Jump to content

legoboy0401

Members
  • Content Сount

    3,064
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1923

Community Reputation

462 Excellent

About legoboy0401

  • Rank
    Commander
  • Birthday 04/01/2001
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    (Where else?) The TARDIS.
  • Interests
    Doctor Who, as referenced by my profile pic, and World of Warships. Not too interested in World of Tanks, even though it was the first WG product I played. It sure has gone down hill since I played it last.

Recent Profile Visitors

4,163 profile views
  1. No, WoWP is much better than this poor-excuse-for-a-sub-version is, and that largely comes down to the different armament. Having played both concurrently, I would say that the biggest difference in WoWP is that misses aren't as big a deal, at least not with machine guns, and even in the derp cannons' cases they still reload in half a second to a second. Meanwhile, the sub test's sub v sub sucked, because BOTH SUBS USUALLY MISS ALL THEIR TORPEDOES, EXPEND ALL THEIR PINGS, AND HAVE TO WAIT AROUND, DEAD IN THE WATER, WHILE EYEING THE OPPONENT WESTERN-STYLE. No, I think this version, for better or for worse, comes from something where Western-style duels are a thing, which they really aren't in WoWP because all head-ons are over in the span of a few seconds at most, while sub v sub can last minutes on end. But, having said that, I TOTALLY agree, I HATE the current sub version with a burning vengeance.
  2. I know this might be a little too Cold Waters-y, but is it too much to ask for for a thermal layer? It would be kinda nice. It was encountered and used in WWII, though mostly just by good luck and not genuine very good understanding of it.
  3. I've found that out the hard way today. Also, I HATE SUB ON SUB COMBAT! It's HARD, NERVEWRACKING, BORING, and FRUSTRATING. Hitting another submerged submarine with torpedoes is EXTREMELY difficult, even with ping locks. It is basically like playing with mostly defective torpedoes, considering how many torps one usually has to fire to take out an enemy submarine at depth. My biggest problem though is I want to get in, do my thing, and get out again so I can find a place to ascend to persicope depth and efficiently recharge my battery and come back and do it again, but enemy subs EVERYWHERE constantly wanting to duel are always putting a damper on my plans and make it a RARELY effective strategy, even though it is a somewhat accurate one, all things considered, and even though the subs BEG for that playstyle in the first place.
  4. Just played a few sub matches again. I am hopeless with Cachalot. I think it properly ought to be played as a far-off sniper rather than an up close and personal brawler like the U-69, but I keep losing most all of my team and losing the match because of the points deficit before I have a chance to do anything, so I have basically never had any success with the Cachalot. U-69 is great, but the torps don't much care for changing depth, even with a double ping lock to guide them, and given that it is up close so often, it misses a LOT of torps that REALLY ought to be landing instead. I understand them not being able to hit a target 90 vertical degrees from their launch angle, but COME ON! A 70 degree angle should be possible! Meanwhile, the most these "homing" torps like to do, when I HAVE TO HAUL THE BOAT AROUND TO LAUNCH THEM, (because of the fixed tubes, and this takes a while thanks to the subs' glacial turning speed), is like a 2 degree shot. This makes sub v sub breathtakingly difficult most of the time, because everyone is changing course, speed, and depth, while trying to figure out a way to keep on firing pings so they EVEN HAVE A SLIM CHANCE of taking out the enemy sub. Also, (ALERT! OPINION! ALERT! OPINION! THIS IS MY OPINION! NOT DRILL!) I think having 4 subs per match is making life REALLY difficult for sub players(always another enemy sub behind the next island, making the finding of a good safe spot to return to periscope depth to recharge battery unnecessarily hard and frustrating), and is also breaking testing balance by making matches WAY too fast to really begin to work on tactics or at least to see any results from any said tactics.
  5. My least favorite thing about these homing torpedo Mk. 48 wannabes is that there is no visible stats showing the limit of their turning capability or their turn radius or just how much range a turn takes off of their range, among other things, and besides this they both behave inconsistently.
  6. the U-69 at least has decent torpedo reload, so it functions a bit like a V-series German DD to the Cachalot’s original Tier VI Mutsuki. But It is, as you said, best used as an ambush hunter against enemy Submarines and BBs, and is generally pretty bad against comparatively light and agile ships like DDs and CLs and somewhat inconsistent against CAs. I also find that maintaining a double ping lock at the Cachalot’s torpedo max range is pretty darn hard to maintain for all of the 50+ seconds it takes its torpedoes to reach out and touch a target at that kind of range, even at periscope depth. Maybe next time the sub beta is up and I’m around at that time I shall Cold Waters it and only start pinging the target after the torpedoes have been in the water for a while. By the way, if I do recall, the battery reserve stats are misleading thanks to the different consumption rates, but when you do the math, it becomes very obvious that each sub only has enough battery for 6 pings underwater before needing you to take an action to charge it. It’s not a lot when you really stop and think about it. If you want to hit a single ship with 2 pings, you can only afford to miss 4, and considering how difficult it can be to land pings, 4 is a very common, average, and easy amount of times to miss with pings on the surface, much less underwater. Missing 5 is a run of the mill occurrence, and missing all 6 happens more times to more people than I care to count.
  7. I'd have to agree. I miss surfacing, both subs have very irksome properties, even though one is CLEARLY the better one*, Depth Charges in general are unbalanced and are MUCH too strong against subs for how little health subs have, Hydro is not a consistent counter and it is difficult to discern at exactly what depth a fully submerged submarine can still be detected with it, subs should NOT light each other up for everyone else on the map, this whole battery system is garbage** , the hydrodynamics of these IRL subs mean that periscope depth being the SLOWEST MAX SPEED IN THE GAME makes no sense(the only sub from this time period, WWII, that this would make ANY sense at all with would be a Type XXI U-boat that WOULD be slower at periscope depth and surfaced than submerged, because of its highly streamlined hydrodynamics, though only by 2 knots), I understand gameplay but THIS CHOICE RUINS gameplay, that's ALL it does! All periscope depth is for subs in this test is a way to simply GIVE UP, TO SURRENDER! THAT'S 100 PERCENT OF ALL IT IS GOOD FOR!(Grr....) There are almost no sub-specific consumables in this round of testing and the only real one, Max Depth, is a COMPLETE and UTTER WASTE OF TIME that AT BEST MERELY DELAYS THE INEVITABLE by a FEW SECONDS at the very best, and at WORST, DOESN'T EVEN DO THAT, and MERELY GETS YOUR HOPES RAISED FALSELY, ONLY TO SHATTER THEM JUST LIKE (AND AS) YOUR SUB IS SHATTERED BY RIDICULOUS H-BOMB-LIKE DEPTH CHARGES THAT LAND 2 KM+ AWAY AND STILL DO CONSISTENT AND MASSIVE DAMAGE! Beyond these, I think the biggest problem with subs right now is they are ALREADY ALMOST ALWAYS SITTING DUCKS AT MAX DEPTH WITH THE MAX DEPTH CONSUMABLE, running away at FULL SPEED, and yet the Devs seem to be unaware of that fact or they JUST DON'T CARE, as all the ways you can recharge your sub's battery MAKE YOUR SUB A CHAINED DOWN DUCK WITH A DUCT-TAPED BILL AND A BRIGHT RED BULLSEYE ON THE SIDE, WHILE THE HUNTER IS ALREADY ARMED WITH A NUCLEAR-TIPPED ICBM. Also, another historical inaccuracy that irks me to no end is that certain ships like, say, Aoba, should have depth charges, in fact, they have them modeled, but someone somewhere decided "Hey, a great way to make Heavy Cruisers "differentiated" (read: lag even FURTHER BEHIND most CLs:) is to not give Heavy Cruisers depth charges, even those that actually had them, and give them only to certain Light Cruisers instead." Disappointing and totally not warranted, in my opinion. * Cachalot, the better one, has too fast torps, so they zip by their intended target before you get the chance to ping said target, and the torpedo reload time is measured in years. U-69 has too low range and damage on her torps. Cachalot is mostly fine outside of those issues, while U-69 also has too wide a turning circle, too slow a rudder shift, too low health, only a single torpedo tube aft, and a torp speed somewhere between ideal and too slow. ** Missed every single ping?(a real possibility) Were you unable to refresh the ping lock for the entire time it took your torpedoes to get to the target, and thus they all completely missed? WELL, CONGRATULATIONS, you now have a PLETHORA of GREAT options! Oops, did I say GREAT? I meant to say ROUGHLY 3-4 EQUALLY TERRIBLE HORRIBLE NO GOOD VERY BAD NO USE TO YOUR TEAM options. Silly me. 1: You can broach the surface in the middle of a hundred bajillion enemies, which will do their best to HE spam or torp you to death, and that's not even counting secondaries or depth charges, and your battery will restore 1 ping, maybe 2 at max before you are either forced to dive again, or more likely set on fire and flooding in a million places and dead. 2: you can stay down, use max depth, fire your stern torpedo tube(s) most likely, given subs have a TERRIBLE turning speed, miss your one or two torpedoes because torps fired from below periscope depth don't know what depth you set them for without the help of pings, even though the crew set them for the target depth, attempt to run away to recharge your battery but (over 75% of the time with real allied and enemy players around instead of bots) either depth charges or torpedoes from an enemy submarine that HAS the luxury of surfacing (thanks to having so many allies near to draw fire away) will get you and you're dead in a Thanos snap, easy peasy lemon-squeasy. 3: you can stay down, not bother launching any torps in some vain hope of hitting anything and instead stop dead and slowly recharge your battery, and get ROFL-STOMPED TO DEATH by lots of DDs and depth-charge-armed CLs, not to mention torpedoes from enemy subs who find you and light you for the surface vessels! 4: you can actually manage to stay down, run away, and successfully escape in rare occasions, but you almost always miss too many pings and waste valuable time leaving and coming back and leaving and coming back and leaving yet again, and to compound the issue, chances are you will miss most of your torpedoes, severely hurting your team by forcing them to(let's not mince words here) basically carry you.
  8. How does the hydrophone work exactly? What is the minimum speed required to move undetected through its range? Can an enemy submarine go undetected through the range if said enemy sub goes slow enough, or no? I want to know more about its limitations. What is the maximum depth that a sub can be at that the sub can still be detected by Sonar(AKA Hydro-Acoustic Search)? How exactly is Max Depth supposed to be used in a defensive role? As far as I have seen, 80 meters is not deep enough a depth to even remotely to start to begin to be beyond the reach of these sometimes-H-Bomb-like depth charges. It is like the crew dropping the depth charges magically knows the EXACT right depth to set the depth charges for, and they follow the sub down almost to 80 meters, I think the furthest I have ever seen them sink to before detonation is 65-70 meters. Then there is the issue of depth charge explosions not even in the same POST CODE deal huge damage, like the hitbox of either subs or the depth charges and their detonations are much too large. Yes. I know water is incompressible, but a lot of these depth charges are exploding FAR outside a maximum range of their pressure waves’ length of a sub, and still registering hits and damage on the sub, which makes no sense and wouldn’t exactly be very balanced unless subs had like double the health.
  9. Is that one in the port? If not, have you found one in the port? If there isn’t a battery charge stat in the port stats, there ought to be one. Subs should only able to spot another submerged submarine directly for themselves only, while they should broadcast a constantly updated location on the minimap of the enemy sub and a lit submerged enemy submarine should be tracked by a variation of the bubbles that gets updated in real time instead of every certain number of seconds.
  10. As I said: "it's kind of time consuming and not all too effective, not to mention it doesn't work TOO TOO well against human DDs or CLs." Totally agreed. It definitely does. ALSO, and this is HUGE, they ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NEED TO FIND AN EASY, INTUITIVE PLACE TO INDICATE THE MAX BATTERY RESERVE STAT IN THE PORT! I can't find it, and I don't think there IS one in port.
  11. I end up having to take out one target, leave the area, recharge my battery, come back, expend my battery, leave the area, recharge my battery again, come back, take out one target or otherwise expend my battery, rinse repeat. It's kind of time consuming and not all too effective, not to mention it doesn't work TOO TOO well against human DDs or CLs.
  12. I’ll try deep dive with changing course and speed very frequently tomorrow, but it is of course important to note that Subs take an AGE to change course. But my experience so far lines up with yours and your assertion that Deep Dive is useless. U-69’s concealment is bugged. At the moment, it’s periscope depth detection is a FARCE, because it is 1.0 KM, which is exactly 1 KM below the universal assured detection of 2.00 KM, which means it is ALWAYS visible at periscope depth a WHOLE KILOMETER before it ought to be. Which makes it even WEAKER. Yes, U-69 feels mostly like a stealthy* dedicated convoy hunter meant to not need as many forward torps because of the unarmored nature of its prey and also because it could also use its deck gun to attack the convoys as well, interjected into a game where it is heavily outclassed, a game where generally I believe that only larger, FLEET submarines like Gatos, and(maybe, MAYBE, though there is no telling if WG will screw it up) I-400 class Submarine Aircraft Carriers stand even a small chance of being properly balanced. Yes, it feels MAJORLY underpowered and the torpedo range for a ship that relies SOLELY on torpedoes is stupidly short. Yes, it is, like IRL, pretty trash against DDs and some cruisers. Yes, the battery reserve is debatably too small, and the pings eat it up too fast too, and the pings are hard to hit with. In short, it is pretty bad, although its performance in the beta feels about right or even a little stronger than if a real Type VII U-boat was forced into a fleet action in WWII. But hey, the one thing that is my biggest take away from this round of sub beta, is that both sub gameplay and the COUNTERPLAY that IS possible, is generally very and pretty fun, respectively. They have at least gotten THAT mostly right. Now all they need to do is make counterplay possible for more ship types, retain the current fun quotient or stay as close as possible to the current fun quotient while balancing sub play and counterplay to make sure neither is WAY TOO effective.(in the latter case BOTH are way too effective in some ways/at some times while not enough in other ways/times) I am, however, ENTIRELY sure that subs and CVs are on a collision course and that they have a very large chance of encountering each other in future tests. But how the AVERAGE sub player will do against CVs and how the AVERAGE CV player will do against Subs remains to be seen, both requiring more thought and a larger measure of skill than the other 3 classes. *currently less stealthy than WG seems to have intended it to be
  13. If they like U-69’s style of balance, either a working mechanical snorkel(almost certainly off of the table, but you never know WG. It would certainly help a more historical playing Type VII U-boat not be completely useless) or a snorkel consumable would be helpful. Yet another variant of Torpedo Reload Booster would be useful here for the Type VII U-boat that the sub test has, and also for the Type IX U-boat that it doesn’t: a pretty weak one that could only make one set of 2 torpedo tubes be just about ready, not all 5 on the boat. I would not make it random, I would allow players to choose between reloading two of the four bow torpedo tubes, or the single stern torpedo tube. It would be kind of weak and not too OP, but it would still be useful, especially in the defense role. Now, the Type XXI U-boat I would give a full DD torpedo reload booster, or give it a super fast torpedo reload, but knowing how much WG likes consumables, they will probably go with the consumable. But that would (probably) be not too unbalanced, because the XXI loses the stern torpedo tube of the VII and IX, and because it will probably end up being the Tier X.
  14. I was quoting someone else. None of those block quotes are things I said. I was replying to them. I reminded that sub balance is different between the two.
×