Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
derf_20

players say one more time...

93 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

257
[PIXEL]
Members
356 posts
30,124 battles

 

 

 

just fuggin' git rid of subs

 

if you can't do that (which would be the right thing to do) put them in their own game mode

  • Cool 9
  • Thanks 24
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
61
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
38 posts
4,961 battles

I do not want subs removed or placed in their own game mode. I think they are good where they are, though perhaps increasing matches from 12v12 to 14/15 each side would be nice.

  • Cool 6
  • Thanks 2
  • Meh 26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,511
[ARP]
Members
2,211 posts
20,558 battles

It's not gonna happen. They spent too much time and money on them that even though they knew they wouldn't be able to fit into the fame well, they released them as best they could. Subs are here to stay as much as many would like them to go

  • Cool 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
369 posts
12,547 battles

How can submarines have their own game mode?  A sub player needs targets i.e. surface ships.  Why would a player want to play their surface ship in a submarine game mode?  This same line of questions apply to CVs.

I just don't think separate games modes are possible.  The best way to get rid of subs is to sink them early and often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,563
[EQRN]
Members
2,440 posts
24,320 battles

It’s a done deal, WG has never not implemented something they had spent resources on.  

Well, there was that one time where they introduced a new feature where players could reset a tech tree line for rewards and all the CCs and player base forced WG to back down and stop the project... oh wait, they just renamed it Research Bureau :fish_palm:

  • Haha 4
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,341
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
1,733 posts
6,521 battles
32 minutes ago, novalesk said:

I do not want subs removed or placed in their own game mode. I think they are good where they are, though perhaps increasing matches from 12v12 to 14/15 each side would be nice.

The servers wouldn't be able to handle it, not likely going to happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,435
[SALVO]
Members
14,619 posts
9,334 battles

The list of fixes is kinda simple at this point, if you forget about the ping/homing mechanic...

* Limit underwater speeds to around 30 knots tops 

* Introduce a delay to reversing vertical displacement 

* No team spotting for Subs when submerged 

Those are the only mechanics changes needed, the rest is balance... 

And homing torps, but at this point that's kinda unsolvable. 

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
193
[WOLF6]
Members
293 posts
12,013 battles
52 minutes ago, novalesk said:

I do not want subs removed or placed in their own game mode. I think they are good where they are, though perhaps increasing matches from 12v12 to 14/15 each side would be nice.

I wouldn't mind seeing this either, but I also know it won't happen. The economy of this game is built around 12 v 12. If it's suddenly 15 v 15, credit earnings, exp earnings and so on would increase dramatically and so they'd have to figure out how to balance out all of that and we know what kind of a fun headache that could lead to for us players...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,297
[BWC]
Beta Testers
3,185 posts
9,577 battles
1 hour ago, derf_20 said:

 

 

 

just fuggin' git rid of subs

 

if you can't do that (which would be the right thing to do) put them in their own game mode

image.png.47655a565b2e5883caf0454c7d6119c0.png

Edited by Jakob_Knight
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
804
[-AGW-]
Members
456 posts
43,050 battles
25 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

The list of fixes is kinda simple at this point, if you forget about the ping/homing mechanic...

* Limit underwater speeds to around 30 knots tops 

* Introduce a delay to reversing vertical displacement 

* No team spotting for Subs when submerged 

Those are the only mechanics changes needed, the rest is balance... 

And homing torps, but at this point that's kinda unsolvable. 

1) You are omitting that the damage saturation has to go.

Tell me of one WW2 or later sub that could submerge after taking many hits from 100mm+ guns.

2) or the fact that these subs can ping from 10+km and launch said torpedoes from futher than most ships can use air strikes at!

Oh yeah, any semblance of realism is dead. 

They were fun at halloween as gimmicks - they should have stayed there.

  • Thanks 7
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,000
[WOLFG]
Members
1,452 posts

Please just get rid of the homing torps.  There is NOTHING else in the game that give you a 100% chance of hitting something.  I can live with the rest.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
61
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
38 posts
4,961 battles

Bear in mind, I like to play Dd's mostly so at least for me, Subs are pretty much not a problem for me unless I do something stupid around them. It happens... I have played subs a bit they are/can be fun as well, but I am not very good at them so frequently get my teeth kicked in when I try to pilot them. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
705
[VORTX]
Members
831 posts
11,623 battles

WG doesn’t care.

The endless complaints about subs and Cvs will fall on deaf ears as long as there is money to be made. 
 

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 5
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
257
[PIXEL]
Members
356 posts
30,124 battles
Just now, Pirate_Named_Sue said:

WG doesn’t care.

The endless complaints about subs and Cvs will fall on deaf ears as long as there is money to be made. 
 

 

looking at it the other direction, will more people quit over subs being in the game 

or by subs not being in the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
257
[PIXEL]
Members
356 posts
30,124 battles
1 hour ago, Justin_Simpleton said:

How can submarines have their own game mode?  A sub player needs targets i.e. surface ships.  Why would a player want to play their surface ship in a submarine game mode?  This same line of questions apply to CVs.

I just don't think separate games modes are possible.  The best way to get rid of subs is to sink them early and often.

 

of course they need surface targets...

more like limiting them to operations like convoy, where they have been discussed for ages,

or designing new operations

 

and as others have mentioned the ping & homing mechanic is an {intersting} idea,

but it seems wholly wrong for this game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
575
[SUB4]
Members
1,108 posts
10,812 battles

A wolfpack mode would be cool.

Subs routinely stalked supply convoys during WWII.

They also stalked fleet movements.

I personally have no issues with subs as I don't play them that often but I would definitely play in a wolfpack mode.

Edited by MN1234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,419
[RLGN]
Members
18,669 posts
33,718 battles
12 minutes ago, Pirate_Named_Sue said:

WG doesn’t care.

The endless complaints about subs and Cvs will fall on deaf ears as long as there is money to be made.

As long as they make an I-400 class I can put my Iona or Gunzou on, they can have my money.

I’ll never use it in Randoms, but at least I’ll finally have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,435
[SALVO]
Members
14,619 posts
9,334 battles
35 minutes ago, Musket22 said:

1) You are omitting that the damage saturation has to go.

I'm chalking that on the Balance tab. Subs have run the full gamut of options, they used to be very brittle in previous iterations tho they have always had some weird saturation stuff going on. Imo it is a minor thing to set the proper endurance value... currently it may have a very noticeable effect, but the fix is trivial so I don't consider it too much of a problem. Eventually the values should be balanced... at least I hope so.

41 minutes ago, Musket22 said:

2) or the fact that these subs can ping from 10+km and launch said torpedoes from futher than most ships can use air strikes at!

The ping mechanic is an issue in itself... on the bright side, homing torps are very unreliable so a Sub pinging you from 10+ km is likely as ineffective as a BB sniping you from 25+ km range... not really dangerous if you know what to do.

43 minutes ago, Musket22 said:

Oh yeah, any semblance of realism is dead. 

I'll settle for it working within the game. With the proposed changes Submarines would have at least some historical flavor... honestly it is the Ping thing that spoils the recipe.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,014
Members
1,767 posts
7,187 battles
2 hours ago, derf_20 said:

 

 

 

just fuggin' git rid of subs

 

if you can't do that (which would be the right thing to do) put them in their own game mode

A better idea would be to limit the amount of subs and CV in a match. Say only one CV and one sub per side. The main issue I here the most is when they have double CV and more than one sub per side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,910
[NYAAR]
[NYAAR]
Members
4,341 posts
19,460 battles
1 hour ago, Musket22 said:

Oh yeah, any semblance of realism is dead. 


Speed boost, Heals, DDs with reloadable torpedo launchers, CVs with 'unlimited' planes, Radar that goes trough islands.

Realism never truly existed in this arcade game.
 

1 hour ago, Captain_Rawhide said:

Please just get rid of the homing torps.  There is NOTHING else in the game that give you a 100% chance of hitting something.  I can live with the rest.  

I think quite a few people will take an issue with '100% chance of hitting something'.

Just like most weapons, no hit is guaranteed. 

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,910
[NYAAR]
[NYAAR]
Members
4,341 posts
19,460 battles
2 minutes ago, Repulse__ive said:

I argue for a "Classic" battle mode, Identical to Random but no CVs or subs. They could even do it as a temporary thing, to get a better grasp on the players mindset. Those who want to play with subs and CVs can play random and those who do not can play the Classic mode. WoWS would have a better idea of the % of players who detest subs and CVs. IMO, they won't do that because Random would become a wasteland. Of course I don't know that and I could be completely wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, lol.

You want a 'Classic' WoWS mode?

CVs were there since the beginning. So yes, bring us a 'Classic' WoWs mode with the RTS CVs and the original AA specs for ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,910
[NYAAR]
[NYAAR]
Members
4,341 posts
19,460 battles
1 minute ago, Repulse__ive said:

I offer "Classic" as a name for the battle mode only. WoWS can call it anything they like as long as it excludes CVs or subs. Maybe we can have Co-op, Random, Surface, Ranked, etc. The name is not important. The content is.

very well

we'll also need a mode free of DDs, one free of HE spam, etc.

Once you start eliminating things it becomes a slippery slope.

They already limit the times for Ranked, Convoy, and Brawls because of 'server activity'. Do you really see WG adding additional modes which will reduce that activity further?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,610
[ARR0W]
Members
5,758 posts
31,304 battles

Ive said repeatedly that the only way to put subs into a game with the constraints of a WoWS game is to give them multiples (not buffs) of some of their performance characteristics. This is what happened, and it proves they dont belong. Ridiculous speed, exceptional damage resistance, laughable weapons employment. 

But we are already in the center of Sunk Costville.

Edited by Fast_Battleship_Iowa
Removed suggestive portion of submission.
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×