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

Tech tree suggestion to increase player count in tier II-IV

Techtree versatility  

32 members have voted

  1. 1. What tech tree options would you like to see? (multiple choices possible)

    • Sidegrade to ships of equal power, silver gain and matchmaking, but different lay-out
    • Sidegrade to ships with additional silver gain
    • Sidegrade to ships with improved matchmaking
    • Sidegrade to ships with improved captain training (but not free captain exchange like on premium ships)
    • Sidegrade to ships with less power (for example, less firepower and no AA at tier III), but improved matchmaking
    • Sidegrade grind for low tier premium ships (can be bought with gold or free exp to skip grind)
    • Sidegrade grind for medium tier premium ships (can be bought with gold or free exp to skip grind)
    • Trees ending at medium tiers with improved matchmaking (+1 tier)
    • Trees ending at medium tiers with improved matchmaking (+0 tier)
    • None of the above is a good idea

38 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
2,728 posts
7,825 battles

Right now we only have "vertical" tech trees, with the occassional split to a different class of same tier, or higher tier.

 

But basically the current design is that a techtree line always moves to a higher tier ship. So progression means power creep to keep up with the power creep of being faced with up to two tier higher units. This always incentices moving up and abandoning lower tier units. This tiering up concept invalidates certain national trees for not having ships reaching up to a top X.

 

But what if we provide different incentives and a different direction of progression? What if we do sidegrades? In other words, grind for ships that are pretty equal in power - perhaps even worse specs (!) - but have a different configuration, higher silver acquisition (more similar to those on a higher rank) or a more priviliged matchmaking? What if finishing the sidegrade tree results in (low tier) premium ships like the Albany or Tachybana being unlocked? What if you could speed up captain training with a ship of equal power, but can't change captains freely like on a premium ship?

 

What if we end both minor and major nation trees at a mid tier and give the ship priviliged matchmaking, making it not see two tier higher ships unless in a division? That would effectively make it a "top tier" ship.

 

This invites seal clubbing you say. Probably, but someone who wants to seal club has ample incentive for that as is. But having to wade through boring bots that ram each other and long queues is probably a much bigger deterrent than facing some good players. Having the option to avoid CVs by side grading a tier III can also make those more fun to play and generate more tier III matches without CVs in them, making it easier and more fun to grind through ships without AA.

 

 

Example tree:

 

T1 Cruiser -> T1 Cruiser (1.5x silver gain) -> T1 Cruiser (2x silver gain) -> T1 Premium Cruiser

|
|- T2 DD -> T2 DD (1.5x silver gain) -> T2 DD (2x silver gain) -> T2 DD (limited matchmaking -1/+0) -> T3 Premium DD (limited matchmaking)

|  |

|  \'-> T3 DD -> T4 DD -> T5 DD -> T6 DD (limited match making -2/+1) -> T7 DD (limited matchmaking -2/+0, thus does not see T8-9 CVs or radar)

|

T2 Cruiser -> T2 Cruiser (2x silver gain) -> T2 Cruiser (limited matchmaking -1/+0) -> T2 Premium BB (Mikasa)

|

T3 Cruiser -> T3 Cruiser (2x silver gain) -> T3 Cruiser (limited matchmaking -1/+0) -> T4 Premium Cruiser

|

T4 Cruiser -> T4 Cruiser (improved captain training) -> etc.

|

T5 Cruiser (limited matchmaking -2/+1)

|

T6 Cruiser (limited matchmaking -2/+0)

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,116 posts

CVs are not the problem.

 

The word is out about what the game did all these years to ruin gameplay, people are not stupid. Delete the CVs tomorrow I say. End this narrative that was a smokescreen all along now. Just remove them. Game won't recover cuz it is geared differently. It just won't. It can't. It has run it's course and reached it's final destination. Maximum profit is the enemy here. Blatant misrepresentation and outright insane changes to customer rules and products. Many more things.

 

This is the final product.

 

Subs will be the only meaningful addition coming.

 

I honestly don't believe subs will save the game for the lower tiers or the higher ups.

 

It is done. 

 

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,069 posts
9,310 battles

I find your ideas great, but voted "none of the above". How low tier gameplay would improve?

 

ELO matchmaking.

 

Barring that, 2 things:

 

1. 9-point captain limit

2. Fixing CVS (lol, I know).

 

The problem with low tiers is seal clubbing. 

 

That said, I like your idea about horizontal tech trees!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[D3V1L]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
201 posts
32 minutes ago, lossi_2018 said:

CVs are not the problem.

 

The word is out about what the game did all these years to ruin gameplay, people are not stupid. Delete the CVs tomorrow I say. End this narrative that was a smokescreen all along now. Just remove them. Game won't recover cuz it is geared differently. It just won't. It can't. It has run it's course and reached it's final destination. Maximum profit is the enemy here. Blatant misrepresentation and outright insane changes to customer rules and products. Many more things.

 

This is the final product.

 

Subs will be the only meaningful addition coming.

 

I honestly don't believe subs will save the game for the lower tiers or the higher ups.

 

It is done. 

 

 

CV's in fact are the main problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,728 posts
7,825 battles
9 minutes ago, Bindolaf_Werebane said:

How low tier gameplay would improve?

[...]

The problem with low tiers is seal clubbing.

Seal clubbing is definitely an issue at lower tiers. But population is becoming a greater issue at the lower tiers. I've already seen bots at tier V now in the late evening (Amsterdam time).

 

Even worse is the extremely long queues. New players are easily deterred from playing again when faced with queues of 3-4 minutes. If more people play the queues go down. Would they face stiffer opposition? On the one hand yes, more experienced players would be in those tiers. On the other hand, there's already quite a bit of seal clubbing. Thing is, if more skilled players with a "proper attitude" are in the player pool, they'd also gain allies to learn from and protect them (seal clubbers wouldn't provide tips as they play to bully, regular players would). It'd provide a slightly stronger sense of community and likely a little bit easier access to clans if those don't just play high mid or high tiers. If seal clubbers are incentized to use slightly weaker gear with their greater rewards, the new players also gain a bit of competitive power.

 

9 minutes ago, Bindolaf_Werebane said:

ELO matchmaking.

Not entirely sure which system you refer to, but if it is what I think it is (player rated MM?), I question whether this would work in a team game like WoWs, especially in tiers with low populations.

9 minutes ago, Bindolaf_Werebane said:

That said, I like your idea about horizontal tech trees!

These can be applied at any tier of course. :)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
7,547 posts
16,172 battles

If player count is an issue at lower tiers, I would suggest having consistent and meaningful missions that can be done at those tiers.

 

At the moment, there are multiple pressures to advance to T5 as quickly as possible, and relatively few incentives to linger...

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOHOU]
Players
432 posts
5,256 battles

thanks to the sealclubbers to that, nice way to lower the playerbase , like teabagging lvl 1 chars with a max level

also i dont think cvs are a bad thing , just 2 of them on each side is annoying , also reward them for spotting

should be limited to 1 cv 5 BBs 3 cruisers and dds

Player limit was  12 or not per team in random

also higher tier players with more games should be rewarded less for killing new players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,309 posts
10,874 battles
46 minutes ago, lossi_2018 said:

It is done. 

Alea iacta est. :cap_popcorn: Some people saying Subs will "save" wows is like people claiming having a baby will "fix your relationship". Just no. Just.....no.

35 minutes ago, Bindolaf_Werebane said:

The problem with low tiers is seal clubbing. 

Played several matches of T3 and 4. Didnt encounter any player i would classify as a sealclubber in my book (experienced + skilled). I did however find lots of low skilled players who played thousands of low tier games simply because they enjoy it. So i dont know why your experience differs so greatly from mine.

 

18 minutes ago, Figment said:

Even worse is the extremely long queues. New players are easily deterred from playing again when faced with queues of 3-4 minutes.

Maybe they could implement low tier "ClanBrawl-esque" maps and create 3v3, 4v4 matches to decrease queue times at the non-peak hours.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,728 posts
7,825 battles
11 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Maybe they could implement low tier "ClanBrawl-esque" maps and create 3v3, 4v4 matches to decrease queue times at the non-peak hours.

I think overall low tiers would benefit from 7vs7 as standard format (same size as Ranked Sprint today). Occassional increases to 12 players should be fine at peak hours. 3 vs 3 and 4 vs 4 would likely generate too little exp and a feeling of lack of playerbase as well, but, if they would use the same small maps as in the 3 vs 3 Ranked matches from the previous season, this could make for some decent gameplay variety (possibly go with 4-5 a side at least).

 

But that's a way to compress a player pool, rather than expand it.

 

The 7 vs 7 however would ease people into sufficient situational awareness.

17 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

If player count is an issue at lower tiers, I would suggest having consistent and meaningful missions that can be done at those tiers.

 

At the moment, there are multiple pressures to advance to T5 as quickly as possible, and relatively few incentives to linger...

Different game modes compartimentalize playerbases though. They cut up bigger pools smaller. This would only work if you don't have a choice between coop and random matches.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
32,536 posts
16,293 battles
  • fix CV MM at Tier IV, limit CV to 1 per team, make sure that Tier IV and especially Tier III see CV less often
  • reduce sealcubbing by keeping veterans away from non-veterans (beginners are already protected, but we need another layer for Tier I to V)
  • allow more missions for low Tier (like XP or Credit missions)
  • introduce veteran lines, lines that can only be started when you reached Tier X in the main line, these lines take much more time to research and the ships are more expensive (examples: BC split (RN, KM, IJN), alternative DD lines, armored cruiser lines,...)
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALONE]
Players
38 posts
6,588 battles
On 1/4/2021 at 3:54 PM, Figment said:

 

Even worse is the extremely long queues. New players are easily deterred from playing again when faced with queues of 3-4 minutes.

Very new players aren’t facing these long queues at low tier because they have protected matchmaking when playing below tier 5 so long as they have sub 200 games. Instead, they fight lots of bots, and their queue time is quick - this segregation of newbs and veterans returning to low tier is partially why the veteran queue timer is so long below tier 4.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WRV]
Players
264 posts
536 battles

Q: increase player count in tier II-IV

 

A: remove the early access crap

 

I am a free-to-play-player and even haven't touched:

the french DD line below T6

the italian CL line below T5/T6 (it's a lie, because i like the design so i also unlocked T1..T4)

the pan-EU DD line below T4

the british heavy CA below T5 (also lie, because i finished CL line before the CA was released)

the american Battleships start with T8 Kansas

just by playing Coop during the early-access-phase.

 

WIth all the early access stuff nobody has to start with T1

 

Also, there are no missions, no campaigns, etc for T4 and below, so why spend time there?

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GEUS]
[GEUS]
Players
515 posts
15,474 battles
39 minutes ago, Adm_Andre said:

Also, there are no missions, no campaigns, etc for T4 and below, so why spend time there?

 

This ^^

 

The Five Epochs of the Navy campaign convinced quite a few of my clanmates to play lower tiers (until they had completed the first few missions). Now, I guess encouraging long-term players to play lower tiers may lead to sealclubbing, I think that excluding tiers 1-4 from all missions is wrong. Especially those missions that require credits or XP, as lower tiers have a lower payout by default, people will not be playing lower tiers just to complete missions. The current system however punishes anyone who wants to play at lower tier because they do not progress through any missions, not even the daily mission chain which requires base XP. However, I can imagine that having objectives like getting destroyed ribbons work in lower tiers may encourage sealclubbing. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BATES]
Players
1,120 posts
14,525 battles

Why should people play lower tiers if they don't count for any mission/directive/campaign (apart 5 epochs one)? Once I liked to play sometimes a battle with Dreadnought but due to the double CV at t4 for 90% of battles and ZERO AA on my ship (cannot defend myself) i pratically stopped to play there

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
240 posts
6,136 battles

This probably sounds crazy but how about more experienced players “mentoring” newer players in exchange for steel, free xp etc

 

I rant as much as any, possibly more, but if we want the game to survive / improve then maybe we need to ask for things like this

 

Something along the lines of a “waiting room” where you can division up with a less experienced player and help them 

 

And I’d be happy to be mentored by someone with more games than me - share the knowledge 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-S3I-]
Players
186 posts
4,585 battles

As other already mentioned: 

1. You can't finish daily missions (or any other for that matter) in low tier games which means that actual playing starts at tier V. 

2. Tier IV carriers are just completely OP, mainly because TIV an TIII ships generally do not have AA whatsoever. While TVIII planes are shot down easily even by continuous damage at TVIII, TIV planes are nearly invulnerable at TIV because they are made to operate on TVI.

 

I recently (due to campaign) played few matches at low tiers and I have to say it is ok, unless you end in 2CV match as there is no way to survive cv strikes with 2-4 pop guns on deck... Though on one occasion I even managed to corner and sink one of the CVs  (while playing BB) the second one managed to sink me...

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
966 posts
6,026 battles

i like the idea of sidegrades even if they where "fictional/inspired by" type things

 the game would be more fun if tiers where treated as themes/eras. not adding 5 new kinds of grind.

late 1800s ships had to get close and brawl each other a lot, with massive amounts of spam. that would make for a great way to use low tiers for brawling type gameplay.

 

all those old cruisers and pre-dreads whaling on each other is something i would like if weegee would redo the fire mechanics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,116 posts
10 hours ago, Thorsvald said:

CV's in fact are the main problem

Sure. Remove them then.

I kinda said as much. No one will play these tiers still.

There's no reason for it. But I'm not rewriting again the why.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
[JRM]
Players
8,260 posts

We have enough lines in low tiers, might have few more that end mid tier or so but its doubtful WG will invest their man hours in that, we need ops and missions for low tiers and T4 cvs need to go, just start the cv stuff at T6...

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[G-O-M]
Players
1,147 posts
11,760 battles
12 hours ago, lossi_2018 said:

CVs are not the problem.

Reworked CVs are the problem & have been a problem ever since WG forced them into this game. RTS CVs, imo,  were (& are) just fine. Bottom line is CVs, in some form, must be in WoWS.

11 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

fix CV MM at Tier IV, limit CV to 1 per team, make sure that Tier IV and especially Tier III see CV less often

100% agree with Pete here (will wonders never cease, lol). Ofc, WG had three T4 CVs per side then made that two T4 CVs per side which is still too many. Imo,T3 should not see T4 CVs at all.

11 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

allow more missions for low Tier

Yes. More missions for lower tiers (although this is against WG apparent policy of selling higher tier premium  ship content)

WG blew it a long time ago by not having many more early motorized warships  (1880? as a start? - maybe even earlier?)  so that T10 could have stopped at 1945 era ships (no 1950s era ships at all).

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NECRO]
Players
4,477 posts

Simply take away the option to research new ships by FXP (but allow to max them out for FXP), and only allow purchases of premium ships which do not exceed the max level of currently owned techtree ships. That would prevent new players to basically skip the entire low-mid tier section (which does not serve themselves AND their teammates well).

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GEUS]
[GEUS]
Players
515 posts
15,474 battles

The problem with tier IV carriers, in my opinion, is that they're designed for new players unfamiliar with playing carriers. Which makes sense for the lowest tier aircraft carriers. However, when a player is experienced with playing carriers, these carriers can do quite some damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[D3V1L]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
201 posts
10 hours ago, lossi_2018 said:

Sure. Remove them then.

I kinda said as much. No one will play these tiers still.

There's no reason for it. But I'm not rewriting again the why.

Sure you don't need to rewrite anything, you could have written a lot about CV's and you can still be wrong.

I've played this game in alpha, beta and once it has been released, and i can tell you the main problem in low tiers (a part of tier I and tier II that nobody play except for seal clubbers and those that want to get out his tier II boats for a fun run once a month at his most) is the environment that CV rework has created itself.

An absolute broken class that don't fit the game anymore since it's rework and because a really bad player with 44% WR can own or just disable every ship he want by just sending waves of  planes against ships with poor AA or even no AA at all.

It if its just bad against tier IV ships It gets worse when those broken tier IV CV's face tier III ships that were not intended to face anything like that.

CV's are the main problem and it's easy to check that in most of the games poor WR players sailing in CV's get 2 or 3 kills easily. And that's isn't because they are good but because they are exploiting the game by facing unexperienced players with a broken as hell class, and that keeps away players from this game.

 

Since WG has get rid of RTS CV's ,CV's are the main problem of this game and it's even more clear on low levels.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,972 posts
5,228 battles

I got 2 people playing warships this year. Both quit because they kept getting violated by double CVs in a ship without AA, they felt helpless. I tried to explain that after T5, the game is about more than just getting raped by planes which literally cannot die or ever leave you alone, by then it was too late and they went back to dota and tarkov.

 

Every T4 game being four CVs bombing twenty people desperately trying to get away from planes, is, retarded. You can't have the initial stages of this game be nothing other than 4 people having fun bombing 20 helpless people.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,972 posts
5,228 battles
9 hours ago, MementoMori_6030 said:

which does not serve themselves AND their teammates well

Skipping T1-T4 serves sanity well, what on earth do you learn from getting bombed by one and thesame squadron of planes until you die. I'm all for going up the tiers slowly, but the game starts at T5 - T4 is a cesspool of CVs annihilating ships that aren't CVs.

AA values at T4 don't make any sense, squadrons have thousands of HP, some ships do 10 DPS, a CV can literally hover his planes over a ship for the entire duration of a match soaking up AA damage and not lose a single plane. It's nonsense

  • Cool 4

Share this post


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

×