor and play 10k+ battles, reach a positive WR% and then try to teach experienced players how to rate playing subs/against subs.

 

Thank you.

[tsounts]

40 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

BBs staying 10km behind the cap when there is only a single sub in the game is not a one sided story, it's a game changer ... 

Well, BBs have always been doing this.  Battleship paint is really expensive.  

[tom_kat]

1 hour ago, tsounts said:

Well, BBs have always been doing this.  Battleship paint is really expensive.  

Since CV rework to this sub days, through the brilliant Commander skills with the infamous Dead eye and the adding of new HE spammers ships over and over again... BBs paint services has become priceless

[Bad_Seed]

Every battle now 2 subs plus 4 destroyers..... time to quit, i thought there will be option to play without subs but i was wrong, too bad, was fun game, WoT unplayable, now WoW unplayable, gj WG you nailed it.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

2 hours ago, dN00b said:

Do me a favor. Play a a hundred, or even better few hundred battles with a sub, record how many times you end up on top, how many middle, how many on bottom. How many times you survive the battle. How many wins vs how many losses.

After you do that, come back and tell us how OP toxic subs are.

Now, I'm not saying submarines do not need more balancing and fine tuning. What I am saying is, to have an accurate picture where submarines are and if and how much work they need, everyone that complains should have few hundred battles in them, ideally 500.

Otherwise you're just telling a one sided story, that of the surface ships. And that is a distorted snapshot of the current situation.

Thank you.

Wut. Lets give WG 3 years of failed balancing attempts like they took on carriers shall we? Because the goal is 4-8% popularity. Note that it is an economic target, not a gameplay goal. Subs underperformed apparantly so they get buffed to be more toxic. That's allright because balancing around popularity usually means if its boring, you simply make it a griefers dream to generate interest.

 

And while you wait for everyone to have played 500 sub games, subs will be released in every game mode there is, breaking gameplay even that is already going downhill since 2019. And stop misleading using OP instead of broken and toxic. It's the usual folly argument of wilfully ignorant players. Like carriers, the complaint is not that they are OP, but that they have a severe negative influence on the rest of the classes with the exception of carriers, because why not right?

 

Thank you. 

[Gladijator80]

In every game i played, i  gave -1 for players with sub...

[SlavicNoOb]

1 hour ago, Europizza said:

Wut. Lets give WG 3 years of failed balancing attempts like they took on carriers shall we? Because the goal is 4-8% popularity. Note that it is an economic target, not a gameplay goal. Subs underperformed apparantly so they get buffed to be more toxic. That's allright because balancing around popularity usually means if its boring, you simply make it a griefers dream to generate interest.

 

And while you wait for everyone to have played 500 sub games, subs will be released in every game mode there is, breaking gameplay even that is already going downhill since 2019. And stop misleading using OP instead of broken and toxic. It's the usual folly argument of wilfully ignorant players. Like carriers, the complaint is not that they are OP, but that they have a severe negative influence on the rest of the classes with the exception of carriers, because why not right?

 

Thank you. 

Broken and toxic are very vague terms. What exactly about submarines is it that makes them problematic? Other ships deal damage and can be killed. Submarines deal damage and can be killed. As long as they're nerfed/buffed until they are balanced, there is no problem with adding a new type of vessel. Just like chess has rooks, bishops, knights, queen, pawns, in WOWS we now have battleships, cruisers, destroyers, carriers, and submarines. 

It seems to me that you (everyone that is against submarines), is against them on principle. You don't want to hear about balancing or anything, it's no submarines PERIOD. Well, in my book, until you provide a valid logical and reasonable reasons why there should be no submarines in random full stop, instead of having an attitude that says ok, add them but make sure they're balanced--until I see that reasonable and logical attitude, I cannot even understand where you people are coming from, let a alone agree with you.

You are like when spoiled children demand something, cry and throw a temper tantrum demanding something or protesting against something. All I see is total refusal to adapt to the new class, no matter what, even if they're balanced.

 

[tom_kat]

On 10/8/2021 at 3:39 PM, dN00b said:

Broken and toxic are very vague terms. What exactly about submarines is it that makes them problematic? Other ships deal damage and can be killed. Submarines deal damage and can be killed. As long as they're nerfed/buffed until they are balanced, there is no problem with adding a new type of vessel. Just like chess has rooks, bishops, knights, queen, pawns, in WOWS we now have battleships, cruisers, destroyers, carriers, and submarines. 

It seems to me that you (everyone that is against submarines), is against them on principle. You don't want to hear about balancing or anything, it's no submarines PERIOD. Well, in my book, until you provide a valid logical and reasonable reasons why there should be no submarines in random full stop, instead of having an attitude that says ok, add them but make sure they're balanced--until I see that reasonable and logical attitude, I cannot even understand where you people are coming from, let a alone agree with you.

You are like when spoiled children demand something, cry and throw a temper tantrum demanding something or protesting against something. All I see is total refusal to adapt to the new class, no matter what, even if they're balanced.

 

I will try to give you not vague terms:

Every ship class in the game move in a 2 dimension map (except for CV's squadrons). Every ship class is affected by the same guns parameters aka dispersion, Krupp, sigma, etc... Subs are the only class that have one dimension more and are not afected, until they are on the small gap when not fully submerged, by these guns parameters neither torpedoes.

 

Taking this on count, first of all WeeGee introduced subs when not all ships had anti sub warfare.

Second, subs have the best concealment of all classes, not even been detected neither by radar or hydro when fully submerged, but they can spot you, wich is a great advantage over surface ships.

 

Third, subs have homecoming torps wich need to be marked by sonar. The sonar needs the use of Repair Party to be removed from the ship, and this, for example, on a destroyer that is running away from  a radar cruiser, CV or another dd, it's a dead sentence. On the other classes will be a clear disadvange due to a damage that, like CV reworked squadrons, you gonna take no matter any knowledge of the game you have.

Are these enough reasonable reasons my game expert? Do you have anything more to say to people that knows way more of the game, and this company, than you?

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

52 minutes ago, dN00b said:

Broken and toxic are very vague terms. What exactly about submarines is it that makes them problematic? Other ships deal damage and can be killed. Submarines deal damage and can be killed. As long as they're nerfed/buffed until they are balanced, there is no problem with adding a new type of vessel. Just like chess has rooks, bishops, knights, queen, pawns, in WOWS we now have battleships, cruisers, destroyers, carriers, and submarines. 

It seems to me that you (everyone that is against submarines), is against them on principle. You don't want to hear about balancing or anything, it's no submarines PERIOD. Well, in my book, until you provide a valid logical and reasonable reasons why there should be no submarines in random full stop, instead of having an attitude that says ok, add them but make sure they're balanced--until I see that reasonable and logical attitude, I cannot even understand where you people are coming from, let a alone agree with you.

You are like when spoiled children demand something, cry and throw a temper tantrum demanding something or protesting against something. All I see is total refusal to adapt to the new class, no matter what, even if they're balanced.

 

Nope, major bias fail right there dNoob. I like subs in general, as well as carriers, but I think WG's subs are far from ready to test in random and WG's reworked carriers are the worst pvp class design i've seen in 25 years of gaming, both as player as well as having been a professional in the industry. Thanks for being pathetic and abrasive there buddy. 

 

Broken and toxic are very specific terms, absolutely not to be confused with OP. I've explained in various topics what my concerns are currently. Go look them up and educate yourself, and write something sensible instead of trying to force a tribal war. That's so primitive. 

[SlavicNoOb]

On 10/7/2021 at 9:12 PM, WeeFilly said:

No big loss, with your 2000 something battles.

How many battles I have is irrelevant. As if 1500 battles is something to sneeze at. If you combine my random battles and ranked I have well over 2000 battles. If we assume that the length of an average battle is 15 minutes, that is 500 hours. By comparison it takes 1500 hours of flying time to become an airline pilot. And we are talking about a game here.

Besides I have seen people with 20k battles and 40 percent win rate and terrible play in battle, and I have also seen players with 1000+ battles with ~ 55% win rate and great skills. So number of battles once you pass the 1000 mark doesn't mean much. And I have already explained the reasons for my more or less average stats (random 48% win rate, in ranked 51%). I'm not going to repeat myself, so look it up in the previous pages on this thread.

And I have been with warships for six years too. I have that commemorative flag of 1 year anniversary... In the submarines in ranked battles forum thread there is one guy that is anti-submarine and boasts how he is an alpha tester, yet he has ~1600 battles, so I don't see what your point is.

When you resort to personal attacks, and this is a form of one, I see you're desperate. If number of hours is so relevant, get some 100 year old guy to replace Elon Musk and lead his companies.

[SlavicNoOb]

12 hours ago, Europizza said:

WG: if you could pay for your own that would be great. ^^

I have no intention to change my game name. I was just making a point of how much I like the submarines.

[SlavicNoOb]

8 hours ago, Bad_Seed said:

Every battle now 2 subs plus 4 destroyers..... time to quit, i thought there will be option to play without subs but i was wrong, too bad, was fun game, WoT unplayable, now WoW unplayable, gj WG you nailed it.

None of you is actually quitting. You are just bluffing. After having invested time to play tens of thousands of battles and having a bunch of premium ships, I can imagine it could be very hard to actually quit.

The submarines are great, and WG has spent time to balance them. They are 99% there I would say. I just see players that have spent so much time to develop their winning tactics and are now raging because they have to figure it all out all over again. :D

[SlavicNoOb]

Btw, for all of you criticizing the carriers, I like the reworked mechanics for carriers. I don't care if I play a BB, DD, CV, Cruiser or a sub. I enjoy them all. When it comes to random battles WoWS is a fun competitive arcade game where you try to team play and win the match, if possible by cooperating with your team mates and have a few laughs. And submarines are just making the gameplay more dynamic.

I see how it puts you more experienced players that have developed ways to win out of your comfort zone, because the more ship classes that work differently, the more challenging it is to stay alive and win. But i would have thought a good player can adjust and adapt to the new situation. Unfortunately for some of you veteran players it doesn't seem to be the case. I guess brain plasticity goes down with age... :D

[GermanBoomercaustEnjoyer]

Since subs got added to ranked and now randos i didnt have a single game where a sub got into the top 3 nor carried/had any impact in general in any of these matches. CVs spotting and dmg are still complete busted, +2/-2 MM is still WOWS biggest issue and most of you complain about a class that has as much impact as the DD that dies in the first 2min or the BB that suicide rushes at match start into the cap - are you guys even playing the same game as i do?

[ColonelPete]

14 minutes ago, Sir_Lawrence42 said:

Since subs got added to ranked and now randos i didnt have a single game where a sub got into the top 3 nor carried/had any impact in general in any of these matches. CVs spotting and dmg are still complete busted, +2/-2 MM is still WOWS biggest issue and most of you complain about a class that has as much impact as the DD that dies in the first 2min or the BB that suicide rushes at match start into the cap - are you guys even playing the same game as i do?

I am playing a game were BB camp even more than before, because they are afraid to move forward, or where Subs outspot DD and make their life even harder than before.

[GermanBoomercaustEnjoyer]

16 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

I am playing a game were BB camp even more than before, because they are afraid to move forward, or where Subs outspot DD and make their life even harder than before.

Thats your view on this matter and i wont deny that you face such teams currently (and I might also in the futur) but as its my view on the current game written above i have games that are not like yours - same applies to the ppl that think subs are fine, CVs beeing not OP at all or some CV players saying that AA is to strong - fact is nothing will change. CVs are still around in randoms since years - now subs will be added - in the end its the players fault since they play these classes in the first place. Non should be shocked when next year suddenly also subs pop up in CB - it will happen and has to so that a season like the next CB season will maybe not become a "one night stand".

[ColonelPete]

9 minutes ago, Sir_Lawrence42 said:

Thats your view on this matter and i wont deny that you face such teams currently (and I might also in the futur) but as its my view on the current game written above i have games that are not like yours - same applies to the ppl that think subs are fine, CVs beeing not OP at all or some CV players saying that AA is to strong - fact is nothing will change. CVs are still around in randoms since years - now subs will be added - in the end its the players fault since they play these classes in the first place. Non should be shocked when next year suddenly also subs pop up in CB - it will happen and has to so that a season like the next CB season will maybe not become a "one night stand".

To test something, using it is helpful. If that is viewed as support for the thing in testing, then that view is very flawed.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

1 hour ago, dN00b said:

I have no intention to change my game name. I was just making a point of how much I like the submarines.

Pretty weird. 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

1 hour ago, Sir_Lawrence42 said:

Since subs got added to ranked and now randos i didnt have a single game where a sub got into the top 3 nor carried/had any impact in general in any of these matches. CVs spotting and dmg are still complete busted, +2/-2 MM is still WOWS biggest issue and most of you complain about a class that has as much impact as the DD that dies in the first 2min or the BB that suicide rushes at match start into the cap - are you guys even playing the same game as i do?

I wish people could stop being confused. Subs, like carriers, dont have to be OP to be broken. Subs are not OP right now.

[GermanBoomercaustEnjoyer]

Just now, Europizza said:

I wish people could stop being confused. The main complaint is not that subs are OP. They are not. Subs, like carriers, dont have to be OP to be broken. 

Well i wish people like you would not assume anything in the first place then either. Half of you dont even read each others posts it seems - i guess i just leave it then by "subs wont be gone out of randoms - like them or not - either stay or leave the game".

[fubar]

I have been playing this game for years now. Enjoyed playing few games a day, here and there, and I was kind of dreading if subs hit the Random battles and now they have done it.

 

Most of my battles are with the DDs and still I would like to have max 2 dds per side so that battle would be more enjoyable - usual case is that there are 3-4 per side.

 

As a DD player subs just adds to a long list of tasks that I need to do with my DD - now there are subs torping me in addition to most of enemy fleet while I try to cap or torp enemy ships -> enjoyment gone. I really don't want to concentrate also on sub detection and sub killing task in addition to spotting, keeping enemy DDs at bay, capping...

 

I got a bit blind sided by the update and after one battle with subs in the battle I uninstalled the game with a heavy heart.

 

I will keep looking if the situation but I won't be coming back until subs are out of the random battles OR there is a filter option to play only in matches without subs.