My feedback and improvement idea's on submarines

[_3856794_561538473_]

Torpedo homing is not good at all in the new version of submarines, now I cannot sink ships...

[Hopeless_Guppy]

On 5/2/2022 at 8:52 PM, Karakzorn said:

I fully agree that submarines are practically indestructable, depth charges barely do any damage, I dont have a problem with buffing depth charges, I have a problem with all of the battleships on a map wide scale spamming depth charge planes on you the moment they get a sonar, now I admit I dont fully understand how sonar works, it detects subs at max depth a 2 km, while detecting subs normally at 5 km, but is it a applied detection or is it active? If i leave the 2 km radius is it removed, or is it a one time use ability that applied detection when you activate it, if it is then I retract my points and sonar is fine

I understand that there was a lot of criticism about the old subs, which ofcourse I never tried. however I must point out that every, and yes every single time when I try to homingtorpedo+ping an enemy battleship, they turn away facing me with their rear, and the moment the torpedoes come close, they change direction, causing the homing to completely fail (they will know where the torpedoes come from due to the ping). thus I must resort to dumbfire 6km high damage torpedoes, now this is fine, but with all the ships moving significantly faster, making the entire game a game of catching up to battleships and hoping they dont turn on the last second, let alone pop a sonar that makes everyone on the map send depth charge bombers at me (why do i get so close? because its almost always the case that I catch a battleship because they come at me, and you can gues how close they get at that point), I get the feeling that the homing torpedoes do not perform to the level that they should.

 

If anyone has any idea's on how I should be playing in the higher tiers, please do tell, the lower tiers subs feel powerful but also lame, as you're just chasing someone, pinging into torpedo them, while the dumbfire torpedoes and the massive batteries enable more creative plays. (as of now the most effective one for me is just diving accros the map all the way into the enemy rear and then desperately chasing the closest-best battleship, I do this to avoid destroyers who hide behind every single island in the centre of the map causing detection and the horde of depth charge bombers)

Oh I disagree depth charges always do a ton of damage to me

[flip_66]

59 minutes ago, Seraphice said:

The PTS is mostly for checking the game stability and getting early feedback on new changes and content

And yet you seem to completely ignore our feedback.

3 hours ago, Seraphice said:

So we've tweaked the settings of it quite a bit. The ping will be more visible and visible for longer, and it will also be much closer to the actual sub now

This does not help at all. I tried to counter a sub that way and didn't deal damage at all to it because it just moved while pinging and shooting torps. It just outspotted me and would have killed me (if the game wasn't over). Subs are still immune to damage and can do whatever they want to you (apart from CVs of course).

 

Genuine question: Do you think the game is currently running into the right direction? Do you think it's fun being ridiculed by CVs and subs without being able to deal a single HP of damage to them? Because to me it is not.

[ghostbuster_]

20 hours ago, Seraphice said:

Additional nation mission / dockyard missions unfortunately isn't really going to cut it for a specific idea that I mentioned. Currently there are already some missions you can complete for a reward on your live account,

those rewards are not worth to log into PTS... but if you make some missions mandatory to be completed on PTS to be able to continue with a grind on live server,  people would actually switch to PTS and play there. That way you would have your testing ground and maybe stop using live server for testing of some unfinished products which ruins the gaming experience of players.

20 hours ago, Seraphice said:

and it is not like we can just inflate PTS infinitely with additional rewards on the live server.

your PTS server is potato, isnt it? thats why you cant do something which would increase the player numbers there. PTS wouldnt probably hadle that. 

20 hours ago, Seraphice said:

The PTS is mostly for checking the game stability and getting early feedback on new changes and content, it can never replace the live server in terms of performance and reliability.

... I know WG too well. just like I said, potato server. 

Well that was what I meant. You gotta invest on PTS for a healthy game. 

20 hours ago, Seraphice said:

I am also not entirely sure what the first part refers to, as nothing on the PTS is monetised to begin with. Accounts are credited with a ton of in-game resources and progression through tech trees is practically instant. We also don't sell any PTS exclusive content or such.
 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

thats what I said. You dont sell stuff there meaning you dont milk people on PTS. but this shouldnt  be a reason not to invest and not to improve PTS. 

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

21 hours ago, Latouche_Treville said:

If players' winnings on the PTS were donated to their respective clans (XP/FXP/credits/coal, etc...) could it be an incentive?

I play PTS with some regularity. This would be a nice bonus.

[Seraphice]

20 hours ago, GordonsGekko said:

And yet you seem to completely ignore our feedback.

This does not help at all. I tried to counter a sub that way and didn't deal damage at all to it because it just moved while pinging and shooting torps. It just outspotted me and would have killed me (if the game wasn't over). Subs are still immune to damage and can do whatever they want to you (apart from CVs of course).

 

Genuine question: Do you think the game is currently running into the right direction? Do you think it's fun being ridiculed by CVs and subs without being able to deal a single HP of damage to them? Because to me it is not.

You say that we did not listen to the feedback, yet the changes you quote after that were precisely made because of the feedback. It is possible that the changes were not enough but we will have to see whether that is true, now that PTS #2 concluded.

 

39 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

those rewards are not worth to log into PTS... but if you make some missions mandatory to be completed on PTS to be able to continue with a grind on live server,  people would actually switch to PTS and play there. That way you would have your testing ground and maybe stop using live server for testing of some unfinished products which ruins the gaming experience of players.

Categorically forcing people to play the PTS is not really a direction that we want to go with for the PTS. Never say never, but I do think it is unlikely this will ever be mandated.

 

40 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

your PTS server is potato, isnt it? thats why you cant do something which would increase the player numbers there. PTS wouldnt probably hadle that. 

41 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

... I know WG too well. just like I said, potato server. 

Well that was what I meant. You gotta invest on PTS for a healthy game. 

I do not think this would be the issue here. Unless everyone from the live server started exclusively playing on PTS. Neither can PTS actually really replace the live server as people simply play differently on the PTS. And if I look at how I play on live vs PTS even when I started playing, it still holds true now. This is not really an issue of the server can't handle it or that we don't want to.

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

[ghostbuster_]

15 minutes ago, Seraphice said:

Categorically forcing people to play the PTS is not really a direction that we want to go with for the PTS. Never say never, but I do think it is unlikely this will ever be mandated.

but you force people to play in presence of unfnished products? how is this better? 

Quote

 

I do not think this would be the issue here. Unless everyone from the live server started exclusively playing on PTS. Neither can PTS actually really replace the live server as people simply play differently on the PTS.

whats the reason for that? any ideas?  maybe they dont care about the results on PTS. but what if you introduced missions which require semi good - good results to complete? then maybe people would start trying to play decent on PTS aswell just like they do on live server? 

Quote

And if I look at how I play on live vs PTS even when I started playing, it still holds true now. This is not really an issue of the server can't handle it or that we don't want to.

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

There are so many ways to make it work without making live server a testing ground and ruining the experiences of players. But it doesnt really matter anyway. as long as the popularity remains as the one and only parameter wg takes into account when it comes to "balancing", nothing will change. 

[lovelacebeer]

40 minutes ago, Seraphice said:

 

Categorically forcing people to play the PTS is not really a direction that we want to go with for the PTS. Never say never, but I do think it is unlikely this will ever be mandated.

I don’t mean to shoot the messenger here but to be honest there is very little difference given WOWS categorically forces players to play along side testing projects like submarines.
 

The only difference seems to be WOWS cannot monetise the PTS so uses the live server for testing instead. 

[Nibenay78]

On 5/2/2022 at 5:50 PM, Karakzorn said:

The german subs feel very well designed with a huge dive capacity enabling them to cross the entire map underwater and hopefully getting a good dumbfire torpedo hit in an enemy battleship. It’s the playstyle I like most, but its very held back by the slow submarine surface speed and low battery recharge rate. It would be nice if there would be less downtime of waiting around on the german submarines as you’ll spend a lot of time waiting for the battery to recharge and chasing enemy ships with your abysmal surface speed.

So how fun do you think it is to chase around a submarine with massive battery capacity? You said it yourself in regards to speed and moving... it's boring to wait, especially to waste like 5 minutes in a max 20 min game.

 

I've had several occations when a sub overextended and badly damaged disappears near me in a DD. I dont know where he goes but I do know the following:

 

1) I have to kill him or he will be spamming our bigger ships or cap behind us, or just spot everyone from behind - In other words, he must die.

2) I'm going to have to just guess where he's going and EVEN if I'm right, I'll probably be out of the battle for minutes, just HOPING I made an educated guess.

3) I probably will kill the sub eventually, but it will usually cost me the rest of "being useful" time of this battle.

 

It's a very unfun situation all over.

A good sub player is even less amusing to face.

[PaP_Mentoles]

 

This is how WeeGreedy values our feedback

[COPlUM]

That's great, if the indicator now gives a rough idea of where the submarine is. But, my brain, I cannot comprehend, why did anyone think it was a good idea to make the indicator -for all intents and purposes- spam? The indicator was "it's somewhere on the map, we will ping random spots on the map, it could be anywhere lol" => Why do this? Are we being trolled? Someone thought this was a good idea and I just don't understand. Why does it take a controversial former CC from Finland to point out painfully obvious things. I don't even like the guy but you're making him a hero by only fixing things when he makes fun of you.

[Nibenay78]

9 hours ago, Seraphice said:

You say that we did not listen to the feedback, yet the changes you quote after that were precisely made because of the feedback

 How about listening to your own feedback to begin with?

 

"There will be no submarines!"

[Seraphice]

10 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

 How about listening to your own feedback to begin with?

 

"There will be no submarines!"

 

Never say never...

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

[ChaosCosmos]

Never say never doesnt make forcing submarines into the game justified or reasonable.
 

The part where he explains the reason of that statment however is still true, and no matter how you tweak the submarines it still will be. The fact that after all these years the subs are still being forced simply shows how the company puts generating profit over quality.

[_Lupastro_]

Subs are ok(meh meh meh)

Just remove those idiotic homing torps and we'll manage to bite the bullet again..

Maybe..

[Nibenay78]

44 minutes ago, Seraphice said:

 

Never say never...

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

While i would love most games to incorporate as many various elements as possible, I have through almost 40 years of gaming realized that more is not always better.

 

He does explain very well the reasons for NOT adding subs. Which of these reasons have drastically changed except the need for new content?

 

And never say never means I can soon have my well balanced nuclear missile ship? We can always make it numerically balanced. If it will be "fun & engaging" is another matter.

[ghostbuster_]

1 hour ago, ChaosCosmos said:

Never say never doesnt make forcing submarines into the game justified or reasonable.
 

The part where he explains the reason of that statment however is still true, and no matter how you tweak the submarines it still will be. The fact that after all these years the subs are still being forced simply shows how the company puts generating profit over quality.

one and only statement about subs from WG side, which actually made sense.

 

"We looked at it. It just doesnt fit with the gameplay. You got these small things that are practically invisible unless you have to be with in ASW range which back then wasn't all that long. They have devastating firepower but when detected let's say they're on the surface, they're gona immediately because they just have no survivability. Really wasnt any way of implementing it so just for the sake of gameplay. .........  IT DOESN'T WORK IN THE GAME"

 

Was that guy threatened or what? there is no other explanation for him to stop being logical all of a sudden. 

 

btw. this part here "they're gona immediately because they just have no survivability". Dont worry dude. Genius devs found a solution to that problem. Now they are even tankier and harder to kill than DDs. Super minds in dev team got this covered. 

 

@Seraphice @YabbaCoe listen to this guy. esp. this part: "it so just for the sake of gameplay. .........  IT DOESN'T WORK IN THE GAME"

it didnt work back then, it doesnt work right now. The very right arguments for not implementing them into the game for the SAKE OF THE GAMEPLAY are still there. 

[The_Angry_Admiral]

21 hours ago, Seraphice said:

You say that we did not listen to the feedback, yet the changes you quote after that were precisely made because of the feedback. It is possible that the changes were not enough but we will have to see whether that is true, now that PTS #2 concluded.

 

Categorically forcing people to play the PTS is not really a direction that we want to go with for the PTS. Never say never, but I do think it is unlikely this will ever be mandated.

 

I do not think this would be the issue here. Unless everyone from the live server started exclusively playing on PTS. Neither can PTS actually really replace the live server as people simply play differently on the PTS. And if I look at how I play on live vs PTS even when I started playing, it still holds true now. This is not really an issue of the server can't handle it or that we don't want to.

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

The ultimate problem that you (WG) have created is a concept that does not work. You (WG) painted yourself into a corner with a concept that you (WG) will not abandon no matter how much evidence is thrown your way because of the investment. There are many movies and TV shows that were abandon because they just didn't work but unfortunately you (WG) would rather force them into the game than scrape it and accept the concept just didn't work. You (yourself) make (WG) look more and more incompetent the more you defend the indefensible. It creates a fear with regards to any future content that comes out. If you want to restore the faith with your customers sometimes it requires you (WG) to put your hands up and just admit you got it wrong.

 

[ChaosCosmos]

Whoever is making those decisions understands mostly the language of money. So start speaking it and dont pay if you dont agree with the decisions being made.

[lovelacebeer]

I cannot help but wonder if a big part of the distrust the community has regarding the camo changes, comes from things like the submarine project or the PR fiasco. 
 

Where WG make extremely poor choices and then just tell the community we are wrong and then for some reason WG seem shocked that we don’t trust them. 
 

To be fair the community does tend to be very conservative and gets quite vocal about most changes but WG do nothing to help themselves here either.

[The_Angry_Admiral]

Just now, lovelacebeer said:

 

To be fair the community does tend to be very conservative and gets quite vocal about most changes but WG do nothing to help themselves here either.

I get vocal because I have a monetary investment in this game that I can't get back. 

[flip_66]

On 5/5/2022 at 2:59 PM, Seraphice said:

You say that we did not listen to the feedback, yet the changes you quote after that were precisely made because of the feedback.

After whose feedback? 95 percent of the feedback you get is that we do not want submarines. You were 'precisely' not making the changes they wanted to. Have you watched the chat in yesterday's stream? Did it look to you that they liked subs? Do you listen to their feedback too or do you only listen to the feedback you want to listen to? Because you will always find someone who tells you exactly what you want to hear.

[COPlUM]

On 5/6/2022 at 12:09 PM, _Lupastro_ said:

Just remove those idiotic homing torps

Their damage output and the oneshot-shotgun nonsense is not the real reason they hit 90% WR, it's them being able to permanently spot everything, even stuff that's supposed to hide, without risk, can't radar them, you can't rush them, can't plane-spot them, can't even hydro them unless you ask them nicely to come to you and sit still directly under your ship. Submarines in their current state could hit 90%WR if you took away their torpedoes. All they need to do to win is keep ships that are supposed to hide permanently spotted.

Popping up at 2km and oneshotting everything including destroyers is cringe, but the real cringe is the fact that this new class of ships made concealment a thing that doesn't exist anymore, concealment mechanic is a relic of the past. So much so that I expect builds with concealment-expert to be considered potato in the near future, why bother with concealment expert if something invisible is 4km away from you, keeping you spotted for 20 minutes.

After 10 minutes of being perma-spotted in a ship that's supposed to use concealment to play the videogame, you yolo in and die, just so you can get into the next match and play the videogame. It is the only way out, and unlike planes, you don't get a break from being spotted to reposition, it's permanently on your forehead and there is nothing you can do about it.

It's similar to like when you play battleship and there's a potato yugumo 10km from you for 20 minutes to widespread fail you, very annoying, but you can still play the videogame somewhat while the yugumo is wasting 20 minutes of his life, unlike a battleship though, destroyers and many cruisers actually need concealment to play the videogame. You literally can't play the videogame as a destroyer when the submarine is following you around for 20 minutes, even if he's stupid. It's like being plane spotted by an obsessed CV for 20 minutes but with submarines you don't get a break while he gets more planes, there are no breaks, it's 20 mins.

[COPlUM]

Can always rely on el2 to demonstrate things that aren't intended.

The destroyers are desperately trying to get away from him so they can have the concealment required to play the videogame in those ships (spoiler, it's impossible) He surfaces at 1km and oneshots all of them. What happens after is irrelevant, he's just farming damage, the team without destroyers loses. Enemy team never had destroyers, they were permanently spotted and oneshot.

The problem with submarines is in essence the same as CVs but worse, if played by unicums they permanently spot and oneshot destroyers, this time though "just dodge" isn't a thing and the destroyers don't get a break while plane squadrons are cycled. You can't dodge something that's keeping you lit, you don't know where it is, there is no game mechanic to find it or do damage to it, and it pops up at point-blank range without time to react.

If played by a normal person they're annoying, probably even underpowered as they can't deal much damage, if played by unicums though, they are god, they win, you can't do anything.
 

 

[_Lupastro_]

28 minuti fa, COPlUM ha scritto:

Their damage output and the oneshot-shotgun nonsense is not the real reason they hit 90% WR, it's them being able to permanently spot everything, even stuff that's supposed to hide, without risk, can't radar them, you can't rush them, can't plane-spot them, can't even hydro them unless you ask them nicely to come to you and sit still directly under your ship. Submarines in their current state could hit 90%WR if you took away their torpedoes. All they need to do to win is keep ships that are supposed to hide permanently spotted.

Popping up at 2km and oneshotting everything including destroyers is cringe, but the real cringe is the fact that this new class of ships made concealment a thing that doesn't exist anymore, concealment mechanic is a relic of the past. So much so that I expect builds with concealment-expert to be considered potato in the near future, why bother with concealment expert if something invisible is 4km away from you, keeping you spotted for 20 minutes.

After 10 minutes of being perma-spotted in a ship that's supposed to use concealment to play the videogame, you yolo in and die, just so you can get into the next match and play the videogame. It is the only way out, and unlike planes, you don't get a break from being spotted to reposition, it's permanently on your forehead and there is nothing you can do about it.

It's similar to like when you play battleship and there's a potato yugumo 10km from you for 20 minutes to widespread fail you, very annoying, but you can still play the videogame somewhat while the yugumo is wasting 20 minutes of his life, unlike a battleship though, destroyers and many cruisers actually need concealment to play the videogame. You literally can't play the videogame as a destroyer when the submarine is following you around for 20 minutes, even if he's stupid. It's like being plane spotted by an obsessed CV for 20 minutes but with submarines you don't get a break while he gets more planes, there are no breaks, it's 20 mins.

Ok I understand your point.

However, I believe that the perma spot is already an existing problem and is called CV. With his planes, if he wants to, he can keep anyone spotted for an infinite time. Then another problem arises and we need another solution. 

As I have already written in another post make the spot shared only within a certain distance. For example within 8-10 km a target is shared to all ships in this range, besides it is only a mark on the minimap.

This in my opinion would make the spot acceptable by avoiding be targeted and nuked by ships placed on the other side of the map.

I prefer a more stealthy, slower and ambushing subs ( but sonar spottable) with no homing torps...

 

P.s. sorry for klingon English