Phlys thoughts on whats wrong with the game

[Armo1000]

PhlyDaily makes some good points on what he thinks is wrong with the game at the moment.

 

[Takeda92]

It's always nice to see a youtuber saying what he really thinks of a game rather than making it sound like everything is pure ok and awesome.

[MadC4T]

It's always nice to see a youtuber saying what he really thinks of a game rather than making it sound like everything is pure ok and awesome.

 

+1, nothing else to add.

[Origin47]

I fully agree with what he is saying about BB rng.

 

I do not care about carriers and destroyers, so i shall noice voice any opinion about that.

[Trigger_Happy_Dad]

He's bringing up some really good points.

[AgarwaenME]

His opinion on CVs are utterly wrong though. What use is there in air superiority if the threat from the air isn't huge enough to warrant both ships and aircraft dedicated semi or fully to defeating or minimizing it?

[conductiv]

I agree with him, however...I have no idea how to fix the mentioned problem, its not like you can give BB's a super accurate doomcannon that hits citadels cross map with terrifying reliability (because he is basically saying that they are too inaccurate), because that would instantly end the fun of...everyone else.

 

no suggestions from me on how to fix carriers either, but he's right that damage-focus is not what it should be. only thing I think he is wrong about is the claim that pre-set flight decks limit personalization, because lets be honest...when you have a community where you can pick and choose..people are going to hog 1 or 2 "best" setups and that's it.

 

[Silvercat18]

Good to see that the youtubers have woken up - they have been strangely quiet on the current issues.

[Bortasqu]

Even though I don't particulary like the guy, I agree with his opinions on the state of the game.

[CloakingDonkey]

It's always nice to see a youtuber saying what he really thinks of a game rather than making it sound like everything is pure ok and awesome.

when I do it, people get angry ._.

 

Guess I'm just not as phly as daily.... get it?.... I'll go now.

[Origin47]

The problem with BBs is that even if the adversary is showing it's side and going in a straight line, constant speed, and you range the salvo correctly, you still miss or you do 1k damage, way more often than scoring a citadel hit. No matter the range, in these conditions, you should land at least 1 or 2 citadel shots, 2 or 3 normal damage and some misses. If the adversary is zig-zagging, changing speed, angling, turning hard, then yes that is another story, you do 2k or 5k or 8k damage, or nothing and it is perfectly ok.. It is his skill that made you miss or not hit his citadels, not the RNGesus. And this is why the damage is not consistant. Because you cannot predict what will happen, in a perfect situation.

 

On the other hand, with the torpedoes, if you hit a ship's front, you do around 4k and if you hit the side, you do full damage, guaranteed. Yes, i have not played DDs or CVs, but i have played CAs. Also, if you miss your torpedoes, it is 100% player skill; either you launched your spread incorrectly, or the adversary dodged, no rng.

 

On the subject of perma-destroying turrets: i agree with Phly. Your means of returning fire should not be permanently removed. Yes, you should get decreased accuracy, but that's it. 

 

This is my opinion, based on my experience with the game.  

[m4inbrain]

I agree fully with his opinion on carriers, but disagree with his assessment of battleships. 

 

He even said it. World of tanks, T54 vs Maus/E100, not able to go through the front without use of premium ammo. Why? Because it's "semi-realistic". And that's what BBs are at the moment. In real life, a battleship can achieve a hitrate of 2-3%. That's three shells out of 100, that hit. The hitrate ingame is alot higher - which is obviously good. Battleships never did "reliable damage", that's why the seabattles took hours, sometimes even days, with ships shelling each other. 

 

Or, on the other side of the scale, you have the hood. That's simply how it works, and everything else would be absolutely unbalanced for BBs (in an OP sense). It doesn't even work like that in World of Tanks (again, he cited it) - you have low rolls, you have high rolls, you have onehits, you have no-damage crits, etc - apart from the obvious gun dispersion (BL10, even fully aimed you sometimes shoot the tank behind you), which is random as well. Don't get me started on arty there, that's even worse (but funnily enough, comparable to what we have here - ever had a tank bounce your HE shell? It's fun..). 

 

It feels a bit  unrewarding at times, if a full broadside of the fuso hits and i do only 4k damage, but that's how it is. It wasn't even different in the other game that he cited, Navyfields. The dispersion there was horrible apart from those guys who spent their life and their savings in that game, simply shooting blobs out of their H44s. Which in the end was the reason why i stopped playing it. 

[Takeda92]

when I do it, people get angry ._.

 

Guess I'm just not as phly as daily.... get it?.... I'll go now.

 

Well, I didn't read his video comments but I wouldn't be surprised to see some people might have disagreed with him. Even in this thread people did. The point is, it's not about the opinion itself, it's the fact you say it because you want the game to get better (not like most of the whine threads here). So it's nice to see some honest opinions about the game, either from phly or you.

 

 

[tajj7]

It's pretty much the reason I find BBs no fun, even though they are the ones dominating the seas at the moment, they are not dominating the seas because player ability, they are dominating the seas because of what they are massive HP pools + massive guns that potentially do a lot of damage. (and now have massive turning on the spot ability)

 

Who does that damage seems largely down to luck, not ability. 

 

The game at the moment is lots of BBs either side splurging shots at each other (and cruisers) and after a long DPM battle, whoever got the more consistent RNG wins the game, unless a DD or a CV has a monster game to change the course of the battle.

 

Or

 

It's a domination game where the game last like 5-6 minutes with one team not bothering to cap. 

 

Player ability, skill, tactics etc. is not really influencing battles that much at the moment. 

 

Tough to balance BBs though because again massive HP + Massive guns, if those massive guns do their damage more consistently then you won't see another ship type. 

[MotherSeal_pl]

Phly has the point, but what more important he can get to a lot of people so potentially one or two such videos from various youtubers can put people off. Now i can see the point and have to admit that there is a lot of truth in what he says. like RNG in BB's it is soo annoying sometimes, but it is hard for devs to do anything about it now. In NF it worked this way: bigger guns=bigger dmg per hit, more armor=less dmg taken on hit. so people could go al AW with the cost of Structure integrity, Anti torpedo bulge or in worst case they had to mount lighter/less guns. But here in this game displacement doesn't exist, you have got your ships, like everybody's else with guns like everybody's else except that's where what you know ends. No armor schemes, no penetration values, no modules indication and awful RNG for your aiming. So maybe it should be told - exact armor values of each ship, internal modules indication, penetration values of each gun, best fighting distance for each ship or even comparison e.g. You take Fuso and compare it to another Fuso and Yamato and get some real numbers like Fuso vs Fuso fighting distance should be 18km but Fuso vs Yamato 5km (or the other way around Yamato can take fuso at 20km). Hope that you get me. Other thing is accuracy. In NF skilled crew was everything including accuracy. best crews could do so called "blockshoting" which was hitting all your shots within few meters spread regardless of distance. It worked there because slight chnge in course meant that all salvo missed. So here they could do this another way e.g ranging shots and staying on course should make your shots more accurate. like in wot when you wait and aim your shots are more accurate. what more they could lower alpha dmg of shells but make it more consistent and based on caliber of your guns and armor of enemy.

Carriers as Phly mentioned in NF carriers were most important class in battle. why ? because of scouting. Battleships were almost blind as bats and had to rely on scouts, CV's and other ships. What more shooting down planes was giving real money - each plane was worth X money and exp(correct me if i'm wrong) wit value going up with plane tier. It was worth going AA! Additionally what was mentioned in video you could choose what kind of loadout you want to take. wanted to go full TB or DB no problem, but almost any CV with fighters would feast on you. and in the same time nations had their strengths. like germans having better fighter, americans better DB's and brits better TB's. Yet in the same time with well trained crew you could take on german fighter with your US or Brit or whatever fighters. It was challanging but fun and rewarding at the same time.

 

Destroyers in NF were first class to play and everybody quickly went to cruisers but you could train your crew or search for subs or mount torps. You could even make it in the big battle because single DD didn't pose that much threat to BB thus they were not hunted down like ducks. and here ? they could be rewarded for scouting for BB's. but even now they seem to be ok.

 

Cruisers were BB's best friends taking down enemy aircrafts and DD's an chasing down carriers. Of course one well placed salvo from Montana would rip you apart but hey nobody told it'd be easy and with 203 mm guns they could take on low tier BB's. But it was last step before starting your own BB line - you had to learn manual aming, long range shots,think about your displacement and other stuff.

 

TL;DR

WoW won't be NF but there are some things that can be done better and if people like Phly or Jingles or whoever has some subs on his YT account can make devs thing about what can be changed game will be better one day. The question is if devs will have good ideas and if youtubers can make their poin in resonable way.

 

Sorry for such a wall of text ;)

[RDYSET]

I have to agree with him pretty much 100%. Am only new here and playing a week. But in that time I have found DD the most enjoyable for several reasons. The main one being that due to the appalling lack of teamwork and communication in the game this is the one class you can actually do something alone and survive on your own skill etc.

 

Secondly I have tried carriers a bit and find that choosing a loadout then being thrown into a random matchup is insane. I either dominate or get dominated. The only possible way around this is having CV in divisions and splitting the loadout. Not likely for most players. He is spot on in that the most XP reward is based around ship killing loadouts. The problem here is that that leaves no incentive to protect your team from others using bombers/torps. So we are back to the stupid 'going for gold' XP is everything game mechanics which penalise team play and reward selfish individual killing play.

 

I have had zero success in BB -- as he says -- due to RNG. I aim at the right spot. Watch a crapload of youtube to educate myself about game mechanics. And still waste my time 95+% of the time using AP. It is seriously a joke. I feel I have no agency or relationship to skill and outcome in the game. I don't think I ever had a citadel hit on a BB. I am in a New Mexico now and find the game so utterly boring -- grinding my way sooo slowly to the fight ... only to find things in chaos due to no teamwork ... I then get some shots on target (20+ usually) for zero crits or citadels . Then die in a fire or win based on pure luck because the teamwork and communication is such an utter mess and people are simply rushing after XP in the most basic boring tedious way.

 

Cruisers I can handle. I shoot other cruisers effectively out to max range reliably using AP and regularly citadel at Tier 8 and feel a real relationship between skill and outcome when I shoot. 

 

That last thing is what I want to feel on all classes. That plus some more teamwork and comms between people working toward a common goal.

 

If I don't feel that common goal aspect this game will have no lasting appeal I think.

[Aerroon]

His opinion on CVs are utterly wrong though. What use is there in air superiority if the threat from the air isn't huge enough to warrant both ships and aircraft dedicated semi or fully to defeating or minimizing it?

 

I completely agree with what you're saying.

 

I think BB RNG is a bit problematic yes, but I don't really think it's that bad. At long ranges it's problematic but close ranges the RNG makes it a risky type of deal. I think even if the guns were completely accurate and you'd know exactly where to hit it would still be problematic because even tiny range and speed differences at close range will throw your aim off by a lot meaning that players would still feel that it's about luck. That would just make aimbots and similar have an easier time, but real players have the same-ish results.

 

About CVs: what use is air superiority and scouting if you can't actually damage an enemy? You want air superiority and fighter usage to give more exp and say that will require more skill? How does clicking on enemy planes every 2 minutes require more skill in any imaginable way compared to trying to drop bombs and avoiding enemy fighters?

 

PS CSGO has plenty unpredictable things (like hipshotting with an AWP) or running and spraying. Hell, most pistol rounds don't even require people to have all that great aim because people just run and shoot which makes headshots be a large amount of luck. The difference is that you can plan and strategize in CSGO, because movement speeds are higher. You can traverse a large amount of the map in a short amount of time to reposition and change tactics, you can't really do that in WoWS.

[R3use]

 

I completely agree with what you're saying.

 

I think BB RNG is a bit problematic yes, but I don't really think it's that bad. At long ranges it's problematic but close ranges the RNG makes it a risky type of deal. I think even if the guns were completely accurate and you'd know exactly where to hit it would still be problematic because even tiny range and speed differences at close range will throw your aim off by a lot meaning that players would still feel that it's about luck. That would just make aimbots and similar have an easier time, but real players have the same-ish results.

 

About CVs: what use is air superiority and scouting if you can't actually damage an enemy? You want air superiority and fighter usage to give more exp and say that will require more skill? How does clicking on enemy planes every 2 minutes require more skill in any imaginable way compared to trying to drop bombs and avoiding enemy fighters?

 

PS CSGO has plenty unpredictable things (like hipshotting with an AWP) or running and spraying. Hell, most pistol rounds don't even require people to have all that great aim because people just run and shoot which makes headshots be a large amount of luck. The difference is that you can plan and strategize in CSGO, because movement speeds are higher. You can traverse a large amount of the map in a short amount of time to reposition and change tactics, you can't really do that in WoWS.

 

I agree that BB gamplay may be to RNG based. However keep in mind if BBs were more accurate, they would have to nerf the potential per shell damage or shell speed, otherwise it completely breaks CA and DD gameplay.

 

Concerning CVs: I think upping the rewards for downed planes would really improve the whole situation (also for Cruisers). So it seems to me more like a reward balancing issue instead of a gameplay issue.

 

But I disagree in one point: You have to strategize more in WoWS because movement speed is much slower. Most of the time if you get killed or your team looses it's not a mistake you made just now, it's a mistake you made 2 or 3 minutes ago. Especially in a BB. You really have to be aware of how the map plays out, because if you end up sailing in the wron direction, you are basically screwed. So for me the reduced movement speed opens up more strategies and forces you more to think before you engage the enemy.

[Aerroon]

 

I agree that BB gamplay may be to RNG based. However keep in mind if BBs were more accurate, they would have to nerf the potential per shell damage or shell speed, otherwise it completely breaks CA and DD gameplay.

 

Concerning CVs: I think upping the rewards for downed planes would really improve the whole situation (also for Cruisers). So it seems to me more like a reward balancing issue instead of a gameplay issue.

 

But I disagree in one point: You have to strategize more in WoWS because movement speed is much slower. Most of the time if you get killed or your team looses it's not a mistake you made just now, it's a mistake you made 2 or 3 minutes ago. Especially in a BB. You really have to be aware of how the map plays out, because if you end up sailing in the wron direction, you are basically screwed. So for me the reduced movement speed opens up more strategies and forces you more to think before you engage the enemy.

 

But then CVs would just go fighters because that beats the bomber layout and it goes equal with the fighter layout. So CVs would simply just fight other CVs with fighters and have no bearing on the actual match result. They would be playing a completely different game.

[R3use]

 

But then CVs would just go fighters because that beats the bomber layout and it goes equal with the fighter layout. So CVs would simply just fight other CVs with fighters and have no bearing on the actual match result. They would be playing a completely different game.

 

That really depends on how much you increase the rewards. Currently it makes no sense what so ever to go AA as a CV or Cruiser if you want to have comparable XP and Credits.

 

Sure it's a design decision but right now they could completely remove the fighter-only setups.

 

From gameplay perspective, it would make much more sense, if CVs would grant you XP almost exclusively for destroying their planes. Currently sinking a CV which went out of planes grants more XP than shooting down all his planes. Despite planes being the only means by which a CV can be useful.

 

So in my opinion they should up XP for shooting down planes and reduce the XP for sinking Carriers, so that in sum you get the same amount of XP that you get today for sinking the carrier.

[Userext]

I dont agree with what he says. He scores a lot of citadel hits. Obviously he can aim good. But why is he saying BBs are too random now?  A battleship can change the aspect of game much easier than a destroyer. I dont understand his statements. He wasnt saying this before USBBs came along which obviously have more armour compared to IJNBBs. They also implemented armour mechanics. I fail to see the problem here. 

 

 

[Aerroon]

 

That really depends on how much you increase the rewards. Currently it makes no sense what so ever to go AA as a CV or Cruiser if you want to have comparable XP and Credits.

 

Sure it's a design decision but right now they could completely remove the fighter-only setups.

 

From gameplay perspective, it would make much more sense, if CVs would grant you XP almost exclusively for destroying their planes. Currently sinking a CV which went out of planes grants more XP than shooting down all his planes. Despite planes being the only means by which a CV can be useful.

 

So in my opinion they should up XP for shooting down planes and reduce the XP for sinking Carriers, so that in sum you get the same amount of XP that you get today for sinking the carrier.

 

But fighters don't help you WIN the game as much as bombers. The game is about killing other ships so it doesn't make sense to have CVs that only kill each other with fighters and don't hit ground targets. It's a ship game, not about planes fighting planes. It doesn't help to win the game if you shoot down enemy fighters.

[mtm78]

Problem is that bb's rely on rng more then other classes, he said so pretty clearly.

 

Aerroon, on 01 June 2015 - 08:11 AM, said:

 

But fighters don't help you WIN the game as much as bombers. The game is about killing other ships so it doesn't make sense to have CVs that only kill each other with fighters and don't hit ground targets. It's a ship game, not about planes fighting planes. It doesn't help to win the game if you shoot down enemy fighters.

 

Yes it should, by eliminating enemy fighters you're blinding enemy fleet ( or well that is how it should work ).

 

[Userext]

Problem is that bb's rely on rng more then other classes, he said so pretty clearly.

 

i know i dont play much BB games but when i play them i dont see that RNG effect much. After fubuki and stock kagero i doubt BBs rely on RNG more than others. The guy that said this(phly) if you would watch his battleship videos he scores a lot of citadels. He is good at aiming and i kinda think its greedy to say battleships are more RNG based. I mean i fire my torpedo hoping that enemy doesnt slow down or speed up, even turning a little bit can cause my torps to miss which is really expensive and waste of time for me. 

[nockerl]

Phly has the point, but what more important he can get to a lot of people so potentially one or two such videos from various youtubers can put people off. Now i can see the point and have to admit that there is a lot of truth in what he says. like RNG in BB's it is soo annoying sometimes, but it is hard for devs to do anything about it now. 

 

What´s wrong with the truth? 

 

Good and constructive critic has a great value for Developers, if they decide to listen to it.

 

For me as player and i assume for a wide part of the community a honest review has much more value then a so called horray super excited review. I have a particular youtuber in mind who was so excited about an upcomming premium tank, too bad WOT thought this tank is too bad to be released.