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

The more I watch Sub gameplay the more disappointed I get with WG

184 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,415
[SBS]
Members
5,016 posts
2,408 battles
9 minutes ago, Ubarad said:

It sounds like we're going to have this "fun" new mechanic shoved down our throats regardless of how it effects play.  I assume they invested too much into the underwater modeling to not add subs.  My theory is that it's the grand plan to make CVs more palatable to the masses, where we all hope for a CV match. 

I think WG might be open to the idea of not including subs if they turn out to be a real disaster.  I don't think they can afford another rework fiasco.  WG never even considered bailing on the rework because I think they are depending on CVs to balance subs.  This has the potential to go wrong on an epic scale if WG forces things.  I think they know that.     

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
229
[KMS]
Beta Testers
179 posts
14,133 battles

THEY CANT MAKE SUBS WORK RIGHT 

because subs don't belong in this game at this game  scale, they were never used the way WG wants to use them, so they cant force them to fit with a lot o bogus ,unhistorical , and totally bizarre "FIXES",  all this is dong is disappointing people who want real subs and ticking off people who want a semblance of historical accuracy, at least no more deviant than the surface ships.  

the guy who started this thread has some  good ideas, IF WG would make subs a separate game that we could import ships from wow into.

read any of the books written by WW2 submariners , ie Edward Beach, etc. to get a feel for sub combat and what even a game (not a simulation) should be like and these underwater THINGS (cant call them subs) dump on everyone and everything.

as another poster pointed out, WOW is going to jump the shark on this one, esp with the older player who spend money on this game..

85% of the players I know plan to stop supporting with their $ if subs are forced on us.

But WG can still save the day by making subs a separate game with historical functioning subs and historical scenarios,

I'd play it and spend $ if they did , but not for this hashed up mess they have come up with.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,764
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
11,175 posts
55 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I think WG might be open to the idea of not including subs if they turn out to be a real disaster.  I don't think they can afford another rework fiasco.  WG never even considered bailing on the rework because I think they are depending on CVs to balance subs.  This has the potential to go wrong on an epic scale if WG forces things.  I think they know that.     

Well... I hope you're right.   :Smile_sad:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,200 posts
4,322 battles
8 hours ago, Taichunger said:

I mean, we are nearly 8 months into the ReBork and the low tiers are still eating 3v3 CV garbage. WG's deaf ear on obvious crappiness like that is why so many of, again, have our hearts in our throats.

This is because of bad faith arguments chasing "Average Joe CVs" out of higher tiers because he can't play there.

If you have a mirror near by, look at it to see someone to blame for low tier CV populations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
170
[KENT]
Members
227 posts
4,598 battles
4 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

There will be no long term 'separate game mode' for submarines. The boats are being developed to add to the random battle mode.

If they fail (and who are we kidding, there is no criteria for failure)

There will. WeeGee literally said they were going in their own separate gamemode after testing before they go into randoms and ranked. They are doing this so people on live will have the chance to either play with them or not.  This was actually a suggestion I saw a lot of people ask for with CV'S. Put them in their own gamemode so people can decide if they want to play with them or not.

 

And there is probably a criteria for failure. Wargaming planned this out and probably tested different versions of subs and this was the best fit. They even said that out of all versions of depth charges, the automatic ones were the best fit.

The criteria for failure is probably a dip in player count or a backlash similar to the first iteration of the NTC. Wargaming isn't really self destructive (well, most of the time) and won't usually push out content that will be harmful overall to the game.

Again. I don't want to come off as a shill. I definitely have my fair share of gripes with WOWS and what wargaming does. But I always tell myself: no matter how bad it is, it can always get worse. At least their not EA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
66
[ARRSE]
Members
149 posts
1,255 battles

Put CVs and subs together in their own separate game mode.

Maybe make it a permanent "operations" type of mode - e.g. perhaps with bot convoys that the CVs have to protect, and the subs interdict.

Win-win-win for everyone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
Members
162 posts
2,642 battles
12 minutes ago, Turbogerbil said:

Put CVs and subs together in their own separate game mode.

Maybe make it a permanent "operations" type of mode - e.g. perhaps with bot convoys that the CVs have to protect, and the subs interdict.

Win-win-win for everyone!

except that WG said that they won't be launching any Operations any time soon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,505
[PVE]
Members
1,543 posts
13,259 battles
3 minutes ago, Aviri said:

except that WG said that they won't be launching any Operations any time soon?

That's a really good point. I forgot that WG said no more operations being added anytime soon. 

What is this "separate game mode" for subs if its not an operation?

I bet it rhymes with random! :Smile_facepalm::Smile_sceptic:

Edited by Rabbitt81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,764
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
11,175 posts
1 minute ago, Rabbitt81 said:

That's a really good point. 

What is this "separate game mode" for subs if its not an operation?

I bet it rhymes with random! :Smile_facepalm::Smile_sceptic:

Well, if they do make a separate mode, it's not like a mode that amounts to "Randoms + subs" would be that hard.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
821
[CVA16]
Members
4,216 posts
13,210 battles
15 hours ago, mcgibe said:

That sounds like a terrible idea. There is a reason ships have firing angles and need to rotate their guns. Historically speaking, battleships couldn't turn their turrets 360 degrees in most cases, and ingame, this serves as a method to get battleships to show their broadside and angle at the proper time. Being able to go nose in and fire all your guns isn't possible because of the superstructure blocking the way, not to mention its game breaking for BB'S to go extremely tanky whilst having all your firepower. It's just not feasible. Also the historical reason BB'S have slow turret traverse is because those turrets weighed almost 864 tons! (Iowa class battleship).

I think you misinterpreted the comment. I think he was saying you could lock individual turrets on certain bearings. Locking your rear turrets to face straight aft while bow into your main target for example. That way, when a DD (or sub) popped up behind you, your turrets wouldn't have to turn much to lock on.  You could leave one or more turrets aimed a bearing where you think a ship will pop up (like a sub that just dove) and still be using your other turrets to engage a spotted enemy on a different bearing. Right now you can only lock ALL your guns on the same bearing. Most big ships did have multiple main gun directors so this was entirely possible IRL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
Members
162 posts
2,642 battles
3 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Well, if they do make a separate mode, it's not like a mode that amounts to "Randoms + subs" would be that hard.

 

 

They've always been reluctant about splitting the playerbase with more MM rules, doing so would double the queue times from tier 6 and above.

if it turns out that they actually hit the backpedal with subs and won't put them into randoms, they might do that, but they'll probably make it a single tier specific MM as to keep it simple or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,241
[TARK]
Members
4,421 posts
1,666 battles
1 hour ago, mcgibe said:

There will. WeeGee literally said they were going in their own separate gamemode after testing before they go into randoms and ranked. They are doing this so people on live will have the chance to either play with them or not.  This was actually a suggestion I saw a lot of people ask for with CV'S. Put them in their own gamemode so people can decide if they want to play with them or not.

This is a rumor going around...but I have not seen it confirmed.

The closed testing going on now IS the separate game mode for testing, right?

Can we get this confirmed?

@Bualar

1 hour ago, mcgibe said:

And there is probably a criteria for failure. Wargaming planned this out and probably tested different versions of subs and this was the best fit. They even said that out of all versions of depth charges, the automatic ones were the best fit.

The criteria for failure is probably a dip in player count or a backlash similar to the first iteration of the NTC. Wargaming isn't really self destructive (well, most of the time) and won't usually push out content that will be harmful overall to the game.

I think the criteria for failure will be the ability to sell premium subs. I have low confidence that the criteria has anything to do with the health of the game meta...

It seems to be more about whether or not enough players will tolerate the new sub meta sufficient to meet the sales targets for the premium ships.

There does not seem to be any motivation to improving gameplay by the development team. It's all bandaid fixes when the 'community contributors' get a good enough meme going about how bad something has become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
241
[WOLFB]
Members
923 posts
29,838 battles

Subs that move at the same speed underwater as above....DUMB

Subs that can ping front and back of ship and get CITS is a disaster!

My premium time has been running out and not renewed since subs were announced.

This will make CV rework look like a MINOR issue.

 

And the allegation that I suggest I'll quit is for sympathy, that is also a false accusation. My saying I will quit is so WOWS understands the consequences of these subs being added to the game. This is a surface ship wargame, that is why I play,

CV's are an inconvenience that rarely show up and they have been rendered almost useless with poor torps. If CV's had torps that took 1/2 health with every hit many more would have already left the game. When SUBS CAN do that, it will be a disaster.  

Edited by fbrrhd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,347
[INTEL]
Members
11,482 posts
32,096 battles
2 hours ago, StoneRhino said:

This is because of bad faith arguments chasing "Average Joe CVs" out of higher tiers because he can't play there.

If you have a mirror near by, look at it to see someone to blame for low tier CV populations.

All of the arguments against CVs were supported by WG devs. See, for example, their video explanation of why they embarked on the ReBork. 

I doubt any of the devs have ever read or heard of anything I have written. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48
[WOSDS]
[WOSDS]
Members
52 posts
8,861 battles

In my opinion, subs will bring the same levels of angst that CV have, namely a feeling of helplessness leading to frustration as you fail to be able to respond. The CV issue aside I believe we can fix this now and do it simply offer an opt out option. WG have not sold any subs as yet thus no one would be disadvantaged,. Those that decide to purchase a sub do so with the knowledge that playing it can only occur with other like minded individuals that wish to experience this style of game play. For the rest who do not wish to experience what it is like to be a pinata you can opt out. Problem solved no angst as you do not have to have a change forced upon you.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
122 posts
3,625 battles
2 hours ago, Turbogerbil said:

Put CVs and subs together in their own separate game mode.

Maybe make it a permanent "operations" type of mode - e.g. perhaps with bot convoys that the CVs have to protect, and the subs interdict.

Win-win-win for everyone!

WG has to mainstream both CVs and Subs. Matchmaking them separately would be a nightmare.  Though a game where there's like 6 CVs on each side could be wonderful chaos to watch.  I might take a ship into that game mode expecting to die just to watch the CVs try to kill each other when they have no other prey.

Otherwise, I can't see any surface ship player choosing to show up unless he has a ship he thinks can farm CVs and subs instead of being farmed by them.  I know I'd never voluntarily enter a CV or Sub game mode except for above.

To echo the post that started this thread off, Subs have to be integrated into the basic [Destroyer + Cruiser + Battleship] gameplay paradigm.  If adding them shuts down options for surface ship players without opening up new ones, they will be hated by a large chunk of the playerbase.  CVs do this and there's plenty of players who regard them as "fun police".  Subs as currently designed will be mobile "no fun zones"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,415
[SBS]
Members
5,016 posts
2,408 battles
2 hours ago, Turbogerbil said:

Put CVs and subs together in their own separate game mode.

Maybe make it a permanent "operations" type of mode - e.g. perhaps with bot convoys that the CVs have to protect, and the subs interdict.

Win-win-win for everyone!

I think a permanent "operations" type mode would be WG's nuclear option.  I wouldn't count on that.

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

This is a rumor going around...but I have not seen it confirmed.

The closed testing going on now IS the separate game mode for testing, right?

Can we get this confirmed?

I think there is some confusion with how the testing is going to happen.  There is the "beta" going on now, on the TST server (a separate server from the live, and the PTS servers).  As most of you have seen this beta test is just random battles + subs.  We don't know how long this phase will be.  If there are no major problems the beta could be fairly short.  I assume there will be a PTS before subs hit the live server.  When subs go live they will continue to be tested in their own separate PvP game mode (just like random battles but with subs).  There is no set time period for how long this phase of testing will last.  After this phase of testing WG will make a call on what to do with subs.

To be clear, there is no testing for subs being in their own "operations", or PvE type mode happening.  All of the testing is PvP, a random battle style game mode.

Edited by Slimeball91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,241
[TARK]
Members
4,421 posts
1,666 battles
8 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

When subs go live they will continue to be tested in their own separate PvP game mode (just like random battles but with subs).  There is no set time period for how long this phase of testing will last.  After this phase of testing WG will make a call on what to do with subs

This needs to be confirmed. I do not think it is what WGs actual statements on the subject mean...

@Bualar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,415
[SBS]
Members
5,016 posts
2,408 battles
1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I think the criteria for failure will be the ability to sell premium subs. I have low confidence that the criteria has anything to do with the health of the game meta...

It seems to be more about whether or not enough players will tolerate the new sub meta sufficient to meet the sales targets for the premium ships

WG wouldn't ever be able to make their money back on the rework and subs from selling premiums.  Premium sales are dead.  Look at the number of premiums for direct sale WG has released this year, almost none.  They used to release new premiums at break neck speed.  Now almost all of the ships are sold through in game currencies, steal, coal, and whatever currency the latest grind fest event is.  WG used to want to sell players ships, now they have to give them away if people just come and play the game.  The rework and subs are about gaining a new player base, players with fresh money to spend.  The current players are tapped out, and need to be replaced.  

4 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

This needs to be confirmed. I do not think it is what WGs actual statements on the subject mean...

@Bualar

What do you think it is then?  WG has already said the separate game mode on the live server will be PvP, and the testing we've seen so far is a random battle style game mode.  If you think they are testing any non-random battle modes for subs you are going to be very disappointed.  They are testing subs in a random battle style game mode because they are going to put them in random battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,241
[TARK]
Members
4,421 posts
1,666 battles
Just now, Slimeball91 said:

What do you think it is then?  WG has already said the separate game mode on the live server will be PvP, and the testing we've seen so far is a random battle style game mode.  If you think they are testing any non-random battle modes for subs you are going to be very disappointed.  They are testing subs in a random battle style game mode because they are going to put them in random battles.

I think the 'separate mode' is the current TST.

I dont think there will be a 'subs here only' game mode on the main servers with everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,415
[SBS]
Members
5,016 posts
2,408 battles
6 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I think the 'separate mode' is the current TST.

I dont think there will be a 'subs here only' game mode on the main servers with everyone. 

This is from the first news article on subs.

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/general-news/submarines-announcement/

Quote

Testing plans

The first step will come in the form of Closed Tests of the game process in order to evaluate the current concept and ensure the stability of test clients.

Then, Open Testing will take place. During this stage, you’ll be able to share your opinions with us and be among the first players to try out the new ship type in World of Warships. We’re planning several testing iterations during the second stage. It will be something like a Beta Test for the new type. Initially, only some of the players who submit their applications will be able to participate in the testing. Access will gradually be expanded and in time, everyone will be able to take part in the submarine trials.

After this comes the third stage. We’ll add submarines into the live client as a separate battle type, similar to Arms Race, Savage Battle, or Space Battle. The third stage will last several months. This will enable us to make the final touches and adjust the balance of the new type on the live server. When we're done with all these steps, we'll be able to decide on the final fate of submarines.

 

Edited by Slimeball91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,764
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
11,175 posts
9 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I think the 'separate mode' is the current TST.

I dont think there will be a 'subs here only' game mode on the main servers with everyone. 

As much as I agree with you about subs, this wouldn't fit what WG said.

We'll see if they actually live up to what they said, but their stated plan is a separate mode on the main live servers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
170
[KENT]
Members
227 posts
4,598 battles
2 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

I think you misinterpreted the comment. I think he was saying you could lock individual turrets on certain bearings. Locking your rear turrets to face straight aft while bow into your main target for example. That way, when a DD (or sub) popped up behind you, your turrets wouldn't have to turn much to lock on.  You could leave one or more turrets aimed a bearing where you think a ship will pop up (like a sub that just dove) and still be using your other turrets to engage a spotted enemy on a different bearing. Right now you can only lock ALL your guns on the same bearing. Most big ships did have multiple main gun directors so this was entirely possible IRL.

I see what your saying and I guess I did. Sorry about that. The comment was hard to read and I thought he meant turrets being able to have 360 degree rotation and fire through your superstructure

Edited by mcgibe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[F_T_W]
Beta Testers
86 posts
1,031 battles
2 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

I think you misinterpreted the comment. I think he was saying you could lock individual turrets on certain bearings. Locking your rear turrets to face straight aft while bow into your main target for example. That way, when a DD (or sub) popped up behind you, your turrets wouldn't have to turn much to lock on.  You could leave one or more turrets aimed a bearing where you think a ship will pop up (like a sub that just dove) and still be using your other turrets to engage a spotted enemy on a different bearing. Right now you can only lock ALL your guns on the same bearing. Most big ships did have multiple main gun directors so this was entirely possible IRL.


 I personally wouldn't mind something like that in general Sabot_100, would be cool to individually set the turrets on any ship to be facing in different directions. I do find it annoying sometimes when you have 1 ship in front and another behind you and you have to either turn the entire ship or wait a while for your turrets to turn 180 degrees lol. But that's just me lol. I am personally excited for this..and its kind of ironic that many were saying they wanted Subs and now no one wants Subs xD. Though..being that this is a new class, I do wish there was maybe like Tier IV-X rather then just (IV, VI, VII, X, you know?)

I do have to call this out however...I have seen a really stupid comment on reddit about the new Subs and is now deleted (gee I wonder why) where someone claimed that Subs didn't have a "major" impact in WW2 and adding them is a bad idea and will ruin the game...but then went on to say WOWS needs to be more "historical." So like...German U-boats didn't have an impact during WW2 like at all? Huh, interesting..lel. Granted, maybe not US or other nation's subs had a major impact, but German U-boats had a major impact to the Ally's supply lines during the war..even cases where U-boats were spotted and sunk off of Long Island New York, so yea. (And yea apparently that post got deleted, I went looking for it just out of curiosity to see what others said, but it was gone, not sure if by that person who posted it or what, but still. Figured to share something ridiculous lol)

I do agree though, that I hope there wont be any Premium subs...Historic camo's for particular subs? (like how the Bismarack has its own personal camo) Sure. But yea..please no Premium Subs or certain Subs that were in the War; locked behind doubloons...It always annoyed me with ships like the Hood that became a Premium ship...as well as some others..If they do add "premium subs" at least make them come from the Armory for Coal & Steel. Make getting Coal and steel more worth while lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×