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

the answer for end camping?

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[L4GG]
Players
1,719 posts
6,705 battles

Hey guys, what about this.

 

I've been playing other games and campers are much more rare there or even inexistent.

 

there's even a game where a gun can give you bonus (more hit points) for every 100 m you are from the target , ( encouraging camping)

 

respawn ability until the half of a battle or something like that.

 

Would make the campers more braver? Knowing that if they lose an engagement they can get back in again?

 

Once? twice?

 

Outside WG, I play a game where only have in one of their  modes, our standard battles, they don't have domination.

the battle is action packed, fights all over the place

 

smaller teams in random, like in ranked or hallo ops, about half of the what we use to play.

More room to spare to do our things, encouraging aggressive gameplay, and help MM in some way?

 

 

what you think?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
1,506 posts
19,293 battles
5 minutes ago, Butterdoll said:

[...]

 

Once? twice?

 

 

i*d go with >                      < the empty space afterwards. so, never.

 

 

wows avatars are all in all way more tanky than i'd knew from other games with respawns. would chaos up matches more than help stop camping imo. most probably it'd lead to snowballs in map corners...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester
1,390 posts
12,879 battles

The thing is, even when disregarding inexperienced, cowardly and/or foolish players, who might camp for various reasons, this games actually suits a couple of playstyles.

 

One playstyle is the action packed, adrenalin pumping, aggressive brawler playstyle, the other playstype is the reservered, controlled and strategic approach, rather like moving pieces on a chessboard. So while one part of the players is "why are those $&%§* not supporting or following-up my decisive push" the other part is "why are these §$%&* charging in like mad when we can easily pick the enemies apart from afar"?

 

And the former players will always "accuse" the later players as being campy / campers.

 

Could there be ways to encourage decreasing the engagement distances? Of course they are.

 

First of all I would balance (or modify) the XP and credit income based on distance to enemy forces and/or distance to caps. Ships that do all the spotting and ships that are fighting near the actual objective(s) simply need to be rewarded more.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L4GG]
Players
1,719 posts
6,705 battles
8 minutes ago, MrWastee said:

i*d go with >                      < the empty space afterwards. so, never.

 

 

wows avatars are all in all way more tanky than i'd knew from other games with respawns. would chaos up matches more than help stop camping imo. most probably it'd lead to snowballs in map corners... 

I don't know.

But what I'm experiencing is very dynamic gameplay often close range brawls. As soon a guy from the red team appears it's mine, mine, mine.

but the vehicles  are faster and more nimble, not all, thou.

But I don't get to see people in the back. It's more up in your face, many of the weapons are close range weapons, maybe shorten the range like in halo ops. 8 kms max?

Every dog and it's mother have a radar, (base range 150 m, it can go up). I've got two and once I saw a guy with four radars (around 600 m if I'm not mistaken)

One thing WG done and well done was co-op, they bumped from 5 to 8 and still there is plenty of room to make aggressive moves, maybe 24 players is a lot?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
1,506 posts
19,293 battles
3 minutes ago, Butterdoll said:

I don't know.

But what I'm experiencing is very dynamic gameplay often close range brawls. As soon a guy from the red team appears it's mine, mine, mine.

but the vehicles  are faster and more nimble, not all, thou.

But I don't get to see people in the back. It's more up in your face, many of the weapons are close range weapons, maybe shorten the range like in halo ops. 8 kms max?

Every dog and it's mother have a radar, (base range 150 m, it can go up). I've got two and once I saw a guy with four radars (around 600 m if I'm not mistaken)

One thing WG done and well done was co-op, they bumped from 5 to 8 and still there is plenty of room to make aggressive moves, maybe 24 players is a lot?

 

 

 

 

the list of prrblems coming up with respawns is just not worth to dig through imo.... f.e. it ain't fun to respawn in mid of a pushing fleet midgame, close to sec bb or whatnot. while match dynamic is that diverse, even with dynamic spawnpoints u couldn't exclude the possibility.

and if not dynamic, there goes the basecamping... etcetc

 

teamsize fits mapsize overall imo, so if u go on teamsize u'll always have to take into regard on what map the matches are supposed to run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L4GG]
Players
1,719 posts
6,705 battles
3 minutes ago, Ubertron_X said:

The thing is, even when disregarding inexperienced, cowardly and/or foolish players, who might camp for various reasons, this games actually suits a couple of playstyles.

 

One playstyle is the action packed, adrenalin pumping, aggressive brawler playstyle, the other playstype is the reservered, controlled and strategic approach, rather like moving pieces on a chessboard. So while one part of the players is "why are those $&%§* not supporting or following-up my decisive push" the other part is "why are these §$%&* charging in like mad when we can easily pick the enemies apart from afar"?

 

And the former players will always "accuse" the later players as being campy / campers.

 

Could there be ways to encourage decreasing the engagement distances? Of course they are.

 

First of all I would balance (or modify) the XP and credit income based on distance to enemy forces and/or distance to caps. Ships that do all the spotting and ships that are fighting near the actual objective need to be rewarded more.

when you speak of chessboard it's kind of a turn off, but even that is ok if the game would not have a time limit.

 

I understand what you are saying about camping/rushers. Other way

But even bad players if they would play together often in the same team over and over again they would learn about each other and starting to make their own plays, coordinate ones and eventually would not be campers/rushers but a team, an actual team.

Or even other way is smaller teams

to support/protect or to attack you have to be in the "soup" with everybody else.

 

Instead of modifying xp or credit income, what about damage dealt (I'm not talking about dispersion, I'm talking about alpha strike) the further you are the less you damage is.

As in here, other games also uses lighter builds to do the spotting but as I said everyone has at least a radar even what we would call t1s or t2's or t3's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L4GG]
Players
1,719 posts
6,705 battles
27 minutes ago, MrWastee said:

the list of prrblems coming up with respawns is just not worth to dig through imo.... f.e. it ain't fun to respawn in mid of a pushing fleet midgame, close to sec bb or whatnot. while match dynamic is that diverse, even with dynamic spawnpoints u couldn't exclude the possibility.

and if not dynamic, there goes the basecamping... etcetc

 

teamsize fits mapsize overall imo, so if u go on teamsize u'll always have to take into regard on what map the matches are supposed to run.

normally (what I've been playing) the respawning it's close to the action behind the frontlines away from either base in whatever map they got.

there it works just peachy

just enough for you to regroup yourself and re-join the fight if you take too long you will trigger a wave of bots just for you to handle.

 

Also, in Pve if you know the map and where the bots spawn, the entire team waits for them there and we kick [edited]while what we have to protect remains save.

(their bots are a lot more easy than the bots in here)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,601 posts
11,648 battles

I think people who want "fast paced action" should just play different games because that is not what WoWs is about. At least not all the time. And not even the spiciest DD knife fights will ever be as "fast paced" and "action packed" as your regular 1st person shooter. Which is a good thing because this is not a kid's game. It is for thinking people (despite WG's sad efforts to destroy that defining characteristic.)

 

Oooh, löök what I found!

A grinding service!

Just buy XP and credits - we do the boring stuff for you!

https://goldrino-power.com/warships-boost

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester
1,390 posts
12,879 battles
50 minutes ago, Butterdoll said:

But even bad players if they would play together often in the same team over and over again they would learn about each other and starting to make their own plays, coordinate ones and eventually would not be campers/rushers but a team, an actual team.

Or even other way is smaller teams

to support/protect or to attack you have to be in the "soup" with everybody else.

While in principle you are right, there are so many variables to consider here.

 

Lets take a look at the smallest team possible, i.e. only 2 ships. Team one is consisting of a secondary spec'ed Bismarck and an Akizuki. Team two is an Amagi and an Akizuki.

 

So which team synergizes better and which player will call which player a camper?

 

In team one the correctly played Bismarck will try to ride the visibility range and/or get to secondary range, possible tanking a lot of damage and keeping the enemy spotted for a lot of Akizuki smoke firing. In team two a good Amagi will also try to ride the visibility range but if in doubt will disengage to utilize the much bigger alpha potential of its more and bigger guns from afar. The Akizuki will now have to operate mostly on it's own and smoke firing chances will be less frequent.

 

Teamwork goes both ways and good players already know what to kind of support to expect based on the type(s) of friendly ships alone. Which does not mean that those ships have captains that can utilize all aspects of their ships and/or realize in time what needs to be done in any given situation, people make mistakes after all. But you won't expect radar from a Mogami, would you?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,063 posts
8,058 battles

I think when in random queue, largely you just have to accept  that some people aren't very helpful. I don't mind the "camper" when he's something like a Charles Martel doing obscene amounts of HE damage. I'm annoyed by the low-concealment DD hiding behind me when I'm being torped in my BB.

Speaking for myself, there's one thing I've always focused on learning, when playing online shooters. Used to apply in my old Mechwarrior days and now here. And that's to not get fixated on camping or pushing, but being able to play dynamic, and rapidly switch between cautious play and maximum aggression.

 

I've lost so many games where people SHOULD have camped. We had two caps out of three, we had the numbers advantage, and we were  well  positioned to defend. All you had to do was hold ground and take an easy win, but then people get impatient and start to trickle out one at a time, feeding the enemy kills.

In some cases I think game design is the culprit though. In WoWS  I've never liked the whole design concept of a cruiser relying on island cover and relying on having BAD firing arcs. They're not terrible interesting to play -- and even less to play against -- and beyond that they just break the whole flow of the game. It's a basic design concept that doesn't improve the game and stagnates it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L4GG]
Players
1,719 posts
6,705 battles
2 minutes ago, Nautical_Metaphor said:

I think people who want "fast paced action" should just play different games because that is not what WoWs is about. At least not all the time. And not even the spiciest DD knife fights will ever be as "fast paced" and "action packed" as your regular 1st person shooter. Which is a good thing because this is not a kid's game. It is for thinking people (despite WG's sad efforts to destroy that defining characteristic.)

 

Oooh, löök what I found!

A grinding service!

Just buy XP and credits - we do the boring stuff for you!

https://goldrino-power.com/warships-boost

I'm not talking about grinding I'm talking about having a good time.

But all you said doesn't mean it has to be boring.

 

Now, the following it's not about throwing things at the face of nobody, it's not me. And besides there's nothing to throw anyway,  I simply want to make a point.

I played with you once in Aegis, probably you don't remember me and I only notice you afterwards (sorry for that, the heat of the moment, you know, fog of war).

What you are in it's not important.

 

Spoiler

bayern3.1.thumb.png.3ffeee379df80205f3d584e9ed65a141.png

 

Aegis.

 

the second wave it's particular difficult for a bb (at least for me), you can have up to 6 ships targeting you with HE and AP. (mind you I didn't have premium consumables back then)

you ask me to stay in this side of the islands and I did, taking a lot of damage.

Slow BB, I could not have gone to the other side, either way, I had to stay and eat damage if I wanted to be in position for the convoy.

Then after all that , I asked for support and told the other ships to stand back because I wanted to be in the face of the Kongo and of the other bb.

two ships answered it, one was you, you replied don't worry I intent to be behind a meat shield ahahahah. (only later I understood what you meant.)

All went well, a great game, an exciting game.

I only fired 50 shells in that game.

How much planning do you think this battle required? I tell you, None.

All trial and error.

I can't do with Bayern what I do with my cruisers and vice-versa. And I have to adapt.

Whatever operation we talk about, if you want to take advantage of certain things you have to be in the right place in the right time, you miss a beat you take no advantage, you miss more beats it's all over.

In Newport defence with my Bayern I often exit the green circle if I start in the right side, torp beat the dd, sink the dd, sink the first bb and came back in brawling the second bb (much easier to escape from the HE of the third wave and safer because you are going away from the third wave not towards) and so on.

all trial and error, if you miss a beat it's all over. (sometimes your team doesn't do the job when you most needed it and you burn either way.)

In the old raptor rescue I did similar thing. ( I often sunk the kuma and Aoba in the middle, then the kuma, and Aoba, Mijo, the other BB and sometimes I would get the carrier too)

All trying and error after I know the operation.

But is fun when it works or it can be very frustrating.

The last operation dictate my break, I had enough failures and the one when the first wave pierced through the green perimeter was enough for me.

Now I'm slowly returning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
850 posts

My theory is that the islands must be magnetic. This is why the bigger the ships the more closely they bunch up next to an island.

 

Firm nod. :Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,425 posts
6,923 battles

What do you define by "camping" ? Because if you think kiting away and retreating is "camping" I have bad news for you : it will never disappear as it is the best way to maximise firepower and minimize return damage in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L4GG]
Players
1,719 posts
6,705 battles
1 hour ago, Ubertron_X said:

While in principle you are right, there are so many variables to consider here.

 

Lets take a look at the smallest team possible, i.e. only 2 ships. Team one is consisting of a secondary spec'ed Bismarck and an Akizuki. Team two is an Amagi and an Akizuki.

 

So which team synergizes better and which player will call which player a camper?

 

In team one the correctly played Bismarck will try to ride the visibility range and/or get to secondary range, possible tanking a lot of damage and keeping the enemy spotted for a lot of Akizuki smoke firing. In team two a good Amagi will also try to ride the visibility range but if in doubt will disengage to utilize the much bigger alpha potential of its more and bigger guns from afar. The Akizuki will now have to operate mostly on it's own and smoke firing chances will be less frequent.

 

Teamwork goes both ways and good players already know what to kind of support to expect based on the type(s) of friendly ships alone. Which does not mean that those ships have captains that can utilize all aspects of their ships and/or realize in time what needs to be done in any given situation, people make mistakes after all. But you won't expect radar from a Mogami, would you?

 

 

 

What I'm not expecting is what is expectable from a ship.

I took a period off, I did a co-op battle, all bots go to point a the team is going where the bots aren't.

But the fault is mine I should know better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
2,012 posts
10,222 battles
1 hour ago, ShinGetsu said:

What do you define by "camping" ? Because if you think kiting away and retreating is "camping" I have bad news for you : it will never disappear as it is the best way to maximise firepower and minimize return damage in this game.

Not a problem with it as such, if appropriate, but people do it all the time.

 

Typical example: one team splits up, gets 2 caps basically for free. The majority of their opponents fleet will often still go on and kite when the third cap gets contested.

It's one thing to "camp"/kite/(whatever so called "cowardice" we are talking about) if vastly outnumbered, but people are such pussies they default to "running away"/"doing nothing".

 

- I've seen games - a lot of them recently - basically be over in 6/7 minutes - with the team without caps falling back to the border.

- As counterpoint: I've seen the team with all the caps lose as well, going in little groups toward the enemy blob

 

And most - if indeed not almost all - games these days are just variations of those two things - a roflstomp or a massive throw - cause people don't want to use their brains (or lack one) and are too much of a pussy to try anything whatsoever that might get them damaged.

 

 

edit:

 

I should also add that not a single mechanic will change the general playerbase's mind about that. German BBs were introduced for exactly that purpose: making a hard push at the right time - anyone see that a lot?

I can tell you now that when the RU BBs are going to be introduced with the same intended purpose, most of their players will still be unwilling to move forward - and I'm gonna bet that "b-b-but I only have limited damagecons" will be the standard excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COTNS]
Players
216 posts
3,537 battles

honestly, ether increase certain ships immunity to fire and HE spam. or nerf fire and HE spam. no one pushes because 2-3 HE spammers will melt you in 30 seconds while behind islands the entire time. WG litterally encourages island camping which forces people to stay at max range until the games decided then the "winning" Team will start a push. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×