Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
henrychenhenry

Sub battle thoughts, feedback, and poll

How were sub battles?  

64 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want subs to be introduced to WoWS?

    • Yes! I already wanted this even before sub battles.
      13
    • Yes! I played sub battles and that changed my mind.
      9
    • Yes! I did not play sub battles, but changed my mind after subs were released into sub battles.
      1
    • No! I did not want this even before sub battles.
      29
    • No! I played sub battles and that changed my mind.
      12
    • No! I did not play sub battles, but changed my mind after subs were released into sub battles.
      0
  2. 2. My experience in Sub Battles was...

    • Terrible
      8
    • Bad
      11
    • OK
      16
    • Good
      16
    • Amazing
      0
    • "I did not play Sub Battles."
      13
  3. 3. If you did not play Sub Battles, why not?

    • Playing subs does not interest me
      6
    • Playing AGAINST subs does not interest me
      6
    • I did not have a Tier VI ship.
      0
    • I do not like playing at Tier VI.
      1
    • "I did play sub battles."
      44
    • Other, please reply with what this means so I can improve this poll!
      7
  4. 4. How much of an enticement was the x2 XP for the first 5 Sub Battles with surface ships?

    • Very enticing. I tried to play sub battles as much as I could (up to the 5 per day). [This does NOT mean I played 5 sub battles every day for the entire 28 days. It only means you played sub battles as much as you had time to play up to, at minimum, the first 5 battles.]
      8
    • Enticing. I tried to play sub battles some, but didn't really care about the 5.
      9
    • It was OK. That's not why I play surface ships in sub battles at all. OR an equivalent to "OK" in your opinion.
      19
    • Not enticing. I played subs in sub battles but not surface ships. OR an equivalent to "Not enticing" in your opinion.
      9
    • Not very enticing. I did not play sub battles at all. OR an equivalent to "Not very enticing" in your opinion.
      19
  5. 5. How do you feel Sub balance is at Tier VI in this current iteration?

    • I played subs extensively, subs are balanced well.
      1
    • I played subs extensively, subs are almost balanced well. A few adjustments will balance them.
      6
    • I played subs extensively, subs are not balanced well.
      5
    • I played subs some, subs are balanced well.
      0
    • I played subs some, subs are almost balanced well. A few adjustments will balance them.
      7
    • I played subs some, subs are not balanced well.
      10
    • I played surface ships extensively, subs are balanced well.
      0
    • I played surface ships extensively, subs are almost balanced well. A few adjustments will balance them.
      3
    • I played surface ships extensively, subs are not balanced well.
      13
    • I did not play sub battles at all, subs are balanced well.
      1
    • I did not play sub battles at all, subs are almost balanced well. A few adjustments will balance them.
      0
    • I did not play sub battles at all, subs are not balanced well.
      8
    • I have no opinion
      10
  6. 6. How much of an enticement was the 3x Back-to-School camo per day for achieving 3 Sub Battle Victories in a Battleship?

    • Very enticing. I tried to play BBs as much as I could until I finished the mission.
      0
    • Enticing. I tried to play BBs some, but this wasn't my priority.
      8
    • It was OK. That's not why I play BBs in sub battles at all. OR an equivalent to "OK" in your opinion.
      16
    • Not enticing. I played other ships in sub battles but not BBs. OR an equivalent to "Not enticing" in your opinion.
      19
    • Not very enticing. I did not play sub battles at all. OR an equivalent to "Not very enticing" in your opinion.
      21
  7. 7. How many more iterations of Subs would you prefer?

    • 1
      22
    • 2
      6
    • 3
      10
    • 4
      2
    • 5+
      24
  8. 9. What ship type did you play the most?

    • Carriers
      4
    • Battleships
      8
    • Cruisers
      15
    • Destroyers
      12
    • Submarines
      14
    • "I did not play sub battles."
      11
  9. 10. About how many Sub Battles did you play?

    • 0
      15
    • 1-24
      25
    • 25-49
      12
    • 50-99
      7
    • 100-149
      2
    • 150-199
      3
    • 200+
      0
  10. 11. To assess one aspect of WG's communication for this event: Did you know Submarine Tokens will be exchanged with the release of Update 0.9.6 for 1:15,000 credits?

    • Yes! I read the WoWS news article.
      15
    • Yes! A WG employee (e.g. Hapa_Fodder, foodprinter, or Sehales) told me on the forums, Reddit, etc.
      7
    • Yes! A different official source. [please include in replies so I can improve this poll, thanks!]
      0
    • Yes! I learned somewhere else. (Not an official source, e.g. forums if posted by a player)
      18
    • No! Is this true?
      24
  11. 12. Finally, regardless of balance now, what do you feel about the potential of Subs in the future?

    • Subs will be terrible for the game in the long run.
      23
    • Subs will be bad for the game in the long run.
      16
    • Subs will be OK for the game in the long run.
      11
    • Subs will be good for the game in the long run.
      12
    • Subs will be amazing for the game in the long run.
      2

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,007
[NSC]
Members
2,341 posts

Submarines were released onto the live server for the first time with a unique Submarine Battles battle type lasting from May 27 to June 24. As the Sub Battle mode just ended on Wednesday, our perspective of submarines should be fresh on our minds.

So what do you think about Subs? The Sub battle mode? What feedback do you have for WG? Please take your time to take this 12 question poll. If you have any suggestions for additional questions, please share them!

:Smile_honoring: Good luck and fair seas, captains! :cap_rambo:


Clarification for Question 7: Subs were dropped into the live servers for the first time recently. WG will then gather feedback, improve subs, and drop them into testing again. How many more cycles of testing/feedback/tweaking would you prefer? Do you believe the more is better because it will make more balanced subs? Or do you think subs are fine as is and want them now?


Hapa_Fodder says if we post polls, we should make the answer options as unbiased as possible, so please let me know if there's any bias (hope not)!


Only open if you have questions after completing question 11:

Spoiler

 

 

Edited by henrychenhenry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16,644
[ARGSY]
Members
24,419 posts
18,377 battles

Other priorities took me away from sub battles. That being said, I played a few times in submarines to see what they were like and some more times in surface ships either to finish grinds or play T6 BB without having to be uptiered, and I did not find subs particularly burdensome.

There were times they victimised me in non-ASW ships, but I don't want to draw conclusions from that because the destroyers and ASW cruisers were almost all bots in those battles and it wasn't a fair test. 

I think a DD firing a full spread of torpedoes from stealth is probably more threat than a submarine, with even greater stealth (Subs have to reveal themselves when they ping for lock-on). 

I think most of the problems I had as a surface-ship driver could be mitigated or avoided by allowing subs to fire on surface ships only when surfaced or at periscope depth. As someone who would play subs if they came fully into the game, I consider this fair.

Subs need to be able to take camouflage and flags, even if these only display when they are surfaced or are rendered as images on the hull. This was a BIG disincentive to grind subs with the 19 point commanders we were given.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2 posts
385 battles

Some players want Subs and DD is too strong. At least about who got the better guns via ACC. Now it all about who has the most torps. WoW was better on open beta. DD firing a full spread of torpedoes from stealth is too OP. torps are carriers and battleship nightmare. As a carrier main, I fear them and they report me for not doing anything. I tell me that A DD in stealth too me out. Defend the carrier. I quit WoW out of that. frustration. Spec'oing into subs will bring me back. nerfing DD will too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
494
[BUOY]
Members
1,336 posts
16,868 battles

There are WAY too many options for most of the questions, you need to limit the options to at most 6 with options being some variation of: Yes / No / Don't Care / It's Complicated (explain) or Great to Bad and etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
717
[--O--]
Members
994 posts

I got the Q&A from weegee this morning on subs.

My basic reply was they need more balancing.... Spotting really needs work they should not have the power they have... Homing torps needs to go as well, just let them have the same aiming mechanic other ships do. Cv needs to have Depth-charges for attacking subs and all Cruisers as well. I think with 2 to 3 more testing rounds they might actually be decent in game.

Now that said when they first go live in Random I fully expect a million and one complaints about how OP they are. To that I say give them a month for the newness to wear-off and some more tweeking to be done. But I will also say they are in a better place after one PTS round than CV ever were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,411 posts
1,852 battles

For Question 3 I didn't play sub battles. I'm very interested in playing submarines-the submarine game Silent Hunter 4 is my most played video game. And that's the problem. I play on 74% realism, but even then the controls are so different that it just feels awkward. These aren't submarines-these are torpedo boats that can pop underwater for 5 minutes. 

Why are there 2 healthbars? Why are there oxygen & battery meters if the game only lasts 20 minutes? Why are the torpedo firing angles not 270°? What's wrong with the deck gun? Why do the torpedoes reload so fast? Where are my decoys?

With a time limit on battles, submarines just don't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82
[GT3]
Members
200 posts
7,783 battles

Question 7 is vague... Not sure what that means.

Loved the sub battles.. Loved single tier gameplay.

Loved not having stats to worry with.

Half coop / half random is a blast.

Sinking subs is fun.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
424
Beta Testers
970 posts
11,945 battles
28 minutes ago, Mustangrde1 said:

I got the Q&A from weegee this morning on subs.

My basic reply was they need more balancing.... Spotting really needs work they should not have the power they have... Homing torps needs to go as well, just let them have the same aiming mechanic other ships do. Cv needs to have Depth-charges for attacking subs and all Cruisers as well. I think with 2 to 3 more testing rounds they might actually be decent in game.

Now that said when they first go live in Random I fully expect a million and one complaints about how OP they are. To that I say give them a month for the newness to wear-off and some more tweeking to be done. But I will also say they are in a better place after one PTS round than CV ever were.

CVs need depth charges....

 

 

[edited].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
551
[KMS]
[KMS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,813 posts
12,810 battles

Needs more work.   BBs are going to die if it doesn't change.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,259
[BEA5T]
Members
5,286 posts
23,974 battles

As I have said before, subs and carriers are dissimilar weapons systems not designed for time compressed, small maps....  I played three games in surface ships.  The chaos was horrendous and ruined any chance for me to even try subs.....

They make no sense because all they add to the game is more confusion to an already messed up MM (because of population issues and skill density holes....)  Subs made the three stomps I experienced even worse. 

i.e.  A DD in open water trying to kill a sub as the enemy carrier eats the DD (whom simply couldn't defend itself);.......and, the cascading error loss grows exponentially from there. 

Could time fix this??  No.  Small and time compressed maps need less chaos to work, not more.   Subs in a separate mode without Carriers would be interesting and may work in more open maps though......

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,263
[SALVO]
Members
8,212 posts
6,098 battles

Question 5 should be separated between surface ships and subs. As it is there is no way to share input in both of them, only one.

Question 7 is not clear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
424
[WOLFH]
Members
986 posts
4,782 battles
11 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Question 5 should be separated between surface ships and subs. As it is there is no way to share input in both of them, only one.

^ This
@henrychenhenry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,936
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,326 posts
14,923 battles
13 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Question 5 should be separated between surface ships and subs. As it is there is no way to share input in both of them, only one.

Question 7 is not clear

I think that 7 is clear, how many more tests to you think are needed before they are ready to come out of the sandbox.

Edited by BrushWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,263
[SALVO]
Members
8,212 posts
6,098 battles
10 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

I think that 7 is clear, how many more tests to you think are needed before they are ready to come out of the sandbox.

If that is what it means is kinda pointless question... Unless you are aiming to play Bingo! sub or something like that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,007
[NSC]
Members
2,341 posts

So first, thanks for the feedback all! Clearly, this poll could use some improvements.


2 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Other priorities took me away from sub battles. That being said, I played a few times in submarines to see what they were like and some more times in surface ships either to finish grinds or play T6 BB without having to be uptiered, and I did not find subs particularly burdensome.

There were times they victimised me in non-ASW ships, but I don't want to draw conclusions from that because the destroyers and ASW cruisers were almost all bots in those battles and it wasn't a fair test. 

I think a DD firing a full spread of torpedoes from stealth is probably more threat than a submarine, with even greater stealth (Subs have to reveal themselves when they ping for lock-on). 

I think most of the problems I had as a surface-ship driver could be mitigated or avoided by allowing subs to fire on surface ships only when surfaced or at periscope depth. As someone who would play subs if they came fully into the game, I consider this fair.

Subs need to be able to take camouflage and flags, even if these only display when they are surfaced or are rendered as images on the hull. This was a BIG disincentive to grind subs with the 19 point commanders we were given.

You are definitely correct - bots aren't the same as human players. I wonder now if I should have included a question about the bots. Hmm.

2 hours ago, HD_DivineSoul said:

Some players want Subs and DD is too strong. At least about who got the better guns via ACC. Now it all about who has the most torps. WoW was better on open beta. DD firing a full spread of torpedoes from stealth is too OP. torps are carriers and battleship nightmare. As a carrier main, I fear them and they report me for not doing anything. I tell me that A DD in stealth too me out. Defend the carrier. I quit WoW out of that. frustration. Spec'oing into subs will bring me back. nerfing DD will too.

You are saying that as a Carrier, you fear DDs?

1 hour ago, lloyd1701 said:

There are WAY too many options for most of the questions, you need to limit the options to at most 6 with options being some variation of: Yes / No / Don't Care / It's Complicated (explain) or Great to Bad and etc.

Sorry about this. For question 5 in particular, I wanted to quantify what effect, if any, experience in subs will have on player's perception of sub balance. I am not sure if a wider perspective will lead to more moderate or stronger opinions. If people can select their own combo of sub experience and balance opinion, there wouldn't be so many options. Do others think there are too many options? Also, I want players to feel that at least 1 option represents them well. Will keep this in mind for the future.

1 minute ago, TheArc said:

Of all the polls I've seen here, I appreciate that you've given a lot of options and questions. I do wish there were a few "indifferent/neutral" spots as well though, which is more accurately how I feel about it. Because if they don't give all ships some type of way to actually deal with subs (such as limited as ASW capable fighters that you have to choose for your ship and launch,) I think subs (especially at high tier,) will really ruin the fun.  

Thanks for the feedback! I definitely tried to provide a variety of options (maybe too much?). For Question 1, I could see the more neutral option of "Don't care." Right now, everyone is forced to choose "Yes" or "No." If I make a future poll, I will definitely expand on neutral options. I think Question 7 could have an "I have no opinion." option. Are there any other questions (besides 1 and 7) you are looking at?

1 hour ago, Mustangrde1 said:

I got the Q&A from weegee this morning on subs.

My basic reply was they need more balancing.... Spotting really needs work they should not have the power they have... Homing torps needs to go as well, just let them have the same aiming mechanic other ships do. Cv needs to have Depth-charges for attacking subs and all Cruisers as well. I think with 2 to 3 more testing rounds they might actually be decent in game.

Now that said when they first go live in Random I fully expect a million and one complaints about how OP they are. To that I say give them a month for the newness to wear-off and some more tweeking to be done. But I will also say they are in a better place after one PTS round than CV ever were.

Thanks for sharing!

1 hour ago, black_hull4 said:

For Question 3 I didn't play sub battles. I'm very interested in playing submarines-the submarine game Silent Hunter 4 is my most played video game. And that's the problem. I play on 74% realism, but even then the controls are so different that it just feels awkward. These aren't submarines-these are torpedo boats that can pop underwater for 5 minutes. 

Why are there 2 healthbars? Why are there oxygen & battery meters if the game only lasts 20 minutes? Why are the torpedo firing angles not 270°? What's wrong with the deck gun? Why do the torpedoes reload so fast? Where are my decoys?

With a time limit on battles, submarines just don't make sense.

Interesting! Given your interest in subs, I would have expected you try them at least once, even though they definitely aren't made for realism, but balance

1 hour ago, Mego_Splat said:

Question 7 is vague... Not sure what that means.

Loved the sub battles.. Loved single tier gameplay.

Loved not having stats to worry with.

Half coop / half random is a blast.

Sinking subs is fun.

Sorry about this, let me clarify: Subs were dropped into the live servers for the first time recently. They will then gather feedback, improve subs, and drop them into testing again. How many more cycles of testing/feedback/tweaking would you prefer? Do you believe the more is better because it will make more balanced subs? Or do you think subs are fine as is and want them now?

36 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Question 5 should be separated between surface ships and subs. As it is there is no way to share input in both of them, only one.

Question 7 is not clear

Thanks for your feedback! For Question 5, I'm not sure how you want me to further separate them. Can you give examples? From my understanding, you either play 1) subs extensively, 2) subs some, 3) surface ships extensively, or 4) don't play Sub battles. For the second part, subs are either 1) balanced well, 2) almost balanced well, or 3) not balanced well. Sorry I don't quite understand.

Here's a clarification for Question 7 (copied from above): "Subs were dropped into the live servers for the first time recently. They will then gather feedback, improve subs, and drop them into testing again. How many more cycles of testing/feedback/tweaking would you prefer? Do you believe the more is better because it will make more balanced subs? Or do you think subs are fine as is and want them now?"

24 minutes ago, CO_Valle said:

Thanks for the ping!

22 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

I think that 7 is clear, how many more tests to you think are needed before they are ready to come out of the sandbox.

Yes!! This is correct.

10 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

If that is what it means is kinda pointless question... Unless you are aiming to play Bingo! sub or something like that

I'm sorry you think this is pointless. I try to not make pointless questions, but you can see even now with 20 responses, people's ideas for number of testing iterations needed is across the board and evenly distributed among 1, 3, 5+, and (to a smaller extent) 2. I think it's interesting to see. But, I absolutely agree, nobody can guess how many more iterations there will be. 

Edited by henrychenhenry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,601
[FORM]
Members
2,381 posts
13,548 battles

Of all the polls I've seen here, I appreciate that you've given a lot of options and questions. I do wish there were a few "indifferent/neutral" spots as well though, which is more accurately how I feel about it. Because if they don't give all ships some type of way to actually deal with subs (such as limited as ASW capable fighters that you have to choose for your ship and launch,) I think subs (especially at high tier,) will really ruin the fun.  

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,263
[SALVO]
Members
8,212 posts
6,098 battles
3 minutes ago, henrychenhenry said:

 

Thanks for your feedback! For Question 5, I'm not sure how you want me to further separate them. Can you give examples? From my understanding, you either play 1) subs extensively, 2) subs some, 3) surface ships extensively, or 4) don't play Sub battles. For the second part, subs are either 1) balanced well, 2) almost balanced well, or 3) not balanced well. Sorry I don't quite understand.

 

I played both subs and surface ships, as the poll is now, I can only give feedback on subs or surface ships, not both

4 minutes ago, henrychenhenry said:

I'm sorry you think this is pointless. I try to not make pointless questions, but you can see even now with 20 responses, people's ideas for number of testing iterations needed is across the board and evenly distributed among 1, 3, 5+, and (to a smaller extent) 2. I think it's interesting to see. But, I absolutely agree, nobody can guess how many more iterations there will be. 

I'm not trying to be offensive, I said that because subs should be released when they are ready, it doesn't matter if it takes 1 or 5 more test and don't consider productive to set a fixed number of iterations if the objective is quality. I'm sure WG has a time table on it but as a customer I expect quality over quick gratification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,514
[WOLF7]
Members
12,614 posts
1 minute ago, ArIskandir said:

I played both subs and surface ships, as the poll is now, I can only give feedback on subs or surface ships, not both

I'm not trying to be offensive, I said that because subs should be released when they are ready, it doesn't matter if it takes 1 or 5 more test and don't consider productive to set a fixed number of iterations if the objective is quality. I'm sure WG has a time table on it but as a customer I expect quality over quick gratification.

From WG?:Smile_amazed:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,263
[SALVO]
Members
8,212 posts
6,098 battles
Just now, awiggin said:

From WG?:Smile_amazed:

well, that's what I expect as a principle... we all know reality tends to drift far away from principles :Smile_sceptic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[1IF]
Banned
436 posts
1,892 battles

If placing Subs in WoWS will drive more players to the Exits, I'm all for Subs in Random Battles & asap. 

Since Jan 2019  (specifically, the Great Wreak aka the CV rework) everything WG has done to WoWS has been detrimental to the game.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
116 posts
1,474 battles

I played one battle as a submarine. Quite honestly, the gameplay isn't as nice as a surface ship's, it's just boring and not enjoyable imo. Sure this is a problem in the beginning when not much resources are pushed into improving submarine graphics but from playing with surface ships, this is my impression. As a DD, especially a French or Russian gunboat you have a great advantage, you don't quite care as much about being spotted and are fast enough to rush down the submarine and terminate it with depth charges (I'm sure this is frustrating to the submarines as they can't do jack, except surface where they can be torpedoed or shot.) Didn't play cruisers but played a couple games as a BB, I've found that in my Dunkerque, I could average 90k damage 5 kills and still HAVE NO counter to a submarine. If the submarine has any idea what's he's doing he'll just dive and spam torps at me. I can't count how often I've been in situations where I've done all that I can do as a battleship and yet a singular submarine hard counters me. I know people rage about CV's having no "counterplay" from DD's but battleships WILL have it worse against submarines in the current state. I recall a game where I was left alone on my team with 4 kills and over 100k damage but the enemy still had 2 submarines. Even if those subs were Destroyers it's unlikely to be a win for me BUT, I can atleast hide behind islands, ambush them at the very least have a chance of damaging them, but with submarines this mere chance evaporates into nothingness. 

I understand the difficulty in introducing submarines, really. You don't want to release a new class of ships that can't do anything but at the moment submarines seem to suffer from DD's and wipe the floor with Heavy Cruisers and Battleships. 

I've been reading a lot of the forums and subreddit and lots of good ideas are around! One i saw was battleship shells can damage subs all the way to 25 meters for example. Heavy Cruisers can do the same until 15 meters and so on. A big shell will make a bigger explosion, no? Second, submarines should not be able to transmit a destroyers location indefinitely, give destroyers something so they aren't lit up constantly (I really have no idea how to make this possible). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
876 posts
5,967 battles

I wanted to answer the stupid survey but there were no neutral responses. I think the stolen thing ruined the enthusiasm for a lot of people including myself. There were other less dumb ways to hate them. Even when my brother came back a week ago he couldn’t try them because he still needed to go through token roulette and he probably never will since he’s a filthy casual. The incentives for playing in the match was awful. I think I played 3-5 games where I wasn’t a sub. If they want us to test these for them they should accommodate us. 
 

I honestly can’t comment on the balance yet since I feel this was a failed test and didn’t really provide an accurate look at how they play or could play with full teams of humans. Why in gods name did they make it so they never had to surface? That makes zero sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,601
[FORM]
Members
2,381 posts
13,548 battles
41 minutes ago, henrychenhenry said:

Thanks for the feedback! I definitely tried to provide a variety of options (maybe too much?). For Question 1, I could see the more neutral option of "Don't care." Right now, everyone is forced to choose "Yes" or "No." If I make a future poll, I will definitely expand on neutral options. I think Question 7 could have an "I have no opinion." option. Are there any other questions (besides 1 and 7) you are looking at?

 

The only other spot that stood out was #9 - "pretty balanced" - which probably fit me the most accurately. I played every class pretty evenly, except CVs in the tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×