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

Defences at caps

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[ELEC]
[ELEC]
Players
628 posts
3,811 battles

I've noticed that on some maps, there are military installations, such as air strips, shore batteries etc.

 

In domination games, why not have these installations "activate" upon being capped by one side or the other?

 

For example, if a cap includes an air strip, then, periodically, attack planes of one type or another take off and patrol the cap area, attacking any enemy team ships which attempt to capture it?

 

Likewise, if there were shore batteries, then these too would activate, and open fire on enemies in the cap.

 

Taken a stage further, if a cap had a quay, then it might spawn one (or more) randomly determined armed merchant men, who would sail out and disrupt capping enemies.

 

Finally, make buoys solid. This would force any ship attempting to cap to sail between them, or be slowed in the same manner as crossing the border of the map.

 

For the sake of balans, the defences would not activate for one minute after the cap was captured. The defences, in addition, may be destroyed, but would be repaired after a randomly determined period of time.

 

I think that this might give more urgency to capping, and make it more rewarding for capping teams to do so early.

 

Hopefully, this might also help prevent camping.

 

Just a thought. 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,472 posts
3,096 battles
Proprio ora, LiveWire___ ha scritto:

In domination games, why not have these installations "activate" upon being capped by one side or the other?

They already tried to do that, and it wasn't great to say the least

 

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
[XTREM]
Players
1,574 posts
13,496 battles

I kind of liked the old Bastion, I think it just needed some attention, otherwise the idea is not inherently bad as a mode.

 

A lot of players just weren't into it though. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SINT]
Players
843 posts
20,498 battles
5 minutes ago, wot_2016_gunner said:

They already tried to do that, and it wasn't great to say the least

 

Totally forgot that this existed once..Maybe it was that traumatic that my brain decided to hide it.. It’s more then 2 yrs ago..?
 

well maybe CV and subs will go the way of Bastion...onetime..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
397 posts
24,586 battles

Yes the famous Bastion Mode.

WG tried it after the Success of  the 2016 Halloween Mode.

But Destroyers were afraid to recap a Cap that belongs to the Enemy because they feared the Fort could open Fire on them.

And there were Situation were the Fort decided an engagement between 2 Players.

Maybe WG should have made the Forts destroyable (even when they were Neutral).

The Battleships would fire a few Shoots at the Beginning and after that Bastion would just be a normal Domination Game

Since then we only have Forts in Scenarios and I think it is better this Way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
9,816 posts
11,501 battles
3 minutes ago, Jvd2000 said:

well maybe CV and subs will go the way of Bastion...onetime..

Nope because that would imply refunding players and admiting defeat with the REEEwork:Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
3,378 posts

For a very long time - up till recently i think - there was a mention in the match results screen of "damage against fortifications" that ofcourse was always 0.  Even when killing forts in Operations. ( these were displayed elsewhere though  )

 

That would have been the remnant of something i never saw. Video above probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ELEC]
[ELEC]
Players
628 posts
3,811 battles

I wasnt aware that there was a game mode for this.

 

But as I say, if it were possible to destroy the fortifications / air strips like in operations, might this not balans it better?

 

How about the idea of buoys being solid and slowing ships down?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
3,378 posts

Why it didnt work in PvP is easy to see : players in PvP want to test their skill against another human on even odds.

 

That is why they have problems with AI forts and arguablly with ships they cannot attack back when attacked.

 

Outside PvP when acting against bots anyway it is perfectly enjoyable and immersive.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ELEC]
[ELEC]
Players
628 posts
3,811 battles
Just now, Beastofwar said:

Why it didnt work in PvP is easy to see : players in PvP want to test their skill against another human on even odds.

 

That is why they have problems with AI forts and arguablly with ships they cannot attack back when attacked.

Hence the idea to have it in domination instead.

 

If the enemy team knew that a cap would become more dangerous the longer it were left, might it not force each team to work harder to cap, and not constantly rely on Dds to do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,331 posts
9,830 battles
7 minutes ago, LiveWire___ said:

How about the idea of buoys being solid and slowing ships down?

What would be the benefit?

Why would it be good for the game?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,616 posts
18,163 battles

I actually didn't mind bastion certainly when compared to some more recent additions to the game but sadly I am in the minority as a lot of people loathed it as a game mode and were extremely vocal about it and Wargaming listened to player feedback (I know heaven forfend right!!) and removed it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
3,378 posts
33 minutes ago, LiveWire___ said:

Hence the idea to have it in domination instead.

 

If the enemy team knew that a cap would become more dangerous the longer it were left, might it not force each team to work harder to cap, and not constantly rely on Dds to do it?

 

Good point.

 

Always wondered who invented the "DD must cap" general accepted behaviour. As DD can only do that succesfully when their concealment is not compromised. And in contested caps it will be.....on top of that they have no HP to endure a wall of cruisers opening up on them.

 

A more powerful force taking the cap is usually much more effective then sacrficing DD for that. Forts could indeed assure DD cannot even try to cap alone anymore -preventing cap rushing DD as a standard -  and focus on actual DD tasks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
397 posts
24,586 battles
Vor 32 Minuten, LiveWire___ sagte:

Hence the idea to have it in domination instead.

 

If the enemy team knew that a cap would become more dangerous the longer it were left, might it not force each team to work harder to cap, and not constantly rely on Dds to do it?

Usually the Situation will play out like this.

You have Caps close to you and Caps closer to the Enemy or Caps were your DDs do not go because they do not have the Support.

That is all fine.

When I am in a battleship or a Cruiser I would destroy every Fort ingame that may not belong to us and if the Enemy Team does the Same we will loose every Fort in the Game.

All destroyed.

You want to destroy the Forts early in the Game while you are still far away from the Enemy and not occupied with fighting those Ships.

Because you know if a DD wants to retake a Cap that he could not take early in the Game then he should not worry about a Fort shooting him.

Battleships can support Destroyers but they often can not get in the Cap themselfes because of the Enemy Position.

Because it was more dangerous. DDs just ignore a Cap that belongs to the Enemy because forts could not be destroyed.

Specially not in the beginning of a Match.

And you could not do more than shooting a Fort as a Cruiser/ Battleship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
397 posts
24,586 battles

A DD might get Spotted by Planes or he is fighting an enemy dd in the Cap.

Like your Harugumo fights an enemy Shima.

You can support your DD but a Fort that belongs to the Enemy that can shoot your DD is a Huge Factor in both Cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
3,378 posts
1 hour ago, doerhoff_damian said:

Usually the Situation will play out like this.

You have Caps close to you and Caps closer to the Enemy or Caps were your DDs do not go because they do not have the Support.

That is all fine.

When I am in a battleship or a Cruiser I would destroy every Fort ingame that may not belong to us and if the Enemy Team does the Same we will loose every Fort in the Game.

All destroyed.

You want to destroy the Forts early in the Game while you are still far away from the Enemy and not occupied with fighting those Ships.

Because you know if a DD wants to retake a Cap that he could not take early in the Game then he should not worry about a Fort shooting him.

Battleships can support Destroyers but they often can not get in the Cap themselfes because of the Enemy Position.

Because it was more dangerous. DDs just ignore a Cap that belongs to the Enemy because forts could not be destroyed.

Specially not in the beginning of a Match.

And you could not do more than shooting a Fort as a Cruiser/ Battleship

 

I think it is different :

 

DD cannot rush to a cap because forts kill them. ( in operations DD cannot rush deep into the bay with forts still there either ) DD spot the forts without shooting ( useless anyway ) Cruisers and BB destroy the forts and fire on enemies that do the same ( not much different then usual )  Everyone can now contest the caps without DD YOLOing/sacrificing.

 

So the mechanism would actively delay capping until one side fought its way to deserve taking it. DD then do not worthless things as YOLOing to death but do things DD are suposed to do.

 

Flaw probably was and will be - logic reasoning - DD still rush(ed) the caps and still get snuffed there. DD's will complain.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ELEC]
[ELEC]
Players
628 posts
3,811 battles
1 hour ago, Saltface said:

What would be the benefit?

Why would it be good for the game?

 

It would make taking a cap more tactical. One would have to approach a cap more cautiously, especially when there were defenders inside it. Care must be taken because if one were to hit a buoy, one would be slowed down and thus be an easier target.

 

It would make defending a cap easier, and thus encourage better play.

 

Quite often, caps are taken, and then the capping team moves on, knowing that caps are often open, with no cover no obstacles.

 

Edit: I'm not sure why that suggestion was funny?

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ELEC]
[ELEC]
Players
628 posts
3,811 battles
1 hour ago, doerhoff_damian said:

Usually the Situation will play out like this.

You have Caps close to you and Caps closer to the Enemy or Caps were your DDs do not go because they do not have the Support.

That is all fine.

When I am in a battleship or a Cruiser I would destroy every Fort ingame that may not belong to us and if the Enemy Team does the Same we will loose every Fort in the Game.

All destroyed.

You want to destroy the Forts early in the Game while you are still far away from the Enemy and not occupied with fighting those Ships.

Because you know if a DD wants to retake a Cap that he could not take early in the Game then he should not worry about a Fort shooting him.

Battleships can support Destroyers but they often can not get in the Cap themselfes because of the Enemy Position.

Because it was more dangerous. DDs just ignore a Cap that belongs to the Enemy because forts could not be destroyed.

Specially not in the beginning of a Match.

And you could not do more than shooting a Fort as a Cruiser/ Battleship

But the forts and air strips would only be able to attack a DD if they could see it. Clearly, they would be unable to target an unspotted DD in smoke, which could still conceivably take the cap without resistance if it did its sneaky thing properly.  

 

Furthermore, forts and air strips regenerating would ensure that BBs / cruisers do their thing and actually support their allies in suppressing defences for others to exploit.

 

The alternative would be for the forts and airstrips to regenerate and stop your team from capping, meaning that more teamwork is needed.

 

Forts need not be hugely dangerous. But hits from them would reset capping progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,331 posts
9,830 battles
3 minutes ago, LiveWire___ said:

It would make taking a cap more tactical. One would have to approach a cap more cautiously, especially when there were defenders inside it

This is exactly what is happening now. DDs approach caps with caution. We don't rush caps. Getting a cap is a very tactical process now as it is. With radar and CV in game a DD must play smart to get a cap.

 

4 minutes ago, LiveWire___ said:

It would make defending a cap easier, and thus encourage better play.

why should it be easy to defend a cap? 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,472 posts
3,096 battles
Proprio ora, Saltface ha scritto:

This is exactly what is happening now. DDs approach caps with caution. We don't rush caps. Getting a cap is a very tactical process now as it is. With radar and CV in game a DD must play smart to get a cap.

Exactly; and let's not forget that DDs will also have to deal with Subs in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ELEC]
[ELEC]
Players
628 posts
3,811 battles
1 minute ago, Saltface said:

This is exactly what is happening now. DDs approach caps with caution. We don't rush caps. Getting a cap is a very tactical process now as it is. With radar and CV in game a DD must play smart to get a cap.

 

why should it be easy to defend a cap? 

 

 

Because it's a tactical area. And because Buoys are solid in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ELEC]
[ELEC]
Players
628 posts
3,811 battles
1 minute ago, wot_2016_gunner said:

Exactly; and let's not forget that DDs will also have to deal with Subs in the future.

IF subs become a thing, and not their own separate mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,472 posts
3,096 battles
Proprio ora, LiveWire___ ha scritto:

IF subs become a thing, and not their own separate mode.

you think WG won't put those in randoms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ELEC]
[ELEC]
Players
628 posts
3,811 battles
1 minute ago, wot_2016_gunner said:

you think WG won't put those in randoms?

I said IF. Means I dont know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×