Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
SteelClaw

IChase brings up some good points about Subs.

103 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

6,456
[DAKI]
[DAKI]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
12,572 posts
4,442 battles

I respect iChase, however all his video has really done is reiterate the issues that the playerbase has been debating regarding subs since 2012.

He brings up good points. I believe the reiteration is good. But WG has been aware of these issues for years and have still gone ahead. We'll just have to wait and see what gimmick WG will pull to give a BB a chance when it and a sub are the last two alive.

 

  • Cool 7
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,870
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,240 posts
14,670 battles

It's not like Subs are being released in a quick update tomorrow or anything like that.  It's going to be a while.  It looks like Haloween Event, which is still a month away, will be the test bed and from there WG will have more time to iron things out, balance it.

 

I'm not worried and I look forward to it as well as the panic stricken people running around on fire in the boards.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,305
[PNG]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,027 posts
6,133 battles
2 minutes ago, Super_Dreadnought said:

I respect iChase, however all his video has really done is reiterate the issues that the playerbase has been debating regarding subs since 2012.

He brings up good points. I believe the reiteration is good. But WG has been aware of these issues for years and have still gone ahead. We'll just have to wait and see what gimmick WG will pull to give a BB a chance when it and a sub are the last two alive.

 

Never hurts to remind them, plus a lot of times they read the comments sections of videos like the one I just did, so having a lot of thoughts compiled there helps them think things through

  • Cool 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
546
[WORX]
Members
1,892 posts
12,982 battles

This decision to include Submarines into WOWS was more business related rather then Ichase argument. The game that is competing with WOWS is on WOWS radar and its getting close to reaching them. The only way these drastic choices in changing the game happens when the competition forces their hand. Submarines gives WOWS that difference, that distinct identity, if balance correctly, WOWS has  the competitive edge for next long term goals (for atleast a year ahead).

One thing I do agree with Ichase is the failure of "Balance" dept to make the current game balance WORKLOAD wise. I don't think they have any direction with that cause. Will see.

Edited by Navalpride33
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,062
[OPG]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,897 posts
10,479 battles

Don't worry komrade, nothing could POSSIBLY go wrong

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
772
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,266 posts
1,876 battles
18 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

This decision to include Submarines into WOWS was more business related rather then Ichase argument. The game that is competing with WOWS is on WOWS radar and its getting close to reaching them. The only way these drastic choices in changing the game happens when the competition forces their hand. Submarines gives WOWS that difference, that distinct identity, if balance correctly, WOWS has  the competitive edge for next long term goals (for atleast a year ahead).

One thing I do agree with Ichase is the failure of "Balance" dept to make the current game balance WORKLOAD wise. I don't think they have any direction with that cause. Will see.

That game doesn't compete with WoWS.  It doesn't have, and from my understanding never plans to have, heavy cruisers, battleships or aircraft carriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
546
[WORX]
Members
1,892 posts
12,982 battles
1 minute ago, Helstrem said:

That game doesn't compete with WoWS.  It doesn't have, and from my understanding never plans to have, heavy cruisers, battleships or aircraft carriers.

I would like to have to same thinking of WOWS is the superior game then "THAT" game, however, its always a good choice to stay far ahead of your competitors. Why not bury the competition with the inclusion of untapped market of Submarine play ? Smart choice is you ask me.

Others my disagree with your opinion/thinking, but its an earth quake for sure.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,126
Alpha Tester
5,165 posts
2,445 battles

I have exactly one question about subs: Will they be in their own separate game mode, or will they be in plain ol' Random Battles? I sincerely hope that they'll be in their own specific mode because of the issues laid out by The Chieftain some time ago.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
[-GPS-]
Members
108 posts
7,335 battles

There will definitely be huge hurdles to cross if subs are put into the game. I assume for starters you have to balance them similar to CVs, matching subs on each side? I agree what the heck do you do to make EVERY dd be a sub killer. I could see giving all dds a “passive sonar” skill maybe, that would only work against subs. That might preserve the special effect of German dd “active” hydro and still give all dds good anti sub capability. Depth charge balance will be a mess also. It will be interesting to see how they resolve all of this. I gotta be honest though, as a real life USN fast attack sub vet I am so psyched for this! (MM1(SS) if anyone cares)I know many will be leery of a new class that will bring new problems, but I am hopeful it is done right and will add needed flavor and depth to the game. I hope it works out, and I am going to play the heck out of the subs during the Halloween event! Thanks for the great vid as usual iChase, can’t give you enough of a shoutout, your Captains Academy series changed my WOWS life so much I just can’t quantify it.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,739
[TBW]
Members
6,423 posts
12,071 battles

Obviously there are many who want Subs in the game. I am sure that it will enhance the game and bring a fresh element to the game. Halloween is surely the test for that. Should be fun.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
53 minutes ago, Super_Dreadnought said:

I respect iChase, however all his video has really done is reiterate the issues that the playerbase has been debating regarding subs since 2012.

He brings up good points. I believe the reiteration is good. But WG has been aware of these issues for years and have still gone ahead. We'll just have to wait and see what gimmick WG will pull to give a BB a chance when it and a sub are the last two alive.

 

 

Spotter planes with ASW weapons.

 

The big issue I see is that any gimmick is going to be a consumable. So your only real ability to counter the submarine will be via something you have limited numbers of. That's garbage gameplay mechanics right there.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,332 posts
3,591 battles
51 minutes ago, iChase said:

Never hurts to remind them, plus a lot of times they read the comments sections of videos like the one I just did, so having a lot of thoughts compiled there helps them think things through

You making a video on West Virginia? Kinda curious to see your take on things as you tend to be the most level headed one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
1 minute ago, Sovereigndawg said:

Obviously there are many who want Subs in the game. I am sure that it will enhance the game and bring a fresh element to the game. Halloween is surely the test for that. Should be fun.

 

That's what SDEnterNet said about NavyFIELD. "We'll never add submarines!" turned into "Well we believe these will add variety to the game."

 

It killed the game. People left in droves until the game was barely populated enough to fill a Great Battle.

 

RIP NavyFIELD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
725
[0456]
[0456]
Members
2,809 posts
7,992 battles

I’d rather subs than land based bombers with incendiary bombs with 400% fire chance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[SPQR_]
[SPQR_]
Members
7 posts

Seems people have the same conversation every time WG announces something.  That's op that's going to ruin the game ect.  Yet here we are still having the same old arguments.  Have faith in the developers I'm pretty sure this is something they have been working on for quite some time.  Will it change gameplay yes it will.  That's not a bad thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,739
[TBW]
Members
6,423 posts
12,071 battles
1 minute ago, ramp4ge said:

It killed the game. People left in droves until the game was barely populated enough to fill a Great Battle.

Did they have a Halloween event that they could test them out in before they even considered implementing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
954
[BBICT]
Members
3,380 posts
3,573 battles

Wow... I wish them luck with this...but I can't see it being anything other than a giant can of worms... I guess we will see how Halloween goes.. Not everything they test in those modes ever goes live, nor should it. 

I do like the idea of subs having there own game mode. I can only imagine the salt if they hit Randoms, let alone Ranked, or Clan wars... :Smile_ohmy:

 

Edit, for a random full filled fact: The Tirpitz and think the Bismarck had depth charge racks... 

Edited by Sir_Davos_Seaworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
1 minute ago, Sovereigndawg said:

Did they have a Halloween event that they could test them out in before they even considered implementing it?

 

They had something better. They had a player-managed balance team (ONF, which I was part of) that tested new things and told the balance team what to do with them. ONF completely rebalanced the entire game. Except submarines. When the added submarines they told us we were not allowed to touch them. 

 

They knew they were broken and they didn't care. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25
[SOB]
Members
45 posts
3,126 battles
1 hour ago, iChase said:

Never hurts to remind them, plus a lot of times they read the comments sections of videos like the one I just did, so having a lot of thoughts compiled there helps them think things through

 

That and not every player spends a lot of time on the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
5 minutes ago, Italy08 said:

Have faith in the developers

 

ZACmDfM.gif

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,211
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,827 posts
10,390 battles

One of my key reasons for not wanting submarines was an appreciation that WOWS was struggling to balance 'abnormal' ships. DD/BB/CA-L are one thing, but CV have been an enduring fiasco.

With the carrier rework however, maybe I'll have to say 'WG can balance abnormal ships, if you give them 3 years and a rework' rather than 'can't' - progress.

 

I think submarines discouraging pushing and being immune to some retaliation are huge issues. The fact that to kill a submerged sub, even if spotted requires driving right over it to depth charge it is... problematic. What if it's camped out with the red fleet?

In addition you have recent trends in game design, WG have moved away from what I'd call 'low interaction' or 'griefing' type gameplay:

- Shima 20km torp wall at tiny risk to itself is hard to counter, 1-dimensional and pretty awful to experience, it gets removed

- OWSF is nasty and no/little 'interaction' to counter, it gets removed

- Smoke firing is excessive, hard to counter. In turn it gets smacked by smoke-shooting detection increase (so you spot smoke-shooting Neptune at 6.6km not 2km and BB can't smoke-shoot at all) and more and more radar - Worcester and Kronshtadt, Alaska, Stalingrad, Wichita this year alone, net result is that smoke firing is restricted to fewer ships at longer ranges running higher risks.

- Carriers blapping people with impunity is hard to counter and basically comes down to 'turn in, ctrl+click' - WG WIP is a lower alpha system with different AA including AA 'sectors' and possible degree of manual control - more interactive

Now WG want to introduce ships with almost no spotting range, and with the ability to dive the ability to become actively immune to all ships at a distance and presumably most ships at close range.

That is not a move in the same direction at all.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[GN_BR]
Members
127 posts
4,732 battles

I hope they actually manage to fix cv’s before they embark on another issue that will take a long time to “get right”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[BNKR]
Members
295 posts
358 battles
35 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

 

That's what SDEnterNet said about NavyFIELD. "We'll never add submarines!" turned into "Well we believe these will add variety to the game."

 

It killed the game. People left in droves until the game was barely populated enough to fill a Great Battle.

 

RIP NavyFIELD.

Because Navyfield and WoWs are the same game right?

Let me guess Naval Action and Sea of thieves are the same to.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
1 minute ago, Ruthless4u said:

Because Navyfield and WoWs are the same game right?

 

NavyFIELD was the WoWS of 10 years ago. 

 

Submarines will be detrimental to WoWS for exactly the same reasons that they were detrimental to NavyFIELD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×