Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Yesman1337

New Sub Changes (Good for the most part a few gripes)

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

117
[EQV]
Members
215 posts
1,547 battles

There are really only 2 major things I do not like with the new proposed sub mechanics. That is the replacement of Battery with whatever Dive Capacity is. (All they needed to do to fix the issue of subs permanently under water was just not allow the battery to recharge at 1/4 speed when underwater) It was a cool resource that was your sort of ammunition and fuel that you had to decide upon using. Secondly is the set depths the subs now travel at. I loved the free movement they had underwater and it made sub vs sub duels quite fun I really think there was no need for this. (The periscope depth addition is nice though)

1 minor grip that is not the biggest issue really is the fact the the subs surface armament is automatic like a secondary weapon. I am very glad that we are getting useable ones as it opens the door for tons of cool cruiser subs like the British HMS X1 (Had more powerful guns than some DD's or the French Surcouf with it's dual 203mm guns. I just with they were manually controlled. 

Asides from that I think the new changes are actually quite good giving the player more information on the whereabouts of the sub and which direction the attack is coming from. 

  • Funny 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,811
[TWFT]
Members
1,503 posts
41,352 battles

You can buff the subturd all you want, but it will never truly fit the game.

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,301
[SALVO]
Members
8,271 posts
6,142 battles
1 hour ago, Yesman1337 said:

There are really only 2 major things I do not like with the new proposed sub mechanics.

I really like very much the changes proposed to the 2 mechanics you mention, go figure. There's no way to pleasing everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,673
[WPORT]
Members
9,902 posts
14,401 battles
2 hours ago, Yesman1337 said:

There are really only 2 major things I do not like with the new proposed sub mechanics. That is the replacement of Battery with whatever Dive Capacity is. (All they needed to do to fix the issue of subs permanently under water was just not allow the battery to recharge at 1/4 speed when underwater) It was a cool resource that was your sort of ammunition and fuel that you had to decide upon using. Secondly is the set depths the subs now travel at. I loved the free movement they had underwater and it made sub vs sub duels quite fun I really think there was no need for this. (The periscope depth addition is nice though)

 

Agreed.  The "Dive Capacity" mechanic something I'm not happy about.
The fact that Submarines could not capture areas while submerged was sufficient, in my opinion, to entice them to the surface.  Stay below?  Sure, we'll just use our ships to cap all the areas, and win.
The underwater "dog fights" between Submarines during previous tests were interesting and entertaining.
Battery power was a manageable and rechargeable phenomena, which was better, I feel, even if it could've used small tweaks here & there to offset the "ping" drains.

The loss of the full range of diving depth control is a step backwards, in my opinion.  Having a preset Periscope Depth button was all that was needed.
 

2 hours ago, Yesman1337 said:

1 minor grip that is not the biggest issue really is the fact the the subs surface armament is automatic like a secondary weapon. I am very glad that we are getting useable ones as it opens the door for tons of cool cruiser subs like the British HMS X1 (Had more powerful guns than some DD's or the French Surcouf with it's dual 203mm guns. I just with they were manually controlled. 

Asides from that I think the new changes are actually quite good giving the player more information on the whereabouts of the sub and which direction the attack is coming from. 

Getting Submarine guns that work, is progress.
But, yeah, it would be nice to be able to aim and control them as though they were main-guns.  Because, for a Submarine, they ARE the Main Guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
172
[DRAH]
Members
431 posts
10,762 battles

They had to do somthing to the ability to stay submerged indefinately. In previous tests too many battles took 5 minutes to conclude because the sub and surviving heavy ship could not engage each other so everyone knew who won but had to play it out with 5 min of tedium. This is bad for those players but also bad for everyone else as they were locked out of the ship they were sailing for far longer than was necessary. AKA no incentive to watch a tight win/loss.

I don't care about subs getting deck guns, even if they put in Suffren 203mm or the crazy UK thing with 305mm they will still be secondaries and basically worthless. If I am a T8 getting shot at by the 88mm on a german type 7 I probably take exactly zero damage, and being SAP they can't even start a fire!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,673
[WPORT]
Members
9,902 posts
14,401 battles
6 minutes ago, Ellyh said:

They had to do somthing to the ability to stay submerged indefinately. In previous tests too many battles took 5 minutes to conclude because the sub and surviving heavy ship could not engage each other so everyone knew who won but had to play it out with 5 min of tedium. This is bad for those players but also bad for everyone else as they were locked out of the ship they were sailing for far longer than was necessary. AKA no incentive to watch a tight win/loss.

 

The new Dive Capacity mechanic does not prevent the situation you describe.
Also, the solution to what you describe was simply for the surface ship to capture an area and win on points.  Every surface ship, including slow BB's, was capable of out-running a submerged submarine.
Patience is a virtue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
117
[EQV]
Members
215 posts
1,547 battles
1 hour ago, Ellyh said:

They had to do somthing to the ability to stay submerged indefinately. In previous tests too many battles took 5 minutes to conclude because the sub and surviving heavy ship could not engage each other so everyone knew who won but had to play it out with 5 min of tedium. This is bad for those players but also bad for everyone else as they were locked out of the ship they were sailing for far longer than was necessary. AKA no incentive to watch a tight win/loss.

I don't care about subs getting deck guns, even if they put in Suffren 203mm or the crazy UK thing with 305mm they will still be secondaries and basically worthless. If I am a T8 getting shot at by the 88mm on a german type 7 I probably take exactly zero damage, and being SAP they can't even start a fire!

The diving problem can easily be solved by removing the ability for a sub to recharge its battery when underwater. That was all that was needed as with previous subs had no reason to ever surface to be able to use their armament again. Just force them to surface to recharge and boom done. I don't like artificially limiting player choice as with my change the sub commander has a choice risk surfacing to gain more charge to try and strike back or stay hidden and try to ride it out until they can get a better position but waste valuable time in the process. The same can be said for the dive meter now as well as it also forcibly limits player creativity and choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,301
[SALVO]
Members
8,271 posts
6,142 battles
13 minutes ago, Yesman1337 said:

The diving problem can easily be solved by removing the ability for a sub to recharge its battery when underwater. That was all that was needed as with previous subs had no reason to ever surface to be able to use their armament again. Just force them to surface to recharge and boom done. I don't like artificially limiting player choice as with my change the sub commander has a choice risk surfacing to gain more charge to try and strike back or stay hidden and try to ride it out until they can get a better position but waste valuable time in the process. The same can be said for the dive meter now as well as it also forcibly limits player creativity and choice. 

If you allow for rechargeable batteries you are making them for all purposes either unlimited (if being too lenient) or achieving exactly the same as with a finite pool but with a couple degrees more of complication.

I really don't get all this fear for the limited Diving. Having a limited and finite Diving capacity makes sub gameplay less trivial, which is good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
415
[AC1]
Members
244 posts
375 battles

Imo, the worst change still is dive capacity not being a replenishable resource, and being used more quickly when detected.   That just over punishes mistakes or bad luck, which is already a serious issue in this game across all classes.  They should at the very least remove the increased drain when detected, and add optional consumables to some or all subs to replenish dive capacity.  Call it emergency or backup batteries or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
117
[EQV]
Members
215 posts
1,547 battles
4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

If you allow for rechargeable batteries you are making them for all purposes either unlimited (if being too lenient) or achieving exactly the same as with a finite pool but with a couple degrees more of complication.

I really don't get all this fear for the limited Diving. Having a limited and finite Diving capacity makes sub gameplay less trivial, which is good. 

Not a fear as I stated it is an annoyance and an artificial limitation of gameplay options. Yes technically with battery in my version it could be unlimited but at the cost of having to surface fully in order to recharge it hereby making the sub vulnerable to attack. So in reality not really as if you stay submerged you won't be doing much after the battery has drained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×