Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Willy55_1955

Not happy with subs

74 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

565
[ONAVY]
[ONAVY]
Members
927 posts
19,665 battles

I'll need to stick to ranked. Each Random game has a CV and 2 or 3 subs. The number of DDs has been reduced because of the subs. BBs are staying away from the center zones. I was pinged just over a minute into the game in a BB. I don't know which way to look anymore. I had a sub torp me from 2 km away and no proxy spotting. He go 5 torps into me but he was 1 km away then and I was able to drop bombs right next to me and somehow killed him. On real ships they Air Warefare Officers, Surface Warfare Officers, and SubSurface Warefare Officers. We have to handle all three. This is gonna completely change the face of the game and I am not sure it for the good.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,225
[SALVO]
Members
16,357 posts
10,152 battles

Darwinism applied to WoWS, maybe it is bad times to be a BB but it is a great time to be a concealment based DD. 

  • Cool 3
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,833
[TDRB]
Members
7,340 posts
16,186 battles

There is a large number of players unhappy with subs. Sadly, subs are here to stay.

 

  • Cool 5
  • Sad 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,223
[-AGW-]
Members
749 posts
47,075 battles
9 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

There is a large number of players unhappy with subs.

Sadly, subs are here to stay.

1. Yes there are. Too bad the sub mafia says we are in a minority. 

To which I say, in reality subs in random or co-op matches are the REAL minority dictating to surface ship players.

2. Yes they are here to stay, which dosn't mean we have to like HOW they are represented in the game.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,323
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,895 posts
8,973 battles
1 hour ago, Willy55_1955 said:

Each Random game has a CV and 2 or 3 subs. 

Can you provide replays to back this up? I was playing randoms last night, and the only time I saw a CV was when I was playing one. No subs at all. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,323
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,895 posts
8,973 battles
44 minutes ago, Musket22 said:

1. Yes there are. Too bad the sub mafia says we are in a minority. 

To which I say, in reality subs in random or co-op matches are the REAL minority dictating to surface ship players.

Ah, see no-one has ever stated that one side or the other are in the minority. What we stat is that you don't have the data to make a claim one way or the other. Forum posts and polls aren't data, and naturally skew towards the negative. 

It's funny that people seem to be able to claim that the majority of the players hate subs/cvs, but also complain about how prevalent they are in matches which would indicate something different. 

  • Thanks 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,833
[TDRB]
Members
7,340 posts
16,186 battles
41 minutes ago, HyperFish said:

Ah, see no-one has ever stated that one side or the other are in the minority. What we stat is that you don't have the data to make a claim one way or the other. Forum posts and polls aren't data, and naturally skew towards the negative. 

It's funny that people seem to be able to claim that the majority of the players hate subs/cvs, but also complain about how prevalent they are in matches which would indicate something different. 

WG finding it necessary to include players with an apathetical view of subs to gain a majority in their poll, not a forum poll, indicates it is certainly not a majority who like subs.

I hear from the "pro-sub" side that 8% are playing subs. They quoted the same percentage for CVs. The numbers I saw showed CVs were at 3.1% on the NA server. The article was about ship class population, not a rant against CVs.

I imagine the population of the subs will settle to about the same as CVs.

While there is a large number, I don't think there is a majority that dislike/hates subs. I think the overwhelming majority don't care.

An "I can take it or leave it" attitude towards a product you spent a lot of time & money developing has to be very disappointing. 

 

Edited by kgh52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,323
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,895 posts
8,973 battles
5 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

WG finding it necessary to include players with an apathetical view of subs to gain a majority in their poll, not a forum poll, indicates it is certainly not a majority who like subs.

I think as long as the supporters and the apathetical numbers outweigh the negative numbers WG will still see it as an overall positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,833
[TDRB]
Members
7,340 posts
16,186 battles
3 minutes ago, HyperFish said:

I think as long as the supporters and the apathetical numbers outweigh the negative numbers WG will still see it as an overall positive.

Yes, that is how WG sees it. They must make the best out of a poor product.

In 1958 Ford introduced the Edsel. The Edsel was so poorly received it disappeared after 3 years. In 1964 Ford introduced the Mustang. It is still in production.

While WG can't drop CVs or subs, they are very close to the Edsel in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,913
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
16,276 posts
23,561 battles
21 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

I hear from the "pro-sub" side that 8% are playing subs. They quoted the same percentage for CVs. The numbers I saw showed CVs were at 3.1% on the NA server. The article was about ship class population, not a rant against CVs.

Not sure of the numbers I remember 8% but I do know they were aiming for something just above CV's. Looks like for now they have cleared that pretty easily. Lots of subs in game since they went live, and I expect that this will increase for a few more patches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,342
[NG-NL]
Members
7,135 posts
12,554 battles

No kidding. I'm pretty angry at getting shotgunned by one sub, and then following battle a sub controlled his 1v1 vs. me outside where my Alaska's DC could reach. Very ridiculously 1-sided.

Bare minimum, increase ability to detect subs via hydro and radar to 4 and 8km. I'm angry.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,913
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
16,276 posts
23,561 battles
1 minute ago, Reymu said:

No kidding. I'm pretty angry at getting shotgunned by one sub, and then following battle a sub controlled his 1v1 vs. me outside where my Alaska's DC could reach. Very ridiculously 1-sided.

Bare minimum, increase ability to detect subs via hydro and radar to 4 and 8km. I'm angry enough to consider leaving any matches w/ subs in current mood ><

Reymu there are no cookies in this thread.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,569
[CAAT]
Members
6,191 posts
7,996 battles
2 hours ago, kgh52 said:

There is a large number of players unhappy with subs. Sadly, subs are here to stay.

This. The best we can hope for are the necessary changes to make subs work BETTER in this game. Changes, such as:

  • A blanket torpedo range switch for all tech tree subs combats both homing torpedo double-ping spam at long range AND shotgunning (because you wouldn't HAVE to shotgun to use your dumbfire torpedoes!)).
  • light HP reduction OR removal of quick saturating hull (I prefer the latter)
  • slow the subs down a bit (not TOO much, but so that more DDs can actually catch them)

 Basically, make them slightly more fragile, let them use their long range dumbfire torpedoes primarily, and keep them VERY stealthy (as they already are). It's why I-56 seems (from my testing) more balanced than most/all other subs. She's got those long-range conventional torpedoes, and while she CAN shotgun, she doesn't NEED to. Removing the NEED to shotgun with conventional torpedoes is important. What do you expect though, when your dumbfire torpedoes are only like 6km or so in range?? You basically HAVE to shotgun with them. And therein lies the problem....

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,569
[CAAT]
Members
6,191 posts
7,996 battles
12 minutes ago, Reymu said:

No kidding. I'm pretty angry at getting shotgunned by one sub, and then following battle a sub controlled his 1v1 vs. me outside where my Alaska's DC could reach. Very ridiculously 1-sided.

Bare minimum, increase ability to detect subs via hydro and radar to 4 and 8km. I'm angry enough to consider leaving any matches w/ subs in current mood ><

It really is a LOT worse of an issue than Wargaming seems to realize. Shotgunning abuse is the PRIMARY reason (imo) why subs do not work in World of Warships. It's just too powerful of a tactic. You practice a bit, you get the hang of it, and suddenly you're slamming 40k-60k damage into the snoot of a battleship, cruiser or destroyer in a single strike. Heck, even the CVs aren't immune (although they are ALMOST immune to pinging, due to their auto-DCP and LOOOONG DCP action time. So forget homing torpedoes imo against CVs, unless you're just shotgunning with homing torpedoes in a tier VI sub or something...).

Oh yeah, and the DC airstrike ranges NEED a buff. Subs CAN strike you outside of DC airstrike ranges. Although, switching the torpedo ranges could help alleviate that a bit. No more long-ranged speedy homing torpedoes comin' at ya past 6km! (less DCP overtaxing to boot! Yay for that! :D)

  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,833
[TDRB]
Members
7,340 posts
16,186 battles
18 minutes ago, paradat said:

Not sure of the numbers I remember 8% but I do know they were aiming for something just above CV's. Looks like for now they have cleared that pretty easily. Lots of subs in game since they went live, and I expect that this will increase for a few more patches. 

If subs follow the normal pattern, they will decrease as the "novelty" wears off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,913
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
16,276 posts
23,561 battles
1 minute ago, kgh52 said:

If subs follow the normal pattern, they will decrease as the "novelty" wears off.

Agreed, that will be part of it for sure. I hardly play any CV's after I finished the grind for all of them. So will take a couple of months for the wider player base to grind out the subs and then we will see how many players keep them in rotation. The additions of new sub lines will protract this process a bit so it will be a while before WG has really solid numbers. 

For now, I am encouraged by how fun they are and how many I see in randoms. 

After 7 years of battles, I still play Tirpitz more than anything.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,223
[-AGW-]
Members
749 posts
47,075 battles
1 hour ago, HyperFish said:

Ah, see no-one has ever stated that one side or the other are in the minority. What we stat is that you don't have the data to make a claim one way or the other. Forum posts and polls aren't data, and naturally skew towards the negative. 

It's funny that people seem to be able to claim that the majority of the players hate subs/cvs, but also complain about how prevalent they are in matches which would indicate something different. 

There was a tread last week that stated the pro-sub people plus the apathetic ones where the majority over the people against subs according to WG.

Notice I was saying SUBS are the minority in Random & Co-Op battles (2 of 12 and 2 of 9). 

I would like to see some aspects of subs revised"

1) DCP to clear PING and don't bring out that old folks tale about "Good players don't use PING" a) most players aren't good b) bots in Co-Op spam it.

2) I'd like to see their range for spotting and pinging to be reduced by 2-3 km. 

3) I'd like to see their detection range increased with speed. Maybe also reduced the range they can spot at reduced the faster they go.

4) Saturation is a crap mechanic for subs

5) Surface and underwater Speeds reduced by 1/4

6) Have torpedoes selected for either Distance at slower speed or Faster for shorter distance - NOT Fast and Long Ranged!

I know, I know too much realism for a game that isn't a simulator.

IF you ask me, all ships & subs should have a limited torpedo reload & CVs fewer a/c   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,074
[WPORT]
Members
20,591 posts
22,563 battles
3 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

If subs follow the normal pattern, they will decrease as the "novelty" wears off.

+1
There's a lot of "the sky is falling" hype going around.
If people take the time to learn about Submarines and the ASW capabilities of various ship types, the Submarines won't be so scary.
ASW is doable, especially with a modicum of teamwork.

BB's can "tank" a full salvo of Submarine Torpedoes and remain afloat to launch their air-strike depth-charges.

The "shotgun" attack isn't something that people haven't seen before.  It just a submarine variation on the theme of launching torpedoes from close, possibly point-blank, range.
Even some BB's can do that.
Getting a Submarine that close to a red-team ship includes the risk of being detected and sunk by a multitude of ordnance raining down upon the submarine from every available ship.
They had to "work" for it, just like every other ship that gets into a good position and sets-up their opportunity to get citadel hits or torpedo hits.
Good play is not over powered.

Getting pinged, by itself, does zero damage.  It's annoying, yes, and it provides useful clues to the submarine's whereabouts.  I suggest using those clues to one's advantage.

I dev-struck a Celebs, earlier today, while sailing one of the Agano class tier-5 japanese cruisers (can't remember if it was Yahagi or Agano).
I launched torpedos from just over 11 km away and they took their sweet time swimming towards a target that was camping next to an island.
The targeted Dutch Cruiser stayed in one spot for a long time and was sunk by a combination of being a sitting-duck and a failure of their team to properly scout the map.
My ship's commander earned a promotion as a result of the experience points gained during that battle.

Educating ourselves about Submarines, whether we choose to play them or not, may seem inconvenient or expensive or a hassle or whatever.
But a failure to learn is perhaps more costly.

  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,833
[TDRB]
Members
7,340 posts
16,186 battles
15 minutes ago, paradat said:

Agreed, that will be part of it for sure. I hardly play any CV's after I finished the grind for all of them. So will take a couple of months for the wider player base to grind out the subs and then we will see how many players keep them in rotation. The additions of new sub lines will protract this process a bit so it will be a while before WG has really solid numbers. 

For now, I am encouraged by how fun they are and how many I see in randoms. 

After 7 years of battles, I still play Tirpitz more than anything.

Cheers.

For some subs are a positive, I do not understand why.

Enjoy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,913
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
16,276 posts
23,561 battles
1 minute ago, kgh52 said:

For some subs are a positive, I do not understand why.

Enjoy

 

Give it some time. You may have that great Sub hunt with just the right amount of tension and then get hooked. I have had a few of those and they are very satisfying. 1 v1 DD vs Sub hunt lot of cat and mouse before I get em. I also had an amazing Missouri vs two subs game where I got both of them and they were 90 degrees apart was really tense and fun. 

You could also click with a sub and enjoy one. For me it was probably the Salmon that did it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,851
[ARR0W]
Members
6,132 posts
32,842 battles
3 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Darwinism applied to WoWS, maybe it is bad times to be a BB but it is a great time to be a concealment based DD. 

Maybe, but I approach this from the point of view that subs are enhancing my WR. 

I had a revealing experience: In Mogami, I deduced from island placement and the intervals at which I was intermittently detected that  the enemy's never-spotted U-2501 was behind a particular island. I drew up to said island opposite the sub, hit hydro, dropped both strikes on him for direct hits and hightailed it - and he came around the island and shotgunned me. Sorry, man.  

I would happily surrender my subs, including I-56,  S-189, and my just bought U-2501 (XP for this courtesy of U-190 Operations) for no compensation whatever if WG removed them. 

Edited by Pugilistic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,523
[BWC]
Beta Testers
3,422 posts
9,969 battles
58 minutes ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

 

  • slow the subs down a bit (not TOO much, but so that more DDs can actually catch them)

 

 

It isn't that DDs can't catch the Subs that most protests center on, but that -BBs- can't catch them.  Most DDs have no problem catching the Subs, but in doing so, they tend to soak up alot of enemy fire.  And BBs have never believed they should need any other ships in order for them to dominate the match, so having Subs going faster than a Langley is simply unacceptable.

 

In truth, most simply believe Subs shouldn't be effective combat units and are enraged that they can be hurt or killed by them.  The protests won't stop until Subs can be completely ignored except as free XP sources.

 

Very similar to the old Torpedo DD rants of the early years, really.

 

What needs to be done is to restore the ability of Subs to assured detect other Subs or spot enemy subs at the same depth at their normal surface detection ranges.  That would allow Subs to control their opposite numbers and make them more hesitant to go for the shotgun if they don't know where the opposing Subs are.

 

 

Edited by Jakob_Knight
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,833
[TDRB]
Members
7,340 posts
16,186 battles
1 minute ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

+1
There's a lot of "the sky is falling" hype going around.
If people take the time to learn about Submarines and the ASW capabilities of various ship types, the Submarines won't be so scary.
ASW is doable, especially with a modicum of teamwork.

BB's can "tank" a full salvo of Submarine Torpedoes and remain afloat to launch their air-strike depth-charges.

The "shotgun" attack isn't something that people haven't seen before.  It just a submarine variation on the theme of launching torpedoes from close, possibly point-blank, range.
Even some BB's can do that.
Getting a Submarine that close to a red-team ship includes the risk of being detected and sunk by a multitude of ordnance raining down upon the submarine from every available ship.
They had to "work" for it, just like every other ship that gets into a good position and sets-up their opportunity to get citadel hits or torpedo hits.
Good play is not over powered.

Getting pinged, by itself, does zero damage.  It's annoying, yes, and it provides useful clues to the submarine's whereabouts.  I suggest using those clues to one's advantage.

I dev-struck a Celebs, earlier today, while sailing one of the Agano class tier-5 japanese cruisers (can't remember if it was Yahagi or Agano).
I launched torpedos from just over 11 km away and they took their sweet time swimming towards a target that was camping next to an island.
The targeted Dutch Cruiser stayed in one spot for a long time and was sunk by a combination of being a sitting-duck and a failure of their team to properly scout the map.
My ship's commander earned a promotion as a result of the experience points gained during that battle.

Educating ourselves about Submarines, whether we choose to play them or not, may seem inconvenient or expensive or a hassle or whatever.
But a failure to learn is perhaps more costly.

It is not subs that are scary. It is WG's eagerness to incorporate changes that reduce the fun factor of the game to earn an extra dollar many players find scary.

Personally, I didn't enjoy the first sub battles. I see no reason why I would like subs now.

There was a submarine game my son & I played. It was fun. It was a strategy game, not a shooter. Yes, WoWS is a shooter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,743
[RLGN]
Members
19,117 posts
35,137 battles

My gripe about subs is more specifically focused.

As a whole; I’m indifferent about them because I’ve not experienced the things most often kvetched about.

My complaint is that WG ‘making it fair for the bots,’ equates to getting stomped on by every ASW plane in range, THE VERY INSTANT you are spotted in your sub.

EVERY, ASW plane; and they keep coming until the charges run out.

Not only that; even if you start evading when you see them coming, the bot ASW planes NEVER, let me repeat, NEVER, miss.

Yeah; subs have pretty much lost my interest. If playing them means putting up with bovine byproducts levels of WG ‘making it fair’ for the bots, then I don’t see any point to wasting further time with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,833
[TDRB]
Members
7,340 posts
16,186 battles
57 minutes ago, paradat said:

Give it some time. You may have that great Sub hunt with just the right amount of tension and then get hooked. I have had a few of those and they are very satisfying. 1 v1 DD vs Sub hunt lot of cat and mouse before I get em. I also had an amazing Missouri vs two subs game where I got both of them and they were 90 degrees apart was really tense and fun. 

You could also click with a sub and enjoy one. For me it was probably the Salmon that did it. 

It is possible but don't bet the farm on it ever happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×