Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
davidsturm6597

Why World of Warships suffers in gameplay.

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
106 posts
4,105 battles

The fundamental reason why WoWs has a problem with game play (and I suspect World of Warplanes also – although I have never played that title) is due to it simply copying the game-play from World of Tanks. WoWs is trying to emulate the success of WoT and is understandably using the same “base-capturing” and “defend the area” formula as its predecessor. However, WoT is set on land, therefore it would make sense that teams playing in tanks – like soldiers – would want to capture and defend areas on the map – as real soldiers would. But would you do the same on the Sea? Did real sea battles (Hood Vs Bismarck) involve capturing imaginary circles on the sea? I don’t think so W.G devs; think about it more!

 

The developers have not thought hard enough and deeply enough to realize they are just acting like lemmings chasing the success of WoT. They need to change the goal of the two teams from “capturing circles” (that Epicenter mode is just a joke W.G and so dumb) to another goal.

 

The solution is to emulate the goal of an actual battle fleet that is searching for the enemy in order to destroy the enemy fleet. So – the “circle” to defend or capture is the “fleet” themselves; your team is the “circle” whilst the enemy team’s fleet formation and distribution is the “capture” area. However it is implemented, a fleet that is dispersed – has to be penalized for doing so, whilst a fleet that stays in tight formation – is rewarded. Of course – the sure destruction of the enemy is the objective; any player who leaves the fleet formation – should incur a penalty.  

   

The same can be applied to a possible World of Submarines; each submarine team instead of capturing circles in the ocean (that’s plain nuts) – are charged with defending their fleet (run by A.I) whilst making sure the enemy team’s fleet gets mashed. No more circles in the ocean; you get actual defend and attack objectives!

 

If the “capture the circle” objective persists, then W.G and all its games – will be an ultimate fail; because they are nothing but clones of WoT – (be it you drive sea or air machines instead of land-tracked machines.) Honestly; WoWs goal system – the crazy circles on the sea are just borrowed straight from WoT; and it is playing WoT but with slow lumbering ships! This has to be changed, because it’s so restrictive in skill! Imagine playing WoWs with TOGs as ships – and that’s the game play. Think about it W.G developers; then think some more.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
928 posts
4,923 battles
8 minutes ago, davidsturm6597 said:

is due to it simply copying the game-play from World of Tanks

This is when i realised this Post is fundamentally flawed.

I'm pretty sure that i play this game because the gameplay is so radically different from the flawed pay to win WoT. 

 

17 minutes ago, davidsturm6597 said:

The solution is to emulate the goal of an actual battle fleet that is searching for the enemy in order to destroy the enemy fleet.

Ah so a 3 day skirmish that consists of 90% sailing and 10% actual combat... sounds good.

 

18 minutes ago, davidsturm6597 said:

will be an ultimate fail; because they are nothing but clones of WoT

Show me the statistics.

 

22 minutes ago, davidsturm6597 said:

the crazy circles on the sea are just borrowed straight from WoT

No, it has been stolen from W** T****** and that game stole it from Battlefield. Get your facts straight.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,608 posts
5,708 battles
24 minutes ago, davidsturm6597 said:

The fundamental reason why WoWs has a problem with game play (and I suspect World of Warplanes also – although I have never played that title) is due to it simply copying the game-play from World of Tanks. WoWs is trying to emulate the success of WoT and is understandably using the same “base-capturing” and “defend the area” formula as its predecessor. However, WoT is set on land, therefore it would make sense that teams playing in tanks – like soldiers – would want to capture and defend areas on the map – as real soldiers would. But would you do the same on the Sea? Did real sea battles (Hood Vs Bismarck) involve capturing imaginary circles on the sea? I don’t think so W.G devs; think about it more!

Capturing and holding an objective is the abstract way of simulating a fight for control over an area. And yes, such could happen. Some battles in history weren't just about sinking enough ships, but about establishing control, maybe long enough to get something done. If you take something like the Battle of Tassafaronga for example, by most accounts it's a Japanese victory. But strategically, the encounter prevented the Japanese from supplying their troops with that run and the mounting threat to supply runs meant that they worked first on alternative ways of resupplying, before it contributed to the evacuation of the troops.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
8,724 posts
14,669 battles

Funny how you want ships to stick together yet in the other topic you complain about the very mechanic that forces you to do exactly that as completely untenable and want it to be removed.

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W-C]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,462 posts
6,638 battles
55 minutes ago, davidsturm6597 said:

Think about it W.G developers; then think some more.

I'm pretty sure you're the one who needs to think this through a little more.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[_DIB_]
[_DIB_]
Players
105 posts
10,352 battles

You can't use WOT as a representation on how WOW is supposed to be. WOT is played on postage stamp size maps and is more corridor fighting (WG dropped the good maps that allowed players to do more) where WOW is not corridor fighting. If you want the WOT mechanics of the game, then by all means play that. Allot more diverse in play than WOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
16,376 posts
11,328 battles
1 hour ago, davidsturm6597 said:

If the “capture the circle” objective persists, then W.G and all its games – will be an ultimate fail;

People like it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
106 posts
4,105 battles
5 hours ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Tldr you want ocean map and teamdeathmatch. Thanks but I'll pass. 

It's better than loosing because your team lost circles and time - when you have 5 ships to 1 of the enemy. That is acceptable in WoT - but is just a sick joke when it happens in WoWs. 

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
106 posts
4,105 battles
5 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Funny how you want ships to stick together yet in the other topic you complain about the very mechanic that forces you to do exactly that as completely untenable and want it to be removed.

CVs do not engage other ships; please use your brain for one second. Airplanes engage other ships... get it. It's WoWs meet WoW. And ships are not forced by CVs to stick together; there are no mechanics that forces ships together - unless you are alluding to the AA umbrellas some ships have over others; that's not even worth mentioning. It's hard enough maneuvering to avoid torps; asking us to stick together for AA cover is impossible (not for Flamu-types of course) Besides - the difficulty with CVs is that they really don't do the fighting - but the planes do. So from their latest video - I seem to be getting the idea that they may remove the CVs themselves as controllable objects - leaving just squadrons of attack aircraft for you to manage. It would make sense to do that - as a sad fix for CVs.  

 

I say - remove CVs as playable objects; have them instead come in - at random as a menacing presence - like the cyclone or bad weather to cause havoc to the teams. They already feel that way now; why not make their rare appearance be control more by A.I?  

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,564 posts
6,009 battles

We already told you to let go of your version of "reality".

 

And that you need to develop your own game if you want one as such, now, get to it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
106 posts
4,105 battles
4 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

People like it.

People like getting drunk and smashing their brains out in fights too; but not everyone does. lol  We are not all the same and popularity does not mean - it's good. Flaming Strictly Come Dancing is popular; doesn't make it good in my eyes. 

 

This game play is not better than WoT; I've played that for years now - and I'm bored with the circles. WoWs has circles - but the ships are gorgeous; when they blow up - it's fun as hell.  

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
8,724 posts
14,669 battles
15 minutes ago, davidsturm6597 said:

It's hard enough maneuvering to avoid torps

 

Sounds like you need a healthy dose of git gud.

Avoiding torps or being safe from aircraft is pathetically easy.

 

And since you already admitted that this isn't difficult for "Flamu types" then we can conclude that this is a player issue, not a design or balance problem.

 

17 minutes ago, davidsturm6597 said:

Besides - the difficulty with CVs is that they really don't do the fighting - but the planes do.

 

Well, guess what current CVs don't get? That's right, unlimited planes.

And even better, the planes have to come to you to deal damage, meaning they are inevitably forced into your AA range. You don't even need to actively do anything to shoot them down. That's the easiest counterplay option you could ever ask for.

 

19 minutes ago, davidsturm6597 said:

They already feel that way now; why not make their rare appearance be control more by A.I?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
16,376 posts
11,328 battles
7 minutes ago, davidsturm6597 said:

People like getting drunk and smashing their brains out in fights too; but not everyone does. lol  We are not all the same and popularity does not mean - it's good. Flaming Strictly Come Dancing is popular; doesn't make it good in my eyes. 

 

This game play is not better than WoT; I've played that for years now - and I'm bored with the circles. WoWs has circles - but the ships are gorgeous; when they blow up - it's fun as hell.  

Not everyone needs to like it, just the WoWs players. And they do.

Playerbase is healthy and growing.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
607 posts
1 minute ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Avoiding torps or being safe from aircraft is pathetically easy.

 

 

Please explain to me how it's easy to avoid CV or Torps (if you are in the battle). The only way that can be done is by sailing to A9 (corner of maps) where nobody can spot you. Then you have everyone in game chat screaming what is that daft :etc_swear: doing at A9. :Smile_Default:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,685 posts
2,941 battles

Basically what they do is correct, except in real life there weren't caps but the battle WAS fought at a certain place.

Trafalgar, in the end Nelson kicked enemy butt at that place (=cap) and so britain ruled the waves, also he sunk more ships than they did.

Jutland, the RN did lose more ships but managed to kick the Kaiser out of that area - thereby winning the North Sea. 

 

So, in real life it is also about 'caps'. The weird thing is in WoWS there are islands growing in the caps. 

In real life it would be fog, squalls and the position of the sun that gave cover (or DD smoke). 

Maybe they will start to emulate that, too. 

 

BTW I played War Thunder and WoWP, it wasn't that WoWP wasn't any good - just that WT had the 'plane feeling' much better.

WOT however is a better (shooter) game than WT tanks, and WT ships hasn't progressed further than river barges and the occasional MTB/DD.

Also, if you hate WoWS MM then try WT 'battlerating'... LOL... Must say the planes 'fly' much better (WG could use some of that in the CV-rework).

 

I think in the end WG wins easily on ships and tanks, because they have far less BS, and are more concerned with the 'game' as such. 

For example, if Gaijin was doing the CV-rework, they'd not change the CVs one bit. They'd just give them a low BR,

because they are hard to master. You'd face a Midway in your Charleston, no doubt about it. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
106 posts
4,105 battles
5 hours ago, Riselotte said:

Capturing and holding an objective is the abstract way of simulating a fight for control over an area. And yes, such could happen. Some battles in history weren't just about sinking enough ships, but about establishing control, maybe long enough to get something done. If you take something like the Battle of Tassafaronga for example, by most accounts it's a Japanese victory. But strategically, the encounter prevented the Japanese from supplying their troops with that run and the mounting threat to supply runs meant that they worked first on alternative ways of resupplying, before it contributed to the evacuation of the troops.

You can over extend a point that it becomes anal; sea battles may have the far reaching objectives of capturing territory - but during the engagement such long term goals are not close in mind. The main goal is to keep in formation during the battle and hopefully annihilate the enemy fleet.  In WoWs - it's a free-for-all - with no sense of formation to the fleet; this is a legacy feature from WoT's Random Battle mode; it sucks.  Players can do as they like - sail where they like; and like morons it's more luck in matchmaking than skill that one side wins.

 

If you say battle formation is sea battles are irrelevant - then you need to read more on your history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
8,724 posts
14,669 battles
3 minutes ago, MRGTB said:

Please explain to me how it's easy to avoid CV or Torps (if you are in the battle).

 

For torps, change your rudder and speed periodically when you know there is a DD in the area. If you know which specific DD is attacking you, you can watch the clock on the top right corner and time your turns accordingly assuming you know the respective reload speeds.

For CVs, pick a ship with strong AA, DFAA and/or a few AA skills and CVs will learn to avoid you or suffer the consequences.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
16,376 posts
11,328 battles
5 minutes ago, MRGTB said:

Please explain to me how it's easy to avoid CV or Torps (if you are in the battle). The only way that can be done is by sailing to A9 (corner of maps) where nobody can spot you. Then you have everyone in game chat screaming what is that daft :etc_swear: doing at A9. :Smile_Default:

  • Look at minimap
  • Look at fleet setup
  • Stay behind your DD and make sure that this is the direction torps must be coming from --> torps get spotted
  • Or use WASD like mad to evade torps, do not push needlessly into enemy DD
  • Against CV use other ships for AA cover, turn your ship when planes appear, not when torps are dropped...
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
607 posts
18 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

For torps, change your rudder and speed periodically when you know there is a DD in the area. If you know which specific DD is attacking you, you can watch the clock on the top right corner and time your turns accordingly assuming you know the respective reload speeds.

For CVs, pick a ship with strong AA, DFAA and/or a few AA skills and CVs will learn to avoid you or suffer the consequences.

Well that's all well and fine. But some ships don't have good AA, so should we only use ships that do have good AA? Sure you don't think we should all do that just to combat CV's better. You also don't always know what DD type is waiting in smoke to torp you, so saying watch the clock timer and time his torp reload rate is impossible. Not to mention you don't even know if he took the skill or not to increase his torp reload faster.

 

In short, that is not really something you can do. You can change ship direction when you know torps are likely to come your way after seeing a DD or Cruiser close to you. But on the other hand, you can get torped not even knowing a DD is there because of his longer torp range with better concealment than them.

 

I have the Asashio DD that can fire 20 torps at once I think it is "using fast torp reload" after the first 10 are fired. No BB is dodging 20 wide spread torps from 6-7k out unless he's very lucky. And my concealment is 5.4, he doesn't even see them coming until to late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BABBY]
Beta Tester
1,468 posts
41 minutes ago, davidsturm6597 said:

It's better than loosing because your team lost circles and time - when you have 5 ships to 1 of the enemy.

 

"loosing"

 

Look into spelling please. I see this particular word come up all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[4_0_4]
Players
5,067 posts
11,210 battles
6 hours ago, davidsturm6597 said:

But would you do the same on the Sea? Did real sea battles (Hood Vs Bismarck) involve capturing imaginary circles on the sea? I don’t think so W.G devs; think about it more!

 

Thats a bad example, considering it was about intercepting a raider.

 

Most of the naval battles in the pacific however, were about area control in order to supply and support their armies on the islands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
8,724 posts
14,669 battles
11 minutes ago, MRGTB said:

Well that's all well and fine. But some ships don't have good AA, so should we only use ships that do have good AA?

 

If you do not have a ship with good AA, seek cover from those that have.

 

And no, you cannot get torped without knowing that the DD is there. With very few exceptions, one of which you can dodge torps from even if you get caught completely off guard, no DD can torp from beyond your own detection range, meaning the detected icon will give away that he's in the area. And with a bit of map awareness you can easily discern where he is in most cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[1DSF]
Beta Tester
1,470 posts
4,554 battles
6 hours ago, davidsturm6597 said:

The fundamental reason why WoWs has a problem with game play (and I suspect World of Warplanes also – although I have never played that title) is due to it simply copying the game-play from World of Tanks. WoWs is trying to emulate the success of WoT and is understandably using the same “base-capturing” and “defend the area” formula as its predecessor. However, WoT is set on land, therefore it would make sense that teams playing in tanks – like soldiers – would want to capture and defend areas on the map – as real soldiers would. But would you do the same on the Sea? Did real sea battles (Hood Vs Bismarck) involve capturing imaginary circles on the sea? I don’t think so W.G devs; think about it more!

 

The developers have not thought hard enough and deeply enough to realize they are just acting like lemmings chasing the success of WoT. They need to change the goal of the two teams from “capturing circles” (that Epicenter mode is just a joke W.G and so dumb) to another goal.

 

The solution is to emulate the goal of an actual battle fleet that is searching for the enemy in order to destroy the enemy fleet. So – the “circle” to defend or capture is the “fleet” themselves; your team is the “circle” whilst the enemy team’s fleet formation and distribution is the “capture” area. However it is implemented, a fleet that is dispersed – has to be penalized for doing so, whilst a fleet that stays in tight formation – is rewarded. Of course – the sure destruction of the enemy is the objective; any player who leaves the fleet formation – should incur a penalty.  

   

The same can be applied to a possible World of Submarines; each submarine team instead of capturing circles in the ocean (that’s plain nuts) – are charged with defending their fleet (run by A.I) whilst making sure the enemy team’s fleet gets mashed. No more circles in the ocean; you get actual defend and attack objectives!

 

If the “capture the circle” objective persists, then W.G and all its games – will be an ultimate fail; because they are nothing but clones of WoT – (be it you drive sea or air machines instead of land-tracked machines.) Honestly; WoWs goal system – the crazy circles on the sea are just borrowed straight from WoT; and it is playing WoT but with slow lumbering ships! This has to be changed, because it’s so restrictive in skill! Imagine playing WoWs with TOGs as ships – and that’s the game play. Think about it W.G developers; then think some more.

image.png.17002fb6a991e2c8d45defec260dd444.png

 

WoWS is an action game with ships, it's not a simulation!

If you don't understand this you are at the wrong game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×