Jump to content

from reddit: ship type performance analysis


MrWastee

Recommended Posts

  • MrWastee changed the title to from reddit: ship type performance analysis
22 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Why you ping me? You need me to explain those complicated terms and numbers?

really, my dear quoted source?! 6FE6656A-2569-4D5C-A445-EB63E019A1B5.gif stop menstruating online rofl ^^....

oh well, someone would have found it anyway i guess.... from the analysis:

As a result of the observed lack of performance, submarines appear to have by far the lowest influence in the result of the battle. Highly skilled players cannot reach similar win rates in submarines compared to other ship types.

 

Edited by MrWastee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Well, it took some time to read all that... and I don't feel any wiser after reading it 😞   No surprises there tbh.

well, i guess if sells somehow correlate with peformance for whatever reason, there might be buffs to subs incoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post states subs are weaker than DDs in the context of random battles.

Though, I'm curious as to how subs would play out in CBs where teams are more coordinated, personally I think they would add a new dimension in there with sonar. I believe the class itself benefits vastly with coordinated play, something that the post didn't really touch on with dividing division and solo stats but of course, dividing the 2 may be hard since there's a lot of ways to go about doing that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, MrWastee said:

really, my dear quoted source?! 6FE6656A-2569-4D5C-A445-EB63E019A1B5.gif stop menstruating online rofl ^^....

I'll bleed all over your favorite Dead Kennedys t-shirt.

1 minute ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Well the submarine bit seems a little confounding...

When I said my stats on subs were way below anything else, people said that was just anecdotal.

When sub stats became available on wows-numbers and the numbers indicated they were below any other class, people said, that was just the average and that good players would get results many times higher, which makes the class OP and nerf-worthy.

So now the numbers clarify that subs are below any other class for all skill levels. I wonder what funny explanation people will come up with now to keep asking for nerfs.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

When I said my stats on subs were way below anything else, people said that was just anecdotal.

When sub stats became available on wows-numbers and the numbers indicated they were below any other class, people said, that was just the average and that good players would get results many times higher, which makes the class OP and nerf-worthy.

So now the numbers clarify that subs are below any other class for all skill levels. I wonder what funny explanation people will come up with now to keep asking for nerfs.

Would be interesting to know why the higher skilled players 'fail' to make similar use of the subs as the less skilled players.

The submarines do have a weakness, of course, in that as long as they are relatively consistently spotted they can be targeted by those ships which have longer range ASW ability. That still won't explain why this would be a problem for the better players and not for the average players, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised if the data shows Subs being less capable than other units.  They only do one thing really well ( stealth attack ) , where the other ship types can do multiple jobs as the battle progresses.  They also can't press an enemy because they fold too quickly when going toe-to-toe with a surface ship, so they are always going to be snipers rather than brawlers.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jakob Knight said:

I'm not surprised if the data shows Subs being less capable than other units.  They only do one thing really well ( stealth attack ) , where the other ship types can do multiple jobs as the battle progresses.  They also can't press an enemy because they fold too quickly when going toe-to-toe with a surface ship, so they are always going to be snipers rather than brawlers.

 

 

Wouldn't exactly call shotgunning sniping, though. The pings and homing torps might be in that department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrWastee said:

As a result of the observed lack of performance, submarines appear to have by far the lowest influence in the result of the battle. Highly skilled players cannot reach similar win rates in submarines compared to other ship types.

Yeah, no surprise. All subs can really do is spot and attack in a really toxic manner. They're slower than DDs a lot of the time, and only good for saving themselves with their escape mechanic.

Sub influence is bad, their actual problem is they just feel bad to fight against due to their mechanics.

And you know, subs are discouraged from fighting each other.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MnemonScarlet said:

Yeah, no surprise. All subs can really do is spot and attack in a really toxic manner. They're slower than DDs a lot of the time, and only good for saving themselves with their escape mechanic.

Sub influence is bad, their actual problem is they just feel bad to fight against due to their mechanics.

And you know, subs are discouraged from fighting each other.

The DD's would the ones that are the most vulnerable to that 'toxic' effect in battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MnemonScarlet said:

Yeah, no surprise. All subs can really do is spot and attack in a really toxic manner. They're slower than DDs a lot of the time, and only good for saving themselves with their escape mechanic.

Sub influence is bad, their actual problem is they just feel bad to fight against due to their mechanics.

And you know, subs are discouraged from fighting each other.

 

39 minutes ago, MrWastee said:

well, i guess if sells somehow correlate with peformance for whatever reason, there might be buffs to subs incoming.

... which brings us back to their level of toxicity, or rather the question of "how-low-can-u-go" (woat pun?!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Well the submarine bit seems a little confounding...

Not really imo if you have any experience in Subs. I've said it before and many good players have also said it... it can very difficult to influence and "carry" matches if things don't go your way. In spite of all the talk about shotgun attacks, etc. it can be difficult to "brute force" damage on the enmy if they are not "cooperative" ... a common experience of Submarines is matches with 0 or very low damage, not because you misplayed but simply because you never managed to get "into the action" as the action keeps happening away from you. It can be very frustrating to some type of players.

18 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Would be interesting to know why the higher skilled players 'fail' to make similar use of the subs as the less skilled players.

Read above

42 minutes ago, MrWastee said:

well, i guess if sells somehow correlate with peformance for whatever reason, there might be buffs to subs incoming.

I feel Subs are right where they should be, they actually have more buffs than they need to in order to accomodate new/less able players so I don't think they need an "extra" push, but hey... I'm not WG so one never knows!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

That still won't explain why this would be a problem for the better players and not for the average players, though.

One of the major issues that a lot of the PR farming sub players I know (as in they're activly leaderboarding) state that subs are near useless against a kiting ship or a ship that's running away, while said ship is running, they're able to do damage, the sub has to chase the target and get to a good position that isn't the stern of the ship. People keep forgetting that subs aren't CV planes but are most similar to CA or DDs for certain cases when at their optimal depth and as slow as a T IV BB at it's worse.

Another thing is that these players are extremly weary of hydro. As much as you hear people saying hydro is somehow "useless", it actually is a extreme detriment to the sub as they'll need to trade HP and a DCP charge to finish the target, usually resulting in them losing half their health to do so if they're trying to SG a hydro active ship, if they don't they're usually dead by then, which again, the loud minority of skill issue players seem to have a hard time dealing with.

The next issue is that subs funny enough are useless if the CV bothers to put planes ontop of you, baring 1 sub which goes almost 40 kts under water but cant SG, if you're left in a position where a ship isn't able to get rid of the fighter that's ontop of you, you'll need to waste a considerable amount of time below water to get out of the fighter, which is time wasted trying to get to a position or to spot.

imo, a lot of the sub outcry is similar to the initial release of the game where people were saying shimakaze was broken because it can 1 shot you with a torp salvo while it was rare/hard to 1 shot it back with guns (lmao).

Edited by AkiraKurai
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, MnemonScarlet said:

And you know, subs are discouraged from fighting each other.

could have been fixed by having sub radar range extended to their torp range for all subs and have the subs spotted on minimap only for everyone else but weegee probably did it this way becuase "average player's dumb" argument similar to CVs being simplified.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, AkiraKurai said:

The next issue is that subs funny enough are useless if the CV bothers to put planes ontop of you, baring 1 sub which goes almost 40 kts under water but cant SG, if you're left in a position where a ship isn't able to get rid of the fighter that's ontop of you, you'll need to waste a considerable amount of time below water to get out of the fighter, which is time wasted trying to get to a position or to spot.

 

'If'.

In other words, the best 'counterplay tactic' when facing subs seems to be to get somewhere else as far from where you think the sub is. Fine, but it's just so counterintuitive to counterplay in that manner...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Now you are opening old wounds... that never healed 😒

I have some hope that as more players play subs and do well in them, some of those training wheels including the removal of mutual spotting/long initial CD will be removed from subs. One can hope.

21 minutes ago, AkiraKurai said:

could have been fixed by having sub radar range extended to their torp range for all subs and have the subs spotted on minimap only for everyone else but weegee probably did it this way becuase "average player's dumb" argument similar to CVs being simplified.

Yeah, there's some merit to the idea that the mutual spotting made subs get dogpiled by ASW aircraft early-game (many of what would be my sub on sub kills got sniped in sub testing), but honestly...I think WG did it to discourage sub PVP entirely. The kind of people who really gravitate to subs seem to be the same people who wanted to play lots of shima and just dump torps, or have their passive slava experience, or do CVs, etc. People who don't want a fight, they just want a shooting gallery where they are 'safe'.

Bringing the fight to those people was probably very unpleasant for them, especially early in the match where they would want to just take safe shots at people pushing into caps. One reason I got into subs was PVPing the other sub - forcing that kind of player to not have it the way he wants is a delicious feeling. WG eliminated that possibility as much as they could so those people would play subs and keep the sub-release-engagement numbers up.

Edited by MnemonScarlet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

In other words, the best 'counterplay tactic' when facing subs seems to be to get somewhere else as far from where you think the sub is. Fine, but it's just so counterintuitive to counterplay in that manner...

It is easier to think in terms of influencing the match in the most effective way... a Sub may prevent you from doing it, so it becomes natural to evade the Sub and look for "greener pastures". That only if you don't have the tools to directly fight the Sub (common case for many ships unable to enforce detection on a Sub). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ArIskandir said:

It is easier to think in terms of influencing the match in the most effective way... a Sub may prevent you from doing it, so it becomes natural to evade the Sub and look for "greener pastures". That only if you don't have the tools to directly fight the Sub (common case for many ships unable to enforce detection on a Sub). 

Well it requires some token team effort to dispatch a sub so therein may lie the core of the problem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing in that article was much of a surprise to me.

Subs being worse than DDs at match influence does jive roughly with what I would expect...since the sub is almost just a specialist DD.

The interesting part for me was the comparison of influence scaling up the tiers for CVs. I never did reach tier 10 in the RTS days, so I did not experience peak influence.

Etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.