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

Playing Against Submarines  

227 members have voted

  1. 1. What class do you play most?

  2. 2. How effectively do you feel Destroyers counter Subs?

  3. 3. How effectively do you feel Cruisers counter Subs?

  4. 4. How effectively do you feel Battleships Counter Subs?

  5. 5. What impact do you feel the addition of Subs have had on your enjoyment of Random Battles?

    • Subs have negatively impacted my experience
    • Subs have not impacted my experience
    • Subs have positively impacted my experience
  6. 6. Would you prefer subs to have their own dedicated game mode?

  7. 7. Generally how do you feel about the state of World of Warships?

  8. 8. Generally how do you feel the direction of the game is going?

  9. 9. How do you feel Wargaming has preformed in listening to player feedback?


79 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

115
[AWP]
Members
87 posts
9,542 battles

Starting a little poll, I don't know if it will stay up but hey, here's to trying. I get that they are here to stay, but playing against them is about as fun as having a frontal lobotomy. The "GIT GUD!" elitist can go away. WG likes to talk about their numbers and spreadsheets etc, well lets show them how we feel. Furthermore since I know the dumpsterfire known as Subs are here to stay, I strongly advocate for them to get their own game mode/scenarios. Their ability to "shotgun" inside of your ASB range and their spotting range is disgusting. Their ability to open water hunt you with near impunity is infuriating, and bluntly, they are not generally fun to play against. The proposed changes are not enough as shown by some pretty embarrassing YouTube footage, coupled with the extremely exploitable immunity zones that Subs can exploit is very disturbing. Yes, I use some inflammatory phraseology, but seriously... WarGaming has made all of these grand proclamations of being more transparent, vowing to listen to it's player base and YES they have made some strides in transparency. 

 

What I have seen and perceived ZERO movement on is listening to their player base. Locked threads about AA, the CC Disaster, the NDA's on test ships and closed testing of ships in development come to mind. Now we have T11 (Superships), still broken AA with no real CV counterplay and now Subs with the near exact problem of laughable counterplay, removal of achievement rewards, economy rework, commander reeeeee-work, and perceived tone deafness. That is before we talk about Super CVs!?!?! I don't intend for this to digress into a slogfest and am genuinely interested in legitimate feedback from the player base.   

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
308
[WOSV]
Members
663 posts
5,240 battles

WG's ability to work based on player feedback has been... rather terrible. (I'll attempt to remain diplomatic) Whether its Superships, Subs, the San Diego, you name it. Based on my experiences here, there has been far too much of them trying to correct us rather than actually understanding/relaying our observations and wishes. To me personally, their handling of San Diego has been especially bad. Just take a peek at some of LWM's early threads discussing the ship. You'll see what I mean.

I honestly don't have enough experience vs Subs to definitively say whether they've really impacted me or my experience in the game. I've only had a handful of games vs them that I recall. But their design is bad, and it's not ready for the live servers at all. Way too many exploits of their mechanics and their supposed counterplay really doesn't factor at all. Kind of like AA.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
776
[KILL]
Members
1,333 posts
14,224 battles

Didn't WeeGee recently hire a bunch of new mods and community guys to "listen" to the player base more?   

Think that lasted all of one and a quarter weeks.

Edited by WES_HoundDog
  • Cool 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,445
[VIGIL]
Members
1,296 posts

It’s stinks that lately so many of their big ideas are simply not fun. Asian cruisers? Yikes. Playing against subs? Nope. Double CV match? Root canal.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. 
 

WG needs at least one employee tasked with asking, “Yeah, but will people not on our payroll find it fun?”

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38,285
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,142 posts
25,465 battles
4 hours ago, WES_HoundDog said:

Didn't WeeGee recently hire a bunch of new mods and community guys to "listen" to the player base more?   

Oh they listen more, they just seem to have issues with the 'acting on it' part.

  • Cool 6
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,893
[NYAAR]
[NYAAR]
Members
4,308 posts
19,429 battles

OP - Your poll is missing those that have no set 'favorite' that they play, the 'Jack of all Trades' if you will.

 

 

6 hours ago, magnus392 said:

Locked threads about AA, the CC Disaster, the NDA's on test ships and closed testing of ships in development come to mind. Now we have T11 (Superships), still broken AA with no real CV counterplay and now Subs with the near exact problem of laughable counterplay, removal of achievement rewards, economy rework, commander reeeeee-work, and perceived tone deafness. That is before we talk about Super CVs!?!?! I don't intend for this to digress into a slogfest and am genuinely interested in legitimate feedback from the player base.   

 

I have followed alot of those locked threads until they were locked.

I had no issues with the points they were making, but alot of those threads did digress into the slogfest you hope this discussion doesn't fall into. Because they had veered from the topic, yes, those threads were locked. But there had been a few warnings from the Mods and several comments were also removed before it was locked.

Even in a post about May 1st being Labor Day for some in the rest of the world, someone got very 'political' about it. That persons comments have vanished, but its just an example of how quickly some of these threads can go off the rails.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,546
[ARR0W]
Members
5,702 posts
31,167 battles
3 hours ago, Lert said:

Oh they listen more, they just seem to have issues with the 'acting on it' part.

 Time will tell if this has any effect or if its just a lot of spurious engagement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
295
[DMGS]
Members
655 posts
8,830 battles
4 hours ago, Dudefella said:

It’s stinks that lately so many of their big ideas are simply not fun. Asian cruisers? Yikes. Playing against subs? Nope. Double CV match? Root canal.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. 
 

WG needs at least one employee tasked with asking, “Yeah, but will people not on our payroll find it fun?”

What's wrong the PA cruisers? Personally I enjoy having cruisers where torpedoes can actually reach out and do massive damage. Especially in PVE these things score way more hits for me than other cruisers.

The only annoyance are the sub-orbital flight arcs of their shells to me. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,050
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
15,316 posts
21,968 battles

I went with BB main but really I play everything. 

Super excited that Subs are finally coming to the main game. Cant wait!

Feels like we are getting close WG as moved the stats around a lot over the testing and I think we have some nice channels (range of traits) to move around in to provide a decent amount of variety for different sub lines. 

paradat  GIF

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wiki Editor
868 posts
5,481 battles

Thanks for the survey, but poorly executed. Surveys should be specific and unbiased. You have been successful in the unbiased part, but the survey is not 100% clear. As a note for future reference, please always specify your points. "the direction the game is going" is not specific, and is therefore categorically irrelevant of subs, thus the question is not about subs. This leaves the survey-taker making assumptions about the survey. I'm going to guess you are against the current iteration of subs, and don't like "the direction the game is going" simply by the way you've arranged the questions and the way they're worded. You would be in support of subs being excluded from Random Battles. "Barely" has a connotation in the English language of meaning something is useless, in a negative way. I would suggest changing that word to "poorly" for a less specific characterization. Otherwise it sounds like ships are do, don't, or sorta counter subs. To make it more of a neutral question, instead of asking whether subs should have their own game mode, ask whether subs should: (a) be allowed in all battle types; (b) be allowed in all battle types except ranked; etc. Also, not to be a jerk, but spelling mistakes take away from the perceived quality and effort put into surveys that are supposed to be beneficial. You have misspelled "performed" and thus it appears that not a lot of effort was put into making this survey, which detracts from its value. I understand that making surveys is kinda time-consuming, and thank you nonetheless for posting it. Please, consider making the revisions I have suggested. 

  • Boring 1
  • Meh 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
196
Members
95 posts
1,745 battles
3 minutes ago, Grand_Admiral_Murrel said:

Thanks for the survey, but poorly executed. Surveys should be specific and unbiased. You have been successful in the unbiased part, but the survey is not 100% clear. As a note for future reference, please always specify your points. "the direction the game is going" is not specific, and is therefore categorically irrelevant of subs, thus the question is not about subs. This leaves the survey-taker making assumptions about the survey. I'm going to guess you are against the current iteration of subs, and don't like "the direction the game is going" simply by the way you've arranged the questions and the way they're worded. You would be in support of subs being excluded from Random Battles. "Barely" has a connotation in the English language of meaning something is useless, in a negative way. I would suggest changing that word to "poorly" for a less specific characterization. Otherwise it sounds like ships are do, don't, or sorta counter subs. To make it more of a neutral question, instead of asking whether subs should have their own game mode, ask whether subs should: (a) be allowed in all battle types; (b) be allowed in all battle types except ranked; etc. Also, not to be a jerk, but spelling mistakes take away from the perceived quality and effort put into surveys that are supposed to be beneficial. You have misspelled "performed" and thus it appears that not a lot of effort was put into making this survey, which detracts from its value. I understand that making surveys is kinda time-consuming, and thank you nonetheless for posting it. Please, consider making the revisions I have suggested. 

Ok, is this specific enough????.. SUBS SHOULD NOT BE IN GAME PERIOD!!!!! 

  • Cool 15
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,014
Members
1,764 posts
7,187 battles
1 minute ago, Burn_Unit said:

Ok, is this specific enough????.. SUBS SHOULD NOT BE IN GAME PERIOD!!!!! 

What they said ^^^^

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
684
[PVE]
Members
1,828 posts
49,918 battles
5 minutes ago, Burn_Unit said:

Ok, is this specific enough????.. SUBS SHOULD NOT BE IN GAME PERIOD!!!!! 

THIS

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wiki Editor
868 posts
5,481 battles
12 hours ago, magnus392 said:

Starting a little poll, I don't know if it will stay up but hey, here's to trying. I get that they are here to stay, but playing against them is about as fun as having a frontal lobotomy. The "GIT GUD!" elitist can go away. WG likes to talk about their numbers and spreadsheets etc, well lets show them how we feel. Furthermore since I know the dumpsterfire known as Subs are here to stay, I strongly advocate for them to get their own game mode/scenarios. Their ability to "shotgun" inside of your ASB range and their spotting range is disgusting. Their ability to open water hunt you with near impunity is infuriating, and bluntly, they are not generally fun to play against. The proposed changes are not enough as shown by some pretty embarrassing YouTube footage, coupled with the extremely exploitable immunity zones that Subs can exploit is very disturbing. Yes, I use some inflammatory phraseology, but seriously... WarGaming has made all of these grand proclamations of being more transparent, vowing to listen to it's player base and YES they have made some strides in transparency. 

 

What I have seen and perceived ZERO movement on is listening to their player base. Locked threads about AA, the CC Disaster, the NDA's on test ships and closed testing of ships in development come to mind. Now we have T11 (Superships), still broken AA with no real CV counterplay and now Subs with the near exact problem of laughable counterplay, removal of achievement rewards, economy rework, commander reeeeee-work, and perceived tone deafness. That is before we talk about Super CVs!?!?! I don't intend for this to digress into a slogfest and am genuinely interested in legitimate feedback from the player base.   

In supplement to my previous post, I had not read your actual post prior to taking the survey and posting my previous analysis. After having read your post, I would like to follow up with: 

Please refrain from dividing players into stereotypes, such as "the "GIT GUD" elitist" as an example. This discourages certain players from either answering your poll (thus skewing the results) or from answering it honestly because they have been called them out (thus also skewing the results). It is not constructive nor does it assist in providing an unbiased survey. 

Yes, WG listens to feedback - see the newly announced nerfs to survivability in the Devblog. These things take time, so please be patient. 

Again, I appreciate the sentiment of posting this survey, but maybe try to avoid posting an opinion right away. Posting your opinion is totally fine. 

  • Boring 1
  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
153
[MAR_U]
Members
163 posts
8,094 battles
22 minutes ago, Grand_Admiral_Murrel said:

Thanks for the survey, but poorly executed. Surveys should be specific and unbiased. You have been successful in the unbiased part, but the survey is not 100% clear. As a note for future reference, please always specify your points. "the direction the game is going" is not specific, and is therefore categorically irrelevant of subs, thus the question is not about subs. This leaves the survey-taker making assumptions about the survey. I'm going to guess you are against the current iteration of subs, and don't like "the direction the game is going" simply by the way you've arranged the questions and the way they're worded. You would be in support of subs being excluded from Random Battles. "Barely" has a connotation in the English language of meaning something is useless, in a negative way. I would suggest changing that word to "poorly" for a less specific characterization. Otherwise it sounds like ships are do, don't, or sorta counter subs. To make it more of a neutral question, instead of asking whether subs should have their own game mode, ask whether subs should: (a) be allowed in all battle types; (b) be allowed in all battle types except ranked; etc. Also, not to be a jerk, but spelling mistakes take away from the perceived quality and effort put into surveys that are supposed to be beneficial. You have misspelled "performed" and thus it appears that not a lot of effort was put into making this survey, which detracts from its value. I understand that making surveys is kinda time-consuming, and thank you nonetheless for posting it. Please, consider making the revisions I have suggested. 

Eh... you missed a key word at the start of that. That poll question was "Generally how do you feel about the direction the game is going".

This might come off as "sassy" or argumentative but I genuinely don't mean it that way: I don't know how the above question is interpreted to be anything other than a question about the overall direction rather than something specific. There were several sub specific questions earlier in the poll. Yes, this question covered subs but it also encompassed super ships, the proposed economy changes, ranked changes, balance changes, etc. I think it's safe to say people responding to the question didn't have trouble being confused by the question since the results reflect a less aggressive negative trend than the sub specific questions.

It looks like you are identifying a problem with the poll that isn't really there. To me at least... 

Edited by Stoobz
  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wiki Editor
868 posts
5,481 battles
8 minutes ago, Burn_Unit said:

Ok, is this specific enough????.. SUBS SHOULD NOT BE IN GAME PERIOD!!!!! 

 

6 minutes ago, USMC2145 said:

What they said ^^^^

 

2 minutes ago, cecill611 said:

THIS

You misunderstood my post. I was asking the OP to make their questions in an unbiased survey more specific. My example was specifying what they meant by "the direction the game is going." I'm fully aware the OP dislikes subs in their current iteration, but is looking for constructive feedback on how they could be better. I was offering my suggestions on how to better facilitate that. 

One of the survey questions asks whether subs should be in their own game mode. I answered it, but thank you (all three) for checking to ensure I had. 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wiki Editor
868 posts
5,481 battles
1 minute ago, Stoobz said:

Eh... you missed a key word at the start of that. That poll question was "Generally how do you feel about the direction the game is going".

Indeed I did. Good catch. 

2 minutes ago, Stoobz said:

This might come off as "sassy" or argumentative but I genuinely don't mean it that way: I don't know how the above question is interpreted to be anything other than a question about the overall direction rather than something specific. There were several sub specific questions earlier in the poll. Yes, this question covered subs but it also encompassed super ships, the proposed economy changes, ranked changes, balance changes, etc.

No worries, mate! I understand completely, things don't translate well over the internet. In response, I understand that he's asking about things other than subs... but the title is "Submarines Survey" so I was expecting the questions to be about submarines. If the OP had asked "How do you feel about the direction the game is going with the introduction of submarines" I would have had nothing to comment about. I'm not trying to find bones to pick, I'm merely pointing out things that I used to get wrong. Call it learning from failure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
761
[P-V-E]
Members
1,825 posts
14 minutes ago, Grand_Admiral_Murrel said:

Thanks for the survey, but poorly executed. Surveys should be specific and unbiased. You have been successful in the unbiased part, but the survey is not 100% clear. As a note for future reference, please always specify your points. "the direction the game is going" is not specific, and is therefore categorically irrelevant of subs, thus the question is not about subs. This leaves the survey-taker making assumptions about the survey. I'm going to guess you are against the current iteration of subs, and don't like "the direction the game is going" simply by the way you've arranged the questions and the way they're worded. You would be in support of subs being excluded from Random Battles. "Barely" has a connotation in the English language of meaning something is useless, in a negative way. I would suggest changing that word to "poorly" for a less specific characterization. Otherwise it sounds like ships are do, don't, or sorta counter subs. To make it more of a neutral question, instead of asking whether subs should have their own game mode, ask whether subs should: (a) be allowed in all battle types; (b) be allowed in all battle types except ranked; etc. Also, not to be a jerk, but spelling mistakes take away from the perceived quality and effort put into surveys that are supposed to be beneficial. You have misspelled "performed" and thus it appears that not a lot of effort was put into making this survey, which detracts from its value. I understand that making surveys is kinda time-consuming, and thank you nonetheless for posting it. Please, consider making the revisions I have suggested. 

I would say there is an inherent bias (submarines survey thread title), which will attract people more of a specific bias to respond.

 

as opposed to say a general survey with a diverse range of questions and the odd sub question obfuscated within a mass of unrelated diverse questions to vote on, thus you are not pitching the survey to one bias or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wiki Editor
868 posts
5,481 battles
Just now, b101uk said:

I would say there is an inherent bias (submarines survey thread title), which will attract people more of a specific bias to respond.

 

as opposed to say a general survey with a diverse range of questions and the odd sub question obfuscated within a mass of unrelated diverse questions to vote on, thus you are not pitching the survey to one bias or another.

I suppose that's true. Those who either like or dislike them are more likely to respond than players who are dispassionate about them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,435 posts

The addition of submarines is fantastic.  I cannot wait to master the free submarines provided to me by the glorious World of Warships.  The negative opinions posted here do not reflect the vast majority of true WOWs players and are likely jealous employees from competing online games.   

 

My response to those who do not like submarines....

 

shut up meg.jpg

Edited by Toxic_Potato
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
153
[MAR_U]
Members
163 posts
8,094 battles
1 hour ago, Toxic_Potato said:

The addition of submarines is fantastic.  I cannot wait to master the free submarines provided to me by the glorious World of Warships.  The negative opinions posted here do not reflect the vast majority of true WOWs players and are likely jealous employees from competing online games.   

 

My response to those who do not like submarines....

 

shut up meg.jpg

The mostly negative opinions voiced here seem to also be reflected on reddit, discords, youtube, in game chat, etc. Pretty much anywhere WOWS is discussed. It's basically impossible to find anywhere where positive views on subs outnumber the negative views.

There seems to be a metric *$%@ load to support the broader player base disliking subs, and absolutely nothing out there to support that the negative views aren't reflective of "the vast majority of true WOWS players".

If you like subs that's fine. Different strokes for different folks. If you can actually point to... well anything... that supports your view that the majority of the player base likes subs I'd be amazed. There's a mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise and nothing other than unsubstantiated claims by wargaming on the other side. Wargaming makes claims similar to this frequently on a range of topics and we can never find anything anywhere to suggest it's accurate. It makes it hard to believe... A company trying to paint a rosy picture of their latest offering should be taken with a grain of salt.

If you're going to make a laughable claim like the vast majority of "true WOWS players" liking subs, then back it up with something... or "shut up meg".

Edited by Stoobz
  • Cool 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,050
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
15,316 posts
21,968 battles
23 minutes ago, Stoobz said:

The mostly negative opinions voiced here seem to also be reflected on reddit, discords, youtube, in game chat, etc. Pretty much anywhere WOWS is discussed. It's basically impossible to find anywhere where positive views on subs outnumber the negative views.

There seems to be a metric *$%@ load to support the broader player base disliking subs, and absolutely nothing out there to support that the negative views aren't reflective of "the vast majority of true WOWS players".

If you like subs that's fine. Different strokes for different folks. If you can actually point to... well anything... that supports your view that the majority of the player base likes subs I'd be amazed. There's a mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise and nothing other than unsubstantiated claims by wargaming on the other side. Wargaming makes claims similar to this frequently on a range of topics and we can never find anything anywhere to suggest it's accurate. It makes it hard to believe... A company trying to paint a rosy picture of their latest offering should be taken with a grain of salt.

If you're going to make a laughable claim like the vast majority of "true WOWS players" liking subs, then back it up with something... or "shut up meg".

Same can be said of CV's. The thing is WG does not need most of the players to like CV's to make the class viable they just need enough of the players to like them.

Same for Subs.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,435 posts

I just sunk a battleship with a submarine!!!!   Victory my brothers and sisters!    

Submariner gamers have been too long denied the pleasure of traveling under the seas at in excess of 35 knots!   Now the great Gandoff of wargames none other than World of Warships has shown the world the light and introduced submarines to its previous intensely boring World of Warships.   

We dreamed of the day when a sonar ping would guide our tools of destruction to their intended target.  That day has arrived.   Thankfully World of Submarines and Aircraft Carriers has given us the power of a nuclear powered submarine of the 2020's packaged to look like a World War II Uboat!   Acoustically guided torpedoes hunt down the evil warships which attempt to run away but are too slow....

Join me as we hunt down the slow and timid.  Become a hunter and join the illustrious sub surface warriors!!!  

Ignore the attempts to influence you from facebook, Read it and even this forum.   These are mostly paid posters who preach hate and scorn on those of us who have seen the light and want to hide from it deep under the sea.  Those who are not paid wish to protect their hegemony of undeserving success and not share with those under water served.  They wish to crush the extreme success of the sub surface warrior.  

WE WILL NOT LET THEM!!!!    TO THE BOATS AND TORP, TORP and TORP again!!!!

 

 

sub cartoon.jpg

Edited by Toxic_Potato
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
153
[MAR_U]
Members
163 posts
8,094 battles
10 minutes ago, paradat said:

Same can be said of CV's. The thing is WG does not need most of the players to like CV's to make the class viable they just need enough of the players to like them.

Same for Subs.

Cheers.

Yeah, fair enough. But CVs are established in the game. Subs are not established yet so it's understandable players want to voice their concerns before they do become established.

We are probably going to get subs as a permanent class, and it's probably going to be in a state most players dislike. As you say, that probably doesn't bother WG much at all.

My reply was in regards to him claiming the majority of the player base doesn't have a negative view towards subs. It seems abundantly clear the opposite is true, so he should back it up if he's going to claim that.

Edit: after his latest post it seems I was probably replying to sarcasm that flew over my head. lol

Edited by Stoobz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,050
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
15,316 posts
21,968 battles
25 minutes ago, Stoobz said:

Yeah, fair enough. But CVs are established in the game. Subs are not established yet so it's understandable players want to voice their concerns before they do become established.

We are probably going to get subs as a permanent class, and it's probably going to be in a state most players dislike. As you say, that probably doesn't bother WG much at all.

My reply was in regards to him claiming the majority of the players base doesn't have a negative view towards subs. It seems abundantly clear the opposite is true, so he should back it up if he's going to claim that.

Totally agree. 

Subs are not established yet. 

Yes we are very likely going to get them. WG has always been bold in the direction they take their games... even trollish at times lol, one of the reasons I find them to be so refreshing. 

Also agree Subs are not likely to ever be super popular. Not even sure they will be 50/50 (which is the goal for all ship types) but they might get there. Will see. Certainly not there now. 

With all that said and from a selfish position I can not wait. I enjoy playing them and I enjoy smacking them around. For someone like myself this sort of disruption to the game is welcomed and provides a nice dose of variety. More so than CV's did since we have always had them they just had a period where so few players used them, a large group of players got used to them not being in game much if at all so for them CV's were also hugely disruptive and for me also most welcome. 

Cheers

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×