[2022] Why hate on the Subs? Beyond the obvious

Narratives can be extremely powerful when people get used to them. I joined this game in 2019 when there was no announcement of subs or anything, but the playerbase was already saying "If subs ever enter this game, I'm gone" and various other comments.

When you have years to build up hype around a thing that doesn't exist, it's very natural to assume the worst as a response.

This isn't true. I realize you read it on Reddit and the Forums a lot, but there is actually a very strong interest in Submarines. There has been since the game first came out.

We have polling and surveys which show players dislike subs, but that a similar amount of players like them. There's a fair amount of folks that don't really have an opinion either way.

Something else to consider is that we ARE a business. It is not in our interest to damage our product, so if polling or surveys showed that submarines would hurt more than help then it would be sensible to expect the idea to be avoided.

That isn't the case. Submarines are still in testing, so there's certainly work still to be done, but the iterations get better with each pass.

People will choose to believe what they feel makes the most sense. This is normal.

If you doubt me, then just consider it from a business perspective. Dead games make no money, so doing something that just makes everyone angry doesn't lead to success. Hence, if a business continues on a path despite warnings from the vocal minority, it is very reasonable to assume the silent majority are actually behind the direction being moved in.

Money talks very directly, so it's hard to ignore something that is so straightforward.

Yes, if you go back and look at the video that phrase is said more in consolation than as some form of "Deal with it" meme. People hotly requested them and that was a video which was letting people down in the kindest, yet direct way possible as to their desire for subs at the time.

The fact that we later determined a way that would allow them to fit doesn't mean that we couldn't see the path to that outcome years ago.

I have been on this forum a lot for the past 4 days. I have seen a lot of positive comments, as well as the fact that WG NA was literally invited out to a local player's restaurant. He actually regaled us with the stories of why he started playing WoWs... his love of the Tirpitz, and Submarines.

Please, you may dislike something, but calling people flunkies is insulting and should be avoided. Treat other players with respect, even if you disagree with them.

Yes, your poll has 150 votes in a charged environment. We have massed poll and survey data as we actually host the game and have the ability to directly communicate with our playerbase.

We have 16,000 players on a single time daily, and that doesn't account for all the players which log-in outside of that highest population time. And that doesn't account for the rotation across the playerbase as different players log in on different days.

Your poll is very significant for telling me what the forum thinks, but I can assure that I was already aware of that.

No sorry, I didn't join up to voice opinions that aren't my own. I've seen the data that I say I've seen, and I'm telling you the actual reasoning that we're acting on.

I used to play a game called "EVE Online" and one of the founding rules of diplomacy is that you can never lie. If you do, you will never be trusted again. People might be wrong sometimes, but lying is an automatic fail condition.

One of the core principles that I do bring to my job is the belief that people need to be respected. Players deserve respect, and we do too.

Please, you don't have to use insults when talking to someone. You can just talk to them directly.

Previously, it was given out that there are around 2,000 people that routinely visit the forum (most don't speak) and that they represent around 1% of the playerbase.

If 2,000 people is 1%, then 150 people is 00.075% of the playerbase.

The 150 vote poll is not indicative of the 99% of the playerbase that never saw it. While yes, pollsters and survey folks do have methods of extrapolating off sample sizes, the forums here are a charged subset of players which does represent a strong skew.

Yes, you've been fine in the conversation outside of "flunkie". It's a derogatory term, though light as far as insults go.

The first time Subs appeared on live server was a Tier 6 "Sub Battle" mode. Submarines at the time were designed to hunt capital ships and there was no point at which they stopped homing.

Also, Destroyers had a large toolset for finding and killing Submarines.

-

After Subs left the public server and went back into testing, their role was altered to interact more with DDs and Cruisers instead of backline Capital Ships. Homing was aimed at being more interactive with DDs, Cruisers, and other Subs. Battleships and CVs had the large homing cut-off ranges they have now and were quite hard to hit (and still are).

Also, Destroyers were moved away from Sub duties as Air-Dropped Depth Charges became the norm. It was determined that DDs were already over-taxed and that they shouldn't be overly incentivized to risk their ships going after subs, so DD Depth Charges aren't insane because it's better for a DD player to screen as normal while letting the large ships damage the Sub (outside of a sub behind the lines where it can be safely run down by a DD, anyway).

"Community Manager" or "CM" works. To some folks those terms mean the same thing as "flunkie", but I'd rather be called by a title than a direct insult.

"Representative" works too.

You need to understand the reasoning as to WHY they were saying that. Because the company was being slammed with "Why aren't there Submarines?!?!?!" from all different directions. As we didn't have a plan for how to execute them, we tried to let people understand not to expect them at all.

That doesn't mean that we didn't figure out how to do it later, though. We did, we started messing around with the concept, and now we have them in testing in our game. The populace may be split, but there are people that are absolutely excited about their inclusion.

The reality of the situation is I'm a guy that got sucked into this game about 3 years ago. It's an amazing game.

I lived it, I streamed it, I competed in it, and now I represent it.

Call me by title, or Ahskance, or whatever you do when you talk to someone while you talk to them. I'm just asking not to be actively insulted while having a conversation.

You already know how the Destroyers are set up. They've been in the same place since Subs came back to live server testing in 10.6?

The Depth Charges work, but it's dangerous to charge a sub if they have teammates that can shoot the Destroyer. So, Destroyers aren't an instant-win button which can help the player to feel ok with not yolo'ing the sub regardless of the peril it'd put them in.

If the sub sneaks behind enemy lines, though, they won't have teammates close enough to help against a Destroyer running down the sub.

On my introduction post someone said something like, "This one will be different. He's a CV Main. He's been forged in the fires of hate already, so our tactics won't stop him."

Not gonna lie, I laughed at that and still do.

-

As for the party line, it's easy when I understand the WHY something is happening. I enjoy studying game design and I can understand what the Designers are trying to do. If I don't understand, I can directly ask and get an answer that helps me understand. Then it's on me to try to help get the word out.

My belief is that the absence of information causes fear and conspiracy thinking. So, I try to provide information to help give folks a foundation to build on in terms of understanding we we're doing.

I'm quite sure that was 10.6. The original "Sub Battle" was like like Update 9.3 or so? It was in Spring of 2020, I think.

-

Subs have not been great against Battleships since coming back to Live in 10.6, but they had Citadel possibilities for a while. Then that was moved to Dumbfire torps... sorta. Now it's just gone altogether. Testing can have a lot of changes in a small period of time.

?

It's easiest to just ask. I'm not great at the wink-wink stuff.

Ignored is not the right word. We're very aware of player concerns and do what we can to alleviate them. The best way to do that is to make a good product, which is why we've spent so much time iterating on submarines.

The CV Rework hit Live Server and underwent some very large changes, but this was also after Tech Tree line were unlocked and premiums were sold. There's a lot of pressure in situations like that to not only address issues, but also be mindful of the product people purchased. Submarines have no Tech Tree or Premium investments, so iterations can be whatever they need to be while we hunt down the best form they can be. There's a LOT more freedom in that sense because there is no tie that exists and has to be factored.

Correct, I genuinely do believe that.

I've never said that "anyone who hasn't said anything is an ardent fan of subs."

We have asked people, repeatedly, across many updates. There are those that want them, those that don't, and those that don't care. It is not one-sided.

I'm being honest, I don't. That's why I asked you to just be direct.

People say some pretty blunt stuff here all the time, so it's not like it's strange for someone to be direct.

I recently saw the video where that was said. It was a conciliatory tone, not an aggressive one. Basically, if we knew how to implement subs back then, I'm fairly sure we'd have done it from the launch of the game.

I've also learned internally how hard it was with the flood of requests for subs all the time. So again, hearing "There won't be subs!" wasn't so much a promise as a "Please, we can't make it happen. It's just not a thing to expect" sort of situation.

I spend roughly 50 to 80 hours a week on these forums. I do this because the forums are important, the players here are important, and it is quite literally the job I was hired for to make sure these voices are understood and matter.

This doesn't mean that 150 people on this forum voting in a poll is rock-solid proof that all 5 WoWs Server Clusters across the face of the Earth are definitively of X position.

-

Further, we have access to polling and survey data which penetrates deeper into the playerbase because only a very small amount of players come here. Increasing the number of players which come here and interact is also part of my job, which is why I've spent so much effort trying to reduce toxicity so that newer folks can feel comfortable enough to speak up and take part.

Pretty much a lot of my job is forum relevant because we value the forums and the opinions expressed here highly.

The speed values aren't really problematic in game terms. The biggest complaint is that the speeds don't align with history.

We make a video game that is a not a simulator. Further, we time/distance compress to allow matches to happen in 10-20 minutes, so speed alterations are to allow players the ability to play the match as opposed to playing around where they started and then potentially being unable to get anywhere else.

Tier 6 and 8 are slower, but 10 is sped up. In general, Tier 10 gameplay is fairly fast and more intense in our game, so it keeps with that mold.

They matter quite a lot, but it'simportant to keep things in perspective. Just because it's repeated often on a forum doesn't mean it's "TRUTH", but it Does mean that it's a very passionately held opinion that should be noted and looked into. Being open to understanding why someone may disagree with your decisions is required in order to figure out what actions are best. Self-evaluation is very important and players help in pushing us to constantly look at what we're doing and have done to make sure we review our processes.

-

Randoms are 12 v 12, even without CVs and Subs. No ship lives long with 12 players shooting at it. This is why the first 7+ minutes of a battle are often just players splitting up to each flank and trading fire from safe positions. It's very easiy for a ship to get overwhelmed otherwise.

Brawling happens in the late game when the team sizes are smaller and people can throw their weight around more safely.

The only answer I can see to your question would be if Randoms had like, different player-sizes sometimes, like loading into a 6v6 or a 4v4 or something. When there are less players, the focus-fire is smaller and people can get in and fight as a result.

There was a stat that I heard at some point.

1% Create Content


9% Editorialize that Content


90% Consume Content

In short, look to loudest and most powerful voice. Then look to see how many people repeat or respond to that loudest, most powerful voice. Then, look to see how many people listen on whole without really saying anything outside of whether they agree or not and whether something should be done or not.

This is how you can identify Narratives, which can often grow larger than life.

-

In terms of the concern you listed:

Fire-Spam


Camping


Cap-Support Negation


CV's Perma-Spotting


Subs/overtaxed DCP


Power-Creep

Fire-Spam: HE is usable from any angle, so it's normal to see it because getting angles/positional advantages are hard. Board control can be considered an advanced tactic.

Outside of limiting HE Ammo in some way, this will continue to be a brute force option. The concerns over HE were reduced significantly when the IFHE rework was done, so current concerns are less than they were.

Camping: Shooting an enemy from a smoke cloud or behind an island makes tactical sense. They get hurt and you don't. It's unlikely you will be able to encourage players to willingly take damage when other options exist.

Outside of altering ships ability to see/shoot each other, this is part of the map positioning/tactics that exist in our game. Advanced movement or consumable threat can reduce it, and CVs can allow for more interactions due to non-normal spotting avenues.

Cap-Support Negation: I'm not sure what this one is?

CV's Perma-Spotting: This is an outsized narrative. A CV can be in one place at a time, barring the drop of a Fighter consumable that lasts for a time. "Perma-spotting" sounds like a CV spots everything always, but actually means that a CV can dedicate itself to keeping one target lit for an extended period of time. If other targets are nearby, they may be lit as well.

We are currently looking into spotting and seeing what options fit our design concepts, and so far haven't found that answer. As for a ship being able to be lit, it's a specific thing that a CV offers as part of its gameplay utility. It's not strange for one Game Class to be able to do something other Classes cannot (Ship Types in our game) and this is a perfectly normal extension of that concept.

Subs/overtaxed DCP: Homing pings do not guarantee hits as the homing mechanics can be manipulated and torps avoided even while pinged. The choice of DCP or not is very situation dependant which is normal for our game as a big part of our gameplay is decision-making.

Further, if the Submarine is replaced by another ship, that ship can simply spam HE which translates to DCP pressure as well.

Power-Creep: Honestly an out-sized narrative. Power Creep exists mostly in expansion pack-style content where the newest content becomes the mandatory go-to as stronger stuff is required to stand out. We balance to our in-game situation to stay consistent and allow our game to stay even.

We release Early Access content that people see and evaluate pretty directly. In some case, entire lines are ignored as they don't fit a person's playstyle and pre-existing options are considered stronger anyway.

CVs really don't do anything here. As a person with literally thousands of CV matches, I can tell you directly that ships push up and do things.

As for Battleships that use their range, that's normal. They have range to use. Further, the closer you get to enemies the easier you are to hit, so newer players that prefer not to get sunk hang back (which is perfectly normal). While it's harder to deal damage from longer ranges, it's less likely to be damaged in return, so you'll find newer or less experienced players gravitating toward the "die-less-easily" option, which Battleships are the best at providing already.

There was a shooter game that was in testing. Players hated the Shotgun because it was too weak and too ineffective. The devs looked into that and found the damage and capability of the shotgun was where it should be.

So, they changed the sound effect to a meatier, nastier boom. Players loved the Shotgun because it was so powerful and strong... even though it was the same.

-

Perception is really a very large part of everything, which is tough because it can make issues harder to drill down into because it's less about actual interaction and more about perceived interaction.

Sure, adding a new Ship Type would mean different things to consider. The same would happen if DDs were removed as that would also alter the expectations of what could happen.

Would that translate into hiding in a ball? No. I've played high-level hurricane clan battles on world-ranked teams using CVs, and players push, take objectives, and hold map positions.

Unfortunately, our game is extremely hard to learn. It's easy to figure out how to play, but making proper decisions is very complex and daunting.

As a player learns what ships and ship types can do, they grow stronger as players, but it really can be a long road to mastery so you'll often see mistakes as everyone starts out as a new player.

There are games without CVs, so CV spotting has no effect in those.

As to Fire, it's a counter-point to the heavy Armor of the Battleship. No ship in our game is immune to damage and fire allows heavily armored ships to still be threatened by other Ship Types.

Happens literally every day. Matches with no CVs and Subs happen frequently.

That might be your jam, but there are folks that still get mad even with the standard 4 BB, 4 CA, 4 DD setup. It's just a game and the composition of the game dictates what you need to pay attention to for proper decision-making.

You're making an assertion that I don't think is correct. You're treating CVs as self-inflicted damage in the name of profit, but this assertion doesn't make sense.

Damaging the game health means players will immediately pull away and find something wrong or unplayable. This isn't the case as we've had Reworked CVs in our game for over 3 years and continue to have an engaging product. To assume that a small handful of Premium CVs and 5 shortened tech tree lines is profitable enough to justify threatening the existence of our entire product is a very large assertion. It's a powerful narrative, and it's repeated often, but a "follow the money" look at the situation should show that CVs aren't some "cash grab" because it just doesn't work that way.

If you're in a Brawling Battleship, there are a LOT of things that can spot you. CV spotting is not the difference between you moving forward or not... because when you move closer to the enemy you will spot yourself doing so.

Brawling styles like that are best utilized in the mid-late game where many enemies have been sunk to avoid your ship getting hard focused down. The armor of a Battleship shrugs off damage, but no ship is expected to win a 2v1 or 3v1. Committing earlier would just mean an even higher weight of fire being thrown onto your ship.

-

It sounds like you're looking for a more permanent Brawl-mode to that you can start the game where there as less enemies so that you can immediately go on the aggressive in your armored brawler?

We're a free-to-play game and there's nothing wrong with enjoying the freely available options.

In terms of Free-to-Play content that is not Event-dependent, we have:

5 Carrier Lines


9 Battleship Lines


12 Cruiser Lines


11 Destroyer Lines

There's nothing wrong with enjoying what we have for free.