Karasu_Browarszky

1. Not a simulation, but did 'arcade' take on the meaning of 'complete fantasy bollocks' at some point? 2. ... Potentially that... although I would also suggest reducing BB main gun effectiveness against smaller ships such as the cruisers and DD's... while boosting their secondary fire as deterrent. Along with a change in the dodgy spotting mechanics.. as I keep saying. ..... It is very important to be wary of enemy actions on the Ocean. The Ocean requires full use of the ships' potential and is not very forgiving by nature. As it should be, that is the nature of the Ocean. And the ships should be balanced for the Ocean, failing to do that is Bad Game Design. 3. It's not concealement, it's an unfair advantage that the islands give you when you use that cover offensively, it becomes a bunker.. some people say they hated the 'Bastion' concept, the islands make every bloody map we have effectively a 'Bastion'. THE FORUM CENSORED MY REPLY... Retyping... 4. Cover gives dynamic play now? Do you even yourself believe that? Dynamic means something completely different. In WW1 they had trenches, that's cover. That was a four year long camp fest along the western front. When they went over the top, what you think happened? Yeah.. what happened was exactly the same thing you get in this game if you try to play dynamically against those island huggers shooting at you. And you still have no clue where all the camping in the game comes from? Let me spell it out to you, it's the islands. That's the common denominator throughout all these years, no amount of buffs, balance changes or whatevers has changed the fact. You got islands, you got the potential to use them as 'bunkers' and you will get camping year in year out I can guarantee you that. 5. Tha's a non reply... and not factually correct either.

1. Must be double vision then.. and it ain't even Monday. 2. Aaand... there is some hidden wisdom that says you make a game of warships that is not based on warships? IMO we wouldn't have all these sort of constant problems with camping and bad battles if they'd done things differently. In retrospect, I'd say it's a pretty stupid approach to game design but to each their own I guess.... 3. Yes I did. 4. The only cover you get on the high seas is darkness, fog, rain, and smoke. Note.. there's no camping behind islands. Sooo... I have a question too. Do you want: A) Active dynamic battles with teams of ships engaging each other over various distances while making tactical moves in relation to each other. OR B) Passive static campfests with teams taking turns to sneak behind rocks for a quick smoke and taking sneaky potshots at very little risk to themselves while severely punishing those few players that try to get keep things moving fo that fun and engaging play.

Yeah.. I know it's difficult to keep track of all the various code thread. I think @Von_Pruss tried to create a single thread for us to use for codes but sadly it never caught on.

And I had such a beatiful day all planned and ready to go. It's not entirely due to islands, but yes, it effectively means that many ships will choose to camp behind or close to the islands for the sake of cover, and those that try to play dynamically will get punished by it quite badly. = Bad Game Design Hmm... the fog of war works (or should work) slightly to this effect, the problem are the dodgy spotting mechanics (including CV's spotting), I don't like islands anywhere near naval battles, especially in my case they always ruin my tactical maneuvers and force me turn at the worst possible moments. The spotting mechanics would need to be overhauled, and the use of smoke to conceal friendly ship movements should be made more readily available, especially on the higher tiers. You can use toggles to switch off non-historical cosmetic elements, you do not have a toggle to switch off non-historical map design. So in response to the claim "Torpedo boats and destroyers did it ( used islands actively for cover from ship gunfire all the time, at least against larger ships.)" ... eeeh...Yeah, I'd be curious to learn about such battles, because most fleet engagements would not take place in such waters unless possibly ambushed near coastal waters... what I can think of what be gunboat engagements in coastal waters or river deltas.. but that's a whole different kettle of fish, not applicable to major warship engagements. Are these trick questions? Must come as a shocking revelation to the world's major navies, they've been building cruisers for decaces, what a colossal waste of money. = Bad Game Design It is very important to be wary of enemy actions on the Ocean. The Ocean requires full use of the ships' potential and is not very forgiving by nature. As it should be, that is the nature of the Ocean. And the ships should be balanced for the Ocean, failing to do that is Bad Game Design. Islands allow you to move up under cover? We are talking about a game of warships.... not a team of bushwacking commandos sneaking up on the target. There's an easy solution to camping then, let's dry up the maps and give wheels and tracks for the ships. Add some bushes and scattered rubble and you've got a major hit game in your hands... oh wait... Potentially that... although I would also suggest reducing BB main gun effectiveness against smaller ships such as the cruisers and DD's... while boosting their secondary fire as deterrent. Along with a change in the dodgy spotting mechanics.. as I keep saying. Meaning increasing the survivability of the cruisers. I might agree (oddly) on this. Sort of... Obviously that would be a bad design choice. It's important to balance the offensive and defensive capabilities of the ships classes in relation to each other. There's the historical performance to consider which should have been the basis of the balancing. The game balance decisions should at all times favoured dynamic active play instead of stale camp fests.

Hope Cap wasn't fired. Or Fishy.

So where does all the camping and rock hugging come from? Balance problem. Teamplay issue.

Yes, because some people prefer to play 'Whack-A-Ship' with islands instead of a game of warships which is... lamentable. The least WG could do is give the rest of us is an 'Ocean Series' mode so we could leave island hopping to cruise ships.

Because... that's what it looks like to me. The Ocean favours the brave.

Aye, mate, true that. Landlubbers the lot of 'em, attached to their little rocks, need terra firma under their feet, can't handle the pitching and rolling decks at sea, the real thing. Brine in your face and taste of salt on your tongue.

Yes I rather thought you'd disagree.

I see... is this camping on open maps perhaps what they refer to as hiding in plain sight? Hear hear! Charge the enemy battle line!

One or two less? So there'll be only like 20 islands per map, instead of the 22 on the lower tiers. Yes, I can see how that can make it more enjoyable, especially as there's visibly less camping and island hugging on the highers as opposed to the lower and low to mid tiers.

There are islands there too.

It gives 'technical issues'... but ... thanks.

But that's a terrible port nowadays, all that unnecessary racket.

In most cases you can assume it's going to be a DD, so try keeping a count of where the enemy DD's might be. Don't rush to the enemy cap too early, either, and the fastest ships on your team (typically DD's) are the first to counter the enemy capping event (apart from CV's), and while you can't answer for your team mates' action or inaction, it is best to stay awake and think if you have a ship that can intercept the enemy in which case, be ready to disengage and reverse when needed.

Yes, someone always tests these patches. Guess who.

Thanks. I stand corrected then. I'd take heal over radar any day on a BB myself.

'Troglodyte'

... could that be by design?

But but... there aren't too many real ships, especially BB's on the higher tiers.

Correct, this thread is quite substandard.

Do you mean the one near Singapore? That's the alternate starting point, you must have chosen Pearl Harbor instead.

The name, the historical relevance. It has the radar but that is very situational and may tempt you to overreach early in the battle making you the focal point of enemy gunnery. To avoid becoming a practice target, you'd have to use it more stealthily, or reserve it till later in the battle. What's been mentioned is the citadel which is unchanged on the Missouri, meaning the Iowa has a lower citadel. Some have recommended getting a permacamo for the Iowa instead. The credit potential of the new Missouri is only that of a standard tier 9 premium.

I miss the 'misscommunication'. Of course, it's very to close ot 'excommunication' which seems to be taking place in various hot spots of the Wargambling casino chain.