Fundamentally flawed mechanics of the game

[loppantorkel]

The game is soon 4 years old and has grown a lot since launch. Much more simple mechanics wise at start, but now plenty of ships, gimmicks and mechanics have been introduced, which is great.

 

Feel free to add your own perceived flaws of the game or disagree to those added.

 

1. One ship class larger isn't generally outperforming the smaller in open combat, pure gun fight. E g: République isn't at advantage vs an Henry IV in a one vs one fight at open sea. If both players are good, the Henry will be able to decide the engagement and usually win. Is the statement true? Bad or not?

Another example: Light IFHE cuisers will pepper down heavy cruisers of same tier to fairly large extent. Same to some extent for Kitakaze and Harugumo.

The fundamental flaw in this, imo, is that the class that is supposed to counter one class in an open and fair engagement has lost the overall advantage and this is counterintuitive.

 

2. Similar of the above, but more specific. A class larger will overpenetrate the citadel of the smaller class if the range is close enough and the smaller ship shows enough broadside. This too is counterintuitive and a bad mechanic. Doesn't matter if it's a Yama on Zao or a New Orleans on Atlanta - if you're able to position yourself to get a full broadside of shots into a single class smaller ship - the class you should counter most effectively - you should be rewarded with a huge deal of damage. Not overpens.

 

These are two simple guidelines that should work across the game, from low-high tiers. They are intuitive which means most people will be able to tell what situation is advantageous and what is not.

 

Edit:

3. The survivability of cvs probably could be dropped somewhat. I can't say I'm sure about how much, but from my own experience, I get a lot of overpens, shatters or bounces when I 'feel' (in my own subjective way) I should be rewarded with more damage. Cvs, as they are played now are supposed to not be spotted, they can deal out damage without any risk. If they are caught off guard, and especially broadside, I kind of 'feel' they should be punished more reliably. Now it's the occasional citadel when close, but plenty of overpens, and when angled they can survive a long time if you're chasing without much support, even as cruiser.

In short: Cv should be punished more reliably and faster if they are caught in a bad position, not only if you got torps, but by lower calibre too.

[Mr_Snoww]

you do know that its not as black and white as "oh im a cruiser and spotted a dd, bang its dead just because im a cruiser". the game is fine apart from CVs needing a bit more tweaking. usually no matter what the ship it will be the better player that wins the engagement, so instead of whining about game balance, how about focus on improving in the game we have instead of trying to change it to suite your need :)

[22cm]

Or cruisers build for AA purpose getting nuked by planes... 

 

Or ships that can be repaired on sea... Or planes that can be repaired in the air... 

 

Or radar that works through rocks...

[loppantorkel]

46 minutes ago, Mr_Snoww said:

you do know that its not as black and white as "oh im a cruiser and spotted a dd, bang its dead just because im a cruiser". the game is fine apart from CVs needing a bit more tweaking. usually no matter what the ship it will be the better player that wins the engagement, so instead of whining about game balance, how about focus on improving in the game we have instead of trying to change it to suite your need :)

The flaw in your argument is that you're making strawmen. The game is fine, I've never stated otherwise. I'm not looking for "oh im a cruiser and spotted a dd, bang its dead just because im a cruiser" - never wrote it as black and white. The game is better off if it's inuitive. I've given a few examples where I think the mechanics are flawed, probably because the game has bloated from the abundance of ships, mechanics and gimmicks. I think the game may be improved if these mechanics were looked at - dialling back to make the game a bit more intuitive. We know they are looking at IFHE at least. 

 

So no whining, just some arguments on a discussion board. Feel free to not add these 'git gud noob' suggestions.

25 minutes ago, 22cm said:

Or cruisers build for AA purpose getting nuked by planes... 

Agreed, but I'm guessing this will be balanced in time

Quote

Or ships that can be repaired on sea... Or planes that can be repaired in the air... 

Not a flawed mechanic. For gameplay purpose. Works well enough and people understand how to use it.

Quote

Or radar that works through rocks...

Counterintuitive, but the devs have supposedly tested a variant where it doesn't, and the change was too big/didn't work as well. I wouldn't mind trying a different type of radar, but it works quite well in the game with the current delay, imo.

[Mr_Snoww]

5 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

The flaw in your argument is that you're making strawmen. The game is fine, I've never stated otherwise. I'm not looking for "oh im a cruiser and spotted a dd, bang its dead just because im a cruiser" - never wrote it as black and white. The game is better of if it's inuitive. I've given a few examples where I think the mechanics are flawed, probably because the game has bloated from the abundance of ships, mechanics and gimmicks. I think the game may be improved if these mechanics were looked at - dialling back to make the game a bit more intuitive. We know they are looking at IFHE at least. 

 

So no whining, just some arguments on a discussion board. Feel free to not add these 'git gud noob' suggestions.

Well regardless of what you think there are some people who are doing just fine with the game as it is and some people who need to make 'discussions' 

[loppantorkel]

11 minutes ago, Mr_Snoww said:

Well regardless of what you think there are some people who are doing just fine with the game as it is and some people who need to make 'discussions' 

Well regardless of what you think there are some people who can discuss things just fine without butting in with nothing useful to add.

[Animalul2012]

Sure thing man nerf IPHE because light cruisers like perth, huanghe, all soviet cruisers up to t9, american light cruisers boths italian ducas need nerfs right? if it broken on kitakaze and harugumo then nerf them individually not a whole mechanic that will affect a lot of unnecessary ships! 

And that 1vs1 if both players have equal skill and equal RNG then republique will win it has the velocity and it can overmatch 30mm of armor, zao would deal better with republique since it has way better concealment same strong HE and more torpedoes than henry! Also would you ever stop that henry is OP? the only buff that this ship got was an AA buff and later they added reload booster and now it is OP? or maybe the players have no idea how to counter it?

[WeGreedy]

28 minutes ago, Animalul2012 said:

Also would you ever stop that henry is OP? the only buff that this ship got was an AA buff and later they added reload booster and now it is OP? or maybe the players have no idea how to counter it?

Henry isn't OP, but having all TX cruisers i'd say it's the strongest. It fits the meta right now quite well, I guess.

[FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor]

Pfft. Similar issues occasionally used to annoy me to a degree. Way back when. But currently, compared to the carrier mess, they don't even register.

[veslingr]

2 hours ago, loppantorkel said:

The game is soon 4 years old and has grown a lot since launch. Much more simple mechanics wise at start, but now plenty of ships, gimmicks and mechanics have been introduced, which is great.

 

Feel free to add your own perceived flaws of the game or disagree to those added.

 

1. One ship class larger isn't generally outperforming the smaller in open combat, pure gun fight. E g: République isn't at advantage vs an Henry IV in a one vs one fight at open sea. If both players are good, the Henry will be able to decide the engagement and usually win. Is the statement true? Bad or not?

Another example: Light IFHE cuisers will pepper down heavy cruisers of same tier to fairly large extent. Same to some extent for Kitakaze and Harugumo.

The fundamental flaw in this, imo, is that the class that is supposed to counter one class in an open and fair engagement has lost the overall advantage and this is counterintuitive.

 

2. Similar of the above, but more specific. A class larger will overpenetrate the citadel of the smaller class if the range is close enough and the smaller ship shows enough broadside. This too is counterintuitive and a bad mechanic. Doesn't matter if it's a Yama on Zao or a New Orleans on Atlanta - if you're able to position yourself to get a full broadside of shots into a single class smaller ship - the class you should counter most effectively - you should be rewarded with a huge deal of damage. Not overpens.

 

These are too simple guidelines that should work across the game, from low-high tiers. They are intuitive which means most people will be able to tell what situation is advantageous and what is not.

Henry will win over Republiq if he is better player. Otherwise BB is in advantage. On 14 km range no cruiser has chance over BB and in 1va1 Henry needs to do his own spotting. 

 

Dm will eat wooster in 10 km range. Again 1vs1 Wooster need to do his own spoting. 

 

So your basic premise is wrong

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

TBH I don’t even shoot at cruisers who shoot at me when I play BB, unless I see it is a potatoe. Though, when players are equally skilled, the chances of winning for the HIV are slim, since there is nothing to spot the Republique at long range.

 

Overpenetrating the citadel is something the better players use to stay alive. It is nice to have some more complicated things in the game that requires some knowledge, unlike some recent additions to this game....

 

 

I personally wish all ships had the Russian BB gimmick of the closer the target the better the dispersion.

oh and the entire British BB line.

[loppantorkel]

13 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

Overpenetrating the citadel is something the better players use to stay alive. It is nice to have some more complicated things in the game that requires some knowledge, unlike some recent additions to this game....

It's also what the entirely clueless use to stay alive. Doesn't mean it's a good mechanic.

 

Every time I see a königsberg leisurely passing by my New Orleans with full broadside, I don't think 'what a play!'. I just know it will take several salvos of either AP or HE to take him down and that I'd be so much better off with a light cruiser to make the AP shells stick.

34 minutes ago, veslingr said:

So your basic premise is wrong

Maybe it is. I think there's some truth in my argument, but I'm not that sure. It's up for debate at least.

[DFens_666]

2 hours ago, loppantorkel said:

2. Similar of the above, but more specific. A class larger will overpenetrate the citadel of the smaller class if the range is close enough and the smaller ship shows enough broadside. This too is counterintuitive and a bad mechanic. Doesn't matter if it's a Yama on Zao or a New Orleans on Atlanta - if you're able to position yourself to get a full broadside of shots into a single class smaller ship - the class you should counter most effectively - you should be rewarded with a huge deal of damage. Not overpens.

 

You know which is totaly funny regarding this after ive played a couple of Narai this week?

Shoot a Duguay with DD AP/203mm CA AP/BB AP, and "easiest" citadels ive gotten was with my Maass I thought like, ah well, didnt even lead correctly -> 2 citadels instantly. Shoot with Myoko/Algerie its overpen heaven. Shoot with BB, its the same, unless you hit a bit below the waterline then you get a citadel. Works with Lyon because of the amount of shells tho...

 

Basicly thats even a "flaw" of the low-midtier Frenchs Cruisers - they are better off showing broadsides getting overpenned, than being angled and getting citadelled

[MrWastee]

3 hours ago, loppantorkel said:

[...]

 

1. One ship class larger isn't generally outperforming the smaller in open combat, pure gun fight. E g: République isn't at advantage vs an Henry IV in a one vs one fight at open sea. If both players are good, the Henry will be able to decide the engagement and usually win. Is the statement true? Bad or not?

true, good!

 

Quote

Another example: Light IFHE cuisers will pepper down heavy cruisers of same tier to fairly large extent. Same to some extent for Kitakaze and Harugumo.

The fundamental flaw in this, imo, is that the class that is supposed to counter one class in an open and fair engagement has lost the overall advantage and this is counterintuitive.

i tend to disagree. engagements on these ranges are mostly that: a matter of range and positioning. and while it might be true that these dd's fight ca's effectively, the comparison still is off imo. 1 ca shell does a lot more harm to any dd than the other way round.

 

Quote

 

2. Similar of the above, but more specific. A class larger will overpenetrate the citadel of the smaller class if the range is close enough and the smaller ship shows enough broadside. This too is counterintuitive and a bad mechanic. Doesn't matter if it's a Yama on Zao or a New Orleans on Atlanta - if you're able to position yourself to get a full broadside of shots into a single class smaller ship - the class you should counter most effectively - you should be rewarded with a huge deal of damage. Not overpens.

totally disagree! simply coz: what happens now to these ships tif they're bow in or angled? right, in regard to range they gonna get deleted. in that logic they now would get deleted from any angle.... showing broad is often their only chance to survive short ranges engagements and thus more than legit to me. not only dd's and bb's belong in that corner...

 

and while i agree that one has to have a bit of knowledge on ingame mechanics to understand why these things happen, but in logic of those they are intuitive. ofc not if u not take mechanics into regard.

 

[loppantorkel]

1 minute ago, DFens_666 said:

 

You know which is totaly funny regarding this after ive played a couple of Narai this week?

Shoot a Duguay with DD AP/203mm CA AP/BB AP, and "easiest" citadels ive gotten was with my Maass I thought like, ah well, didnt even lead correctly -> 2 citadels instantly. Shoot with Myoko/Algerie its overpen heaven. Shoot with BB, its the same, unless you hit a bit below the waterline then you get a citadel. Works with Lyon because of the amount of shells tho...

 

Basicly thats even a "flaw" of the low-midtier Frenchs Cruisers - they are better off showing broadsides getting overpenned, than being angled and getting citadelled

This is what I mean by that some mechanics have become flawed in that they're not intuitive any more. Instead of buffing or nerfing individual ships to have a correct overall WR, I think there's a need to look at the overall class balance and what should counter what. Which situations should be advantageous for what ships and classes. Just to make the game more intuitive. There's a risk in only putting out small fires and not seeing a bigger picture.

[MrWastee]

14 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

This is what I mean by that some mechanics have become flawed in that they're not intuitive any more. Instead of buffing or nerfing individual ships to have a correct overall WR, I think there's a need to look at the overall class balance and what should counter what. Which situations should be advantageous for what ships and classes. Just to make the game more intuitive. There's a risk in only putting out small fires and not seeing a bigger picture.

i think somehow it's a matter of perspective. class balance could be easily granted if the classes were clearly distinct from each other. i think they're not. there are many hybridly implemented ships. khaba, scharnhorst, the t9 super ca's, etc... in that regard it's ok to me if sometimes the lines start to blurr, as long these shiftings get caught up elsewhere. f.e. with concealment, rof or whatever.

makes it more diverse and interesting imo.

[loppantorkel]

19 minutes ago, MrWastee said:

totally disagree! simply coz: what happens now to these ships tif they're bow in or angled? right, in regard to range they gonna get deleted. in that logic they now would get deleted from any angle.... showing broad is often their only chance to survive short ranges engagements and thus more than legit to me. not only dd's and bb's belong in that corner...

 

and while i agree that one has to have a bit of knowledge on ingame mechanics to understand why these things happen, but in logic of those they are intuitive. ofc not if u not take mechanics into regard.

Mechanics are changed to make the game better. If mechanics are changed to something better it will be intuitive for both those who understand the mechanics and those who just play the game. Having people learn not to show full broadside in some instances, while making full broadside the only way to survive is counterintuitive for most players. Is it a good gameplay mechanic that makes the game more fun/better? I'm not sure. I doubt this 'overpen of citadel'-mechanic was intended from the start or that it makes for a better game.

 

If they would look at this mechanic and change it, then light cruisers, as you're implying, would be worse off. Of course they'd have to change other aspects as well and buff the affected ships in other ways. Maybe take less citadels when angled or at range? This isn't about buffing or nerfing ships or classes. Just mechanics that seem bad imo.

1 minute ago, MrWastee said:

i think somehow it's a matter of perspective. class balance could be easily granted if the classes were clearly distinct from each other. i think they're not. there are many hybridly implemented ships. khaba, scharnhorst, the t9 super ca's, etc... in that regard it's ok to me if sometimes the lines start to blurr, as long these shiftings get caught up elsewhere. f.e. with concealment, rof or whatever.

makes it more diverse and interesting imo.

I agree. Hybrid classes should exist and lines are blurred. All ships doesn't need to fit a specific class. Makes the game more diverse, yes. I still think it's a good idea to look at some of these mechanics and perhaps alter them somewhat, if the game would be improved by it.

[MrWastee]

38 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

Mechanics are changed to make the game better. If mechanics are changed to something better it will be intuitive for both those who understand the mechanics and those who just play the game. Having people learn not to show full broadside in some instances, while making full broadside the only way to survive is counterintuitive for most players. Is it a good gameplay mechanic that makes the game more fun/better? I'm not sure. I doubt this 'overpen of citadel'-mechanic was intended from the start or that it makes for a better game.

 

If they would look at this mechanic and change it, then light cruisers, as you're implying, would be worse off. Of course they'd have to change other aspects as well and buff the affected ships in other ways. Maybe take less citadels when angled or at range? This isn't about buffing or nerfing ships or classes. Just mechanics that seem bad imo.

question now would be: what IS better?

 

an intuitive way without too many layers. coz the more layers, the less intuitive the entry and handling could be? imo a way for FPS, not for more complex engagements like between ships.

 

an in depth system, consisting of several logically connected layers. not easy to see through in the 1st place, but kinda appropiate to the object, which are ships with a ton of several attributes (rof, concealment, calibre, armor scheme, etc.)... and i think in this regard that's the most important part of the story, the armor scheme.

to make it more intuitive something would have to suffer (most probalby cl's lol) or to get dumbed down in a way cv just got. complexity in this regard is a very good thing imho.

 

while i see the point i do not agree. it wouldn't do better for the quality of the game in the long run, just for the nubs so to say. it already is arcade

 

 

4 the record: i absolutely dislike nowadays practice of alternating games on and on anyways. in my world cv-rework with a total change of gameplay never would've happened. it might have gone into "wows2"... after wows would've been finished after the 3rd patch

[SirAmra]

1 hour ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

Overpenetrating the citadel is something the better players use to stay alive. It is nice to have some more complicated things in the game that requires some knowledge, unlike some recent additions to this game....

Well, I would still want the RNG reduced from what it is today.

I'll give u a good example. Yesterday I had 41 penning hits with my Izmail in a game, 31 of them were overpens on permabroadside cruisers.

That ship has a 33 sec reload. I never hit with all my 12 shells during the 5 min I fought 3 cruisers and a QE. They all presented perfect broadsides. I couldn't get a citadell even trying.

This went on alot yesterday. I know this isn't anything new, but it was really bad yesterday.

But what will a player learn from not getting punished for bad play?

And since RNG is what it is, all of the sudden u get citadells from any angle....oooor u bounce.

Some RNg is needed, but less than now.

[Redcap375]

My opinion:

 

It's so burred at the moment, far far burred for my liking.  Now i know it's an arcade game, i just wanted to say that first as if WG wanted to fire tomahawk missiles from a Fletcher....Yeah, whatever, it's an arcade game not RL. This is very detracted from RL

 

So with that out of the way. 

 

1) Battlecrusiers with the versatility of a cruiser but the guns and HP of some BB's is just wrong.  If your gonna do that, then take more advantages away from either. If you want the radar, Defensive AA, accuracy then slash it in half straight the way!  Having BB guns on cruisers accuracy is mental when you still have a good rate of fire.  Ok it's not Des kinda fast firing, but the Alaska, Balancegrad ect arnt that far off something like a Zao, Moskva and Hindy.  You want radar on a Battlecrusier? Fine, then it's only on for 20 secs.  You want Defensive AA? Then it's only active for 20 secs. Less charges too with less rage.  12 km radar range on a Balancegrad that lasts for 30 secs for instance is just stupid, not including Radar mods too.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it but that's wants going on with alot of the ships. 

 

You will still be a force to be reckoned with.  Your still gonna smash up cruisers (like they were originally designed for) and take on BB's but you wont be so diverse like they currently are.  Plus your taking up a cruiser space.  In things like clan battle with a hard cap on BB's, this is a massive advantage. 

 

2) DD's penning 32 mm of armour is just mental.  Mind melting mental. What would i do? You can pen 30mm armour (with IFHE) but no further.  Then you can deal with heavy cruisers which is as close to fine i will admit, but wont give you anything but fires regarding Main Battleships.  I mean for god sake, you still have torps and a godly concement do you/we? 

 

3) AA curisers not be able to really do their job.  Planes still get through without much of a fuss.  Get that changed then you MIGHT see people work as a team more.

 

4) Radar behind islands.  Ho ho ho.  However, i am glad about the radar gap when first spotted by friendly ships.  So fair play WG

 

Right now we have Light cruisers murdering Battleships, DD's murdering heavy cruisers, CV's outright killing DD's and everything burning to death before they are actually sunk.  Bit like comic book. 

 

*sigh*

 

But i don't really care to be brutally honest and haven't for a while now.  WG can do what they want and blur the lines as much as they like.  After all, it's an arcade game at the end of the day. They have gone past the point of no return now with the ships they have brought out (Balancedgrad), macanics  (Smoke used as an attacking weapon, not defensive as it should have been) and gimmicks (better acc BB's at close range). 

 

It's all messed up...Alot. 

 

 

 

[ZWC]

Well there is one issue I always had with WG games. 
The 2 tier differ in MM bringing 3 tiers in one game.
Not being a flaw for working as intent.

But one of the great things in Steel Ocean was the one tier differ.
(Steel Ocean was a rip-off of this game but besides the graphics, superb in all aspects.... )
Steel Ocean did die because of the growing amount of cheaters, sadly hacks became a common thing. (even to a point you could hardly find any players not cheating)

But that game (even a unfair copy) did understand good game-play at first.
(submarines and CV's implant was great. as far planes are fair in sea battles)

One tier differ did make game-play so much more skilled based.

Would love it to see it in here.
but not really a flaw,... just bad developing. 

[Beaker71]

When i was looking at some stats before the CV rework -  the XP dished out to DD, CA & BBs was remarkably close. So although not accurate in terms of "real world" scenarios, I thought WG had done a pretty good job with the balancing of the ships for the game. Yes in a 1vs1 there's advantages to certain classes, but the player was still the most vital element.

 

But that was before the rework, now it's not so good!

 

 

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

54 minutes ago, SirAmra said:

Well, I would still want the RNG reduced from what it is today.

I'll give u a good example. Yesterday I had 41 penning hits with my Izmail in a game, 31 of them were overpens on permabroadside cruisers.

That ship has a 33 sec reload. I never hit with all my 12 shells during the 5 min I fought 3 cruisers and a QE. They all presented perfect broadsides. I couldn't get a citadell even trying.

This went on alot yesterday. I know this isn't anything new, but it was really bad yesterday.

But what will a player learn from not getting punished for bad play?

And since RNG is what it is, all of the sudden u get citadells from any angle....oooor u bounce.

Some RNg is needed, but less than now.

What is bad play? You shooting overpenetrations on broadside cruisers?

[loppantorkel]

1 hour ago, MrWastee said:

question now would be: what IS better?

 

an intuitive way without too many layers. coz the more layers, the less intuitive the entry and handling could be? imo a way for FPS, not for more complex engagements like between ships.

 

an in depth system, consisting of several logically connected layers. not easy to see through in the 1st place, but kinda appropiate to the object, which are ships with a ton of several attributes (rof, concealment, calibre, armor scheme, etc.)... and i think in this regard that's the most important part of the story, the armor scheme.

to make it more intuitive something would have to suffer (most probalby cl's lol) or to get dumbed down in a way cv just got. complexity in this regard is a very good thing imho.

It is a good thing if the complexity isn't counterintuitive or detracts from the game. The game is very complex regardless of people imagining it being dumbed down. There's a difference in dumbing a game down and keeping the skill gap between players down to some degree. A good player will outperform a bad one, a unicum player will be able to carry many games despite only being one out of 12 players in the team.

CLs would suffer if you only changed this aspect. Like many other changes, they'd have to balance it accordingly.

Quote

 

while i see the point i do not agree. it wouldn't do better for the quality of the game in the long run, just for the nubs so to say. it already is arcade

 

4 the record: i absolutely dislike nowadays practice of alternating games on and on anyways. in my world cv-rework with a total change of gameplay never would've happened. it might have gone into "wows2"... after wows would've been finished after the 3rd patch

Not sure about 'the practice of alternating games'. CV-rework made cv more prevalent. The difference between being in a cv game or non-cv game is of much lesser impact now than before. Cvs doesn't determine the games to the same degree as before, in my experience.

 

 

One addition to the overpen citadel mechanic. If WG somehow were able to the underwater shell penetration work properly, there perhaps wouldn't be much of an issue. That would at least add one proper solution to the yoloing broadsiders.

[MrWastee]

34 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

[...], they'd have to balance it accordingly.

[...]

CV-rework [...]

 

 

 

and there we go. no matter what one might think of the rework, it surely changed gameplay drastically. for the better? easier now? well, not imo, but that's another discussion!

 

for sure they changed sheet and introduced immunity times as a new balancing factor.... nothing, i mean really: NOTHING can justify such in my book! "balance it accordingly" from a new getgo always contains a good chance to screw the whole thing up, even more so in a grown system!

 

and yoloing cl's really not should be much of a matter if played against on them rightly.

 

"in former times" we had games which didnt change each year and negated any effort one did put in b4. nowadays it's just a gamble if the devs screw up a whole thing within the next year or not (-->sto pvp anyone?!).