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

Submarines test results and further steps

63 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

5,097
[KWF]
Members
6,559 posts
7,157 battles

This part:

Quote

Matchmaking

One of the most discussed submarine-related topics is their influence on matchmaking and the number of ships engaged in artillery combat. One of the frequent suggestions is to increase the size of teams from 12 to, for example, 15.

We don't plan to increase the size of teams in the main type of battle - Random battles:

  • The balance is built around the interaction of a certain number of ships. Changing it would lead to a need to completely reconfigure all ships in the game;
  • All maps and modes suited for 12 ships per team would have to likewise be changed;
  • The more ships in there are in a battle, the less influence on the outcome each of them has. We find the influence of individual ships in the "12 vs 12" format to be optimal for Random battles.

Regardless, we also understand that the matchmaker may need changes with the addition of submarines, and now we're considering additional limitations affecting multiple classes together, for example both submarines and destroyers, or destroyers, submarines and aircraft carriers. E.g. no more than 5 destroyers and submarines combined. At the same time, limits on each class will remain.

Is rubbish. What I read is "we don't want to rebalance ships or maps and create a better environment because that would mean less money on production of premium content that our suc-customers will eat wholesale". They just don't seem to care about the ecosystem one bit when they can put some effort in to make it better.

My condolences to Ranked players.

P.S @Hapa_Fodder hope this isn't your last post, otherwise I will feel pretty guilty :Smile_sad:.

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,129
[FOXY]
Members
2,564 posts
7,685 battles
6 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

This part:

Is rubbish. What I read is "we don't want to rebalance ships or maps and create a better environment because that would mean less money on production of premium content that our suc-customers will eat wholesale". They just don't seem to care about the ecosystem one bit when they can put some effort in to make it better.

My condolences to Ranked players.

P.S @Hapa_Fodder hope this isn't your last post, otherwise I will feel pretty guilty :Smile_sad:.

I actually agree with this 100%.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,313
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
1,310 posts
12,108 battles

I actually get where the Devs are coming from on this in regards to not changing the number of players in a battle. It's relativity, but within a video game setting. The logic is actually sound, even if it isn't what many of us wanted to read. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,978
[ARGSY]
Members
25,092 posts
19,133 battles
9 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

a better environment

By your standards, perhaps.

Get back to me when YOU'VE had charge of a game like this one for nearly six years and you're trying to make critical decisions on future directions and resource allocation.

If they don't produce premium content and make money, the game ends. That's the cold reality.

If everyone went FTP tomorrow, WOWS would die.

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
  • Boring 4
  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,097
[KWF]
Members
6,559 posts
7,157 battles
12 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

By your standards, perhaps.

Get back to me when YOU'VE had charge of a game like this one for nearly six years and you're trying to make critical decisions on future directions and resource allocation.

If they don't produce premium content and make money, the game ends. That's the cold reality.

If everyone went FTP tomorrow, WOWS would die.

Hey of course purely subjective and all that stuff, but WG is trying to implement a brand new class to the game. It's not just a rework like CVs. Believing a brand new class won't change class interaction much is wishful thinking in my opinion, might as well do it now. I haven't had charge of the game for six years, but I have experience of almost everything that happened to it during this time and I can tell you that for the past year and a half there's a downward trend, both in quality and practices.

Also let's consider the scenario stated on devblog, aka no more than 5 DDs and subs combined. Let's add one CV, so that leaves you 6 targets. Let's assume you get 3-4 BBs ( the norm) and 2-3 CAs, both classes also capable of using stealth. In actuality you might have 2-3 ships to actually be spotted, in a map designed around 12v12 surface combat. Already by the introduction of subs that spend quite a bit of time unspotted (arguably more than DDs) you change the balance between classes.

As for premium content, it's capitalism and of course it's fine to produce premium content. But not providing things like new maps for close to two years now, or having constant bugs that aren't addressed asap doesn't really inspire confidence.

Before you or anyone else asks why I haven't left, the game is still fun to some extent, albeit with all that's coming not so sure about the future. 

 

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,097
[KWF]
Members
6,559 posts
7,157 battles
53 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

 

First of all, not a particularly good tone.

Secondly, you can already see how it goes with 5 DD battles + CV. What im getting at is that you remove even more targets which can be spotted without some difficulty, you reduce the number of ships which  have the HP and armor to exchange fire for longer periods of time, you make even more important the role of DDs, you lead to a proliferation of torpedoes which can also be tracking in the case of subs.

Anyway, I know something is  possibly wrong with my thinking,  been playing for some time.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,074
[WPORT]
Members
10,919 posts
15,412 battles
1 hour ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/169

Check out the results from the last round of Submarine testing!

Please leave feedback below!

Mahalo,

-Hapa

Quote

Dive Capacity

Submarines of all tiers will now slowly regain Dive Capacity while surfaced. This will make combat more diverse for the new class. However, full depletion of Dive Capacity will still significantly influence a sub's survivability.

A step in the right direction.  Thank you.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,074
[WPORT]
Members
10,919 posts
15,412 battles
Quote

Depth and detectability

We are planning to keep the choice of several depth levels instead of allowing meter-by-meter adjustments, as it gives all the necessary states for submarine gameplay-wise and does not create unnecessary complications in controls.

We increased the diving rudder's shift speed to make control of submarines more responsive.

We want the gameplay difference between subs and destroyers to be more pronounced, so submarines' detectability at periscope and operational depths will be reduced. Surface ships will be detected by submarines from the same range as from planes. Therefore, reconnaissance will not be the main task for subs.

If a submarine is at operational or extreme depth, its Hydrophone will detect enemy subs at these same depths. Paired with improved torpedo guidance, this will enhance sub vs sub combat.

So, Submarines are going to be out-spotted by DD's?  That's a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,074
[WPORT]
Members
10,919 posts
15,412 battles

The next round of Submarine testing will be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,978
[ARGSY]
Members
25,092 posts
19,133 battles
29 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

targets which can be spotted without some difficulty,

Okay, I get you. You want a prolonged slugfest between ships that can easily see each other and no small, annoying distractions. Guess what, so did every damn blue-water navy in the 20th Century. Guess how often they got their longed-for decisive fleet action? 

ONCE. At Tsushima.

Unless you want to set something up in a training room with friends/clanmates, WOWS is not the game to provide you with that experience.

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
Beta Testers
299 posts
10,136 battles
12 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

 

 

The game has been going down hill for a while.  People can be as excited as they want to be about them, but subs will make gameplay worse.

The blog notes that matchmaking won't be altered from the 12v12 format as that size is optimal, so we'll test in Ranked which has fewer ships.  Oh and in coop, where matches are over in just a few minutes.  So the plan is to tweak this out in two types of battles that won't reveal much and then release subs to random battles.  Sounds like a recipe for success to me.

And for all the people who have long lamented the implementation of Ranked Battles in this game and want a true competitive mode, this tells them all they need to know about how WG views Ranked Battles in WoWs.  It's just random battles with less ships and a garbage ranking system - not truly a competitive mode.  If it was considered to be truly competitive, they wouldn't use it as a test bed.

This has become a BAD game.  Most of the people on these forums have just been playing too long to want to accept that.  If the game gets in real danger of dying, then maybe finally the people in St. Pete's will make some decisions that are centered on improving the game rather than the bank account.

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,079
[CCPLZ]
Volunteer Moderator Coordinator, Supertester, Privateers
1,636 posts
17,234 battles

A reminder folk: keep it civil. Criticize the mechanics all you like, but personal attacks are off the table. 

  • Cool 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,473
[SPTR]
Members
27,681 posts
18,256 battles

testing subs in rank battles in the live server hmm... you increasing steel resources reward to compensate us if we jump in these new type of boats? 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
563
[Y0L0W]
Members
669 posts
21,406 battles

When do we get SSBN’s? I don’t like those red guys. 

Edited by Bortt
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,465
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,935 posts
22,945 battles

@Hapa_FodderI still think using Ranked for this test is a terrible decision.

BRAWL has always been the way to go, and it mystifies me that WG doesn't see that. You created those things for a reason, did you not?

  • Short sprints so you can make changes in between
  • People don't "rank out" of the test and become unable to participate
  • Existing expectation that gameplay will be unbalanced
  • NO expectation that it's going to be competitive
  • NO expectation that teammates will know what they're doing in their ships
  • NO disruption of steel earning

When I heard you say "special season", I figured you'd mean a few weeks with adjustments in between, but 11 weeks solid of praying a brand new class isn't broken (or worthless) af and going to ruin the mode? Especially when you're not giving us anywhere else to learn to play/counterplay them (co-op is not representative of anything)? Bad, bad, bad.

Edited by Edgecase
  • Cool 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
563
[Y0L0W]
Members
669 posts
21,406 battles
5 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

@Hapa_FodderI still think using Ranked for this test is a terrible decision.

BRAWL has always been the way to go, and it mystifies me that WG doesn't see that. You created those things for a reason, did you not?

  • Short sprints so you can make changes in between
  • People don't "rank out" of the test and become unable to participate
  • Existing expectation that gameplay will be unbalanced
  • NO expectation that it's going to be competitive
  • NO expectation that teammates will know what they're doing in their ships
  • NO disruption of steel earning

When I heard you say "special season", I figured you'd mean a few weeks with adjustments in between, but 11 weeks solid of praying a brand new class aren't broke af and going to ruin the mode? Bad, bad, bad.

Kind of agree. Ranked a much more competitive more saltier and more try hard. Maybe at least one brawl on the live server will save a lot of headaches. 

Edited by Bortt
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,007
[WOLFG]
Members
13,256 posts
12,507 battles

As a coop main, I eagerly await our new submerged robot overlords.  I am curious how close to CVs they will be, and how it will change bot targeting (will they chase DDs or  go for subs?)

Sucks for serious ranked players though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,007
[WOLFG]
Members
13,256 posts
12,507 battles
5 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

@Hapa_FodderI still think using Ranked for this test is a terrible decision.

BRAWL has always been the way to go, and it mystifies me that WG doesn't see that. You created those things for a reason, did you not?

  • Short sprints so you can make changes in between
  • People don't "rank out" of the test and become unable to participate
  • Existing expectation that gameplay will be unbalanced
  • NO expectation that it's going to be competitive
  • NO expectation that teammates will know what they're doing in their ships
  • NO disruption of steel earning

When I heard you say "special season", I figured you'd mean a few weeks with adjustments in between, but 11 weeks solid of praying a brand new class isn't broken (or worthless) af and going to ruin the mode? Especially when you're not giving us anywhere else to learn to play/counterplay them (co-op is not representative of anything)? Bad, bad, bad.

That's a hell of an idea.

I would suggest WOWs get you involved the the development of these, but I don't know you well enough to burden you with that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,097
[KWF]
Members
6,559 posts
7,157 battles
8 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

@Hapa_FodderI still think using Ranked for this test is a terrible decision.

BRAWL has always been the way to go, and it mystifies me that WG doesn't see that. You created those things for a reason, did you not?

  • Short sprints so you can make changes in between
  • People don't "rank out" of the test and become unable to participate
  • Existing expectation that gameplay will be unbalanced
  • NO expectation that it's going to be competitive
  • NO expectation that teammates will know what they're doing in their ships
  • NO disruption of steel earning

When I heard you say "special season", I figured you'd mean a few weeks with adjustments in between, but 11 weeks solid of praying a brand new class isn't broken (or worthless) af and going to ruin the mode? Especially when you're not giving us anywhere else to learn to play/counterplay them (co-op is not representative of anything)? Bad, bad, bad.

To add to this, you are also balancing 12v12 interactions based on data received from 7v7 ones.

Edited by warheart1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,368
[O_O]
[O_O]
Members
5,658 posts
24,590 battles

Looks like I'm gonna stick to Random and Ops once 0.10.7 is released. Gonna avoid subs as long as possible and maybe forever...

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
144
[OMH]
Members
142 posts
4,803 battles
2 hours ago, warheart1992 said:

This part:

Is rubbish. What I read is "we don't want to rebalance ships or maps and create a better environment because that would mean less money on production of premium content that our suc-customers will eat wholesale". They just don't seem to care about the ecosystem one bit when they can put some effort in to make it better.

My condolences to Ranked players.

P.S @Hapa_Fodder hope this isn't your last post, otherwise I will feel pretty guilty :Smile_sad:.

Why do players always need to cook up drama, you go develop if you think it's so easy.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,007
[WOLFG]
Members
13,256 posts
12,507 battles

How does one get a hold of these subs?  Is someone going to have to grind a ship to get the XP and unlock them, burn FXP, what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,114
[RLGN]
Members
16,585 posts
28,940 battles
26 minutes ago, Khafni said:

Looks like I'm gonna stick to Random and Ops once 0.10.7 is released. Gonna avoid subs as long as possible and maybe forever...

Who knows what I’ll do.

Dislike Randoms, and when Defeat rolls around I have zero desire for Ops.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×