Static gameplay

[Pukovnik7]

I started playing again from Tier I in order to relearn cruiser gameplay, and... okay, you know how everybody seemingly complains about the CV infestation and "spawn zombies" gameplay, where nobody moves to the other side of the map for ten or twenty minutes into the match?

 

Yeah, that is exactly how things work at Tier I roughly half the time. You try pushing, you die. You try scouting, you die. You try anything beyond sitting at your half of the map, you die.

 

There are several things that I believe contribute to the vegetative gameplay:

1) Moronic and repetitive map design. Many maps have islands that are too low to even hide behind, let alone to block lines of fire. If you get detected, you get focused, and you die.

2) Gun accuracy at long range. If more ships had French / German dispersion, I'm quite certain battles would be lot more dynamic. If you can't hit anything at long range...

3) Carriers. This is basically overdone topic, and not a primary cause of zombie gameplay either (there are no carriers at Tier 1!), but it should be mentioned because their influence is basically the same as that of point 1: they significantly reduce the influence of terrain. In addition, CVs also force ships to bunch up, smoke up, or both.

4) Unbalanced teams. When outcome of the battle is basically predetermined by random selection, and little of what you as a player do can influence it due to team mismatch, there is little incentive to risk anything.

 

And it is entirely likely that map design is the most important factor. I mean, look at the screenshot of Tier I gameplay. Note that these three enemy cruisers are sitting at the far side of their own base cap. And none of the friendly ships are pushing either. They are afraid, and for a good reason - screencap rather well illustrates what happens to anybody who tries. In fact, for the majority of the game we didn't even know where any enemy ship was - they were undetected, they did not detect us, and not because of cover either. They were simply too far away. In fact, the lack of cover (not just concealment, but hard cover) is a major problem on this particular map. In the end, I tried scouting, got caught into crossfire and died... and thank God for that, because frankly I couldn't handle any more of that idiotic BS. Next match was thankfully lot more dynamic. The difference? Map in question had a large number of big, tall islands. There was maneuvering, isolating enemies, setting up crossfires and killzones - because map design enabled that to happen.

[tocqueville8]

[ObiWankov]

nice essay, too bad nobody cares about tier 1 

 

for your troubles: your game had bots. staying behind and farming them pushing into you is probably a “smart” thing to do... 

[ColonelPete]

36 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

There are several things that I believe contribute to the vegetative gameplay:

1) Moronic and repetitive map design. Many maps have islands that are too low to even hide behind, let alone to block lines of fire. If you get detected, you get focused, and you die.

2) Gun accuracy at long range. If more ships had French / German dispersion, I'm quite certain battles would be lot more dynamic. If you can't hit anything at long range...

1. Then learn which islands block fire
2. The gun accuracy at low Tiers is already bad

[Pukovnik7]

4 minutes ago, ObiWankov said:

nice essay, too bad nobody cares about tier 1 

It is not just Tier I. Gameplay is often static even at higher tiers. I have been in plenty Tier II - VI games where nobody is pushing for the first half of the battle, and seen videos of higher tier battles that are even more static. As in, nobody is pushing until time literally runs out. I am trying to figure out reasons why, because static gameplay is one of major problems with the game. I have often seen carrier saturation being blamed for said problem, but as I pointed out: problem is already present at Tier I, so it can't be just CVs. It must be something else.

 

Even from my limited experience, as well as replays I have seen, this kind of situation is far from unusual:

 

6 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

• Then learn which islands block fire
• The gun accuracy at low Tiers is already bad

I already know which islands block fire. Problem is that some maps do not have them.

[ColonelPete]

13 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Problem is that some maps do not have them.

That applies only to Ocean, which you do not see on Tier I.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

Too small maps, too many potatoes in the soup.

 

 

Yes, I'm still hiding my stats.

[ObiWankov]

26 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

It is not just Tier I. Gameplay is often static even at higher tiers. I have been in plenty Tier II - VI games where nobody is pushing for the first half of the battle, and seen videos of higher tier battles that are even more static...

 

then you haven’t seen much tbh, also i don’t think games are too static overall.

 

sure you have a few exceptions here and there, but overall its very dynamic right now (as in the stomp happens pretty fast and one side pushes hard)

 

edit: ok looking at your games played i suggest you either stop playing randoms or start playing a tier that isn't filled up with bots and statspadders

[Pukovnik7]

12 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

That applies only to Ocean, which you do not see on Tier I.

It can also apply to the Polar, though it depends on the game. Map has wide open spaces between islands, and islands which are too low to block long-range fire. I happily snipe ships over the islands, and the only reason why battles are often fun there is that it isn't rare that everybody pushes and so everything degenerates into a furball. But other times everybody decides to plant potatoes, so...

4 minutes ago, ObiWankov said:

 

then you haven’t seen much tbh, also i don’t think games are too static overall.

 

sure you have a few exceptions here and there, but overall its very dynamic right now (as in the stomp happens pretty fast and one side pushes hard)

Well, I can't claim I have. Which tiers would you say are most dynamic? So I know to stop there.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

27 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

I already know which islands block fire. Problem is that some maps do not have them.

 

You got it all wrong, the problem is some maps have them. If you want to see dynamic play go Ocean. The only map worth playing without reservations, though there are some maps that are reasonably good if you are player low to mid tiers. No such maps on higher tiers, apart from The Majesty of The Ocean.

[ObiWankov]

depending on the time of day i would say the game really starts at tier 8

[Pukovnik7]

28 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

You got it all wrong, the problem is some maps have them. If you want to see dynamic play go Ocean. The only map worth playing without reservations, though there are some maps that are reasonably good if you are player low to mid tiers. No such maps on higher tiers, apart from The Majesty of The Ocean.

Ocean? Sounds like a long-range sniping snoozefest.

 

To me, a dynamic map is a tactical map, and for tactics you need terrain. Which means islands - and ones that block not only vision but artillery as well. Not knowing is a major part of why I find gameplay in a non-CV match fun - guessing what the enemy might do, trying to outplay them; outflanking, ambushes, pushes and counterpushes. That is what makes a game, and if you don't have that... well, I still play because I don't want to let my team down, but even so what generally happens is that I get bored, lose concentration and die in a rather stupid way.

 

How will you have a tactical, fun game if everyone knows where everyone else is all the time and can fire at them all the time?

[ColonelPete]

29 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

You got it all wrong, the problem is some maps have them. If you want to see dynamic play go Ocean. The only map worth playing without reservations, though there are some maps that are reasonably good if you are player low to mid tiers. No such maps on higher tiers, apart from The Majesty of The Ocean.

Ocean is quite static. Everyone knows that you get focussed from everywhere when you move too far forward. So people stay back.

31 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

It can also apply to the Polar, though it depends on the game. Map has wide open spaces between islands, and islands which are too low to block long-range fire. I happily snipe ships over the islands, and the only reason why battles are often fun there is that it isn't rare that everybody pushes and so everything degenerates into a furball. But other times everybody decides to plant potatoes, so...

Well, I can't claim I have. Which tiers would you say are most dynamic? So I know to stop there.

Polar offers a lot of cover. When you stay too far away from islands, people can shoot over it. That is a problem of your position.

The most dynamic Tier range is in my opinion Battletier V to VII.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

2 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Ocean? Sounds like a long-range sniping snoozefest.

 

To me, a dynamic map is a tactical map, and for tactics you need terrain. Which means islands - and ones that block not only vision but artillery as well. Not knowing is a major part of why I find gameplay in a non-CV match fun - guessing what the enemy might do, trying to outplay them; outflanking, ambushes, pushes and counterpushes. That is what makes a game, and if you don't have that... well, I still play because I don't want to let my team down, but even so what generally happens is that I get bored, lose concentration and die in a rather stupid way.

 

How will you have a tactical, fun game if everyone knows where everyone else is all the time and can fire at them all the time?

 

Well, that's where we differ, all I need for tactics in this game is water. Lots of it. Open water.

 

I agree that the tactical component of the game is kind of poorly implemented, and we would need both elements, meaning fog of war, and sighting, tracking, engaging and maneuvering. Seeing the enemy (and vice versa) does not ruin the tactical element. After all, sports have tactics and they rarely play their matches in dense, impenetrable fog.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

4 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Ocean is quite static. Everyone knows that you get focussed from everywhere when you move too far forward. So people stay back.

 

 

Some do, some don't, in all matches one team ends up the winner.

[Pukovnik7]

14 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

Well, that's where we differ, all I need for tactics in this game is water. Lots of it. Open water.

 

I don't understand. I mean, with open water you can:

1) engage

2) disengage

3) evade

 

With islands, you can do all of those, as well as outflank, encircle, ambush, set up crossfires... in open ocean, battle appears as if it should be resolved on a purely arithmetic basis - team that hits more often and more consistently wins, and that's it. That is simply not fun.

14 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

I agree that the tactical component of the game is kind of poorly implemented, and we would need both elements, meaning fog of war, and sighting, tracking, engaging and maneuvering. Seeing the enemy (and vice versa) does not ruin the tactical element. After all, sports have tactics and they rarely play their matches in dense, impenetrable fog.

Seeing the enemy all the time does not remove the tactical element, but it significantly narrows it down. And it is especially bad because some ship classes (destroyers primarily) kinda rely on stealth for survival.

17 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Polar offers a lot of cover. When you stay too far away from islands, people can shoot over it. That is a problem of your position.

 

I don't know. At long range, I have managed to shoot ships that (to me) had appeared to be fairly close to islands (blind shooting basically, first salvo as he was passing the gap and second at estimated position behind an island - and most of the shells connected in a second one). And I have had it happen to me, though that might come down to island choice and distance. I guess I'll have to experiment on how close I can come to islands without running aground...

[ColonelPete]

10 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

Some do, some don't, in all matches one team ends up the winner.

Yes, after a lot of waiting for someone making the first mistake.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

9 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

I don't understand. I mean, with open water you can:

1) engage

2) disengage

3) evade

 

With islands, you can do all of those, as well as outflank, encircle, ambush, set up crossfires... in open ocean, battle appears as if it should be resolved on a purely arithmetic basis - team that hits more often and more consistently wins, and that's it. That is simply not fun.

 

I sort of see what you mean, you like the islands because in a way they downscale operational/strategic elements and implement them on the level of tactical play. Our tastes differ which I suppose is okay as such. To me it just seems like we are playing river delta gunboats disguised as fleet/ship operations which leaves me.. unsatisfied. I might not object at all to having a chance to play dynamic, fast placed battles on occasion, like we did with those 'Savage Battles' back in the day. For the main game, though, I'd like to have destroyer divisions and like tactics.

 

In other words, I like the action and pace to match what the scale of what I'm supposed to be seeing.

 

Quote

Seeing the enemy all the time does not remove the tactical element, but it significantly narrows it down. And it is especially bad because some ship classes (destroyers primarily) kinda rely on stealth for survival.

 

Yeah, they kind of do. And in a way there is some excitement in stealthy DD play, I do it a lot but IMHO it's a dirty pleasure that I'm forced to follow through because of what IMO is deficient game design and poor implementation. Stealth play, by the way, does not feel particularly dynamic to me, I'd say it is one of those static elements that I wish we didn't have. I should add that by 'stealth play' here I mean spotting, torping etc, not using stealth to launch a coordinated attack which would be something completely different (and very dynamic).

[Karasu_Browarszky]

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

Yes, after a lot of waiting for someone making the first mistake.

 

You can also make it a forced mistake.

[Pukovnik7]

7 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

I sort of see what you mean, you like the islands because in a way they downscale operational/strategic elements and implement them on the level of tactical play. Our tastes differ which I suppose is okay as such. To me it just seems like we are playing river delta gunboats disguised as fleet/ship operations which leaves me.. unsatisfied. I might not object at all to having a chance to play dynamic, fast placed battles on occasion, like we did with those 'Savage Battles' back in the day. For the main game, though, I'd like to have destroyer divisions and like tactics.

 

In other words, I like the action and pace to match what the scale of what I'm supposed to be seeing.

Yeah, that is what I mean.

 

I wouldn't be against open-water battles, so long as it wasn't the only thing in the game, or even a majority of it, as I do like both tactically complex and fast-paced games. And there is a bit of a problem, in that having interesting gameplay in too open a map would seem to me to require players to organize into divisions and utilize actual tactics which... honestly, expecting that from the player base may be too much. This isn't Rule the Waves after all.

10 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

Yeah, they kind of do. And in a way there is some excitement in stealthy DD play, I do it a lot but IMHO it's a dirty pleasure that I'm forced to follow through because of what IMO is deficient game design and poor implementation. Stealth play, by the way, does not feel particularly dynamic to me, I'd say it is one of those static elements that I wish we didn't have. I should add that by 'stealth play' here I mean spotting, torping etc, not using stealth to launch a coordinated attack which would be something completely different (and very dynamic).

In my experience, the stealthy play of the specific kind which you refer to here happens primarily in open water. When I am in open water in a DD, I rarely use guns, but instead just spot. I start gunboating only if I know I will not be focus-fired the moment I am detected, or when there is an exchange of fire ongoing, and even then only when I have cover nearby (or smoke, though that is not exactly ideal). Sure, there is stealthy playing among islands as well - but that sort of stealthy play is a dynamic one, as it relies on using islands as cover, on moving and trying to outflank the enemy. And if you are "crazy" enough (I know I am), you can do that exact same thing in a cruiser or a battleship, though that does require more caution and thus slower play.

[Johnny_Moneto]

Vor 6 Stunden, Pukovnik7 sagte:

It is not just Tier I. Gameplay is often static even at higher tiers. I have been in plenty Tier II - VI games where nobody is pushing for the first half of the battle, and seen videos of higher tier battles that are even more static. As in, nobody is pushing until time literally runs out. I am trying to figure out reasons why, because static gameplay is one of major problems with the game. I have often seen carrier saturation being blamed for said problem, but as I pointed out: problem is already present at Tier I, so it can't be just CVs. It must be something else.

 

To me it sounds like you want this game to be something that it is not. Maybe you should just look into other games to play. Isn't there a game with more dynamic game play and more hard cover?

[RenamedUser_92906789]

@Pukovnik7 has a point.

 

Low tiers need somet love, to keep them alive.

Apparently NTC was not a solution (as we told WG).

 

How exactly? .. idk.... and tbh, idc anymore :)

[doerhoff_damian]

maybe WG can have some Daily Missions for below Tier 5. This Way more People would play low Tier.

The Problem is certain Missions like Torpedo Hits might be very Easy if WG allows the Players to do this with a Ship like Wickes or Derzki.

[_HomTanks_]

2 hours ago, nambr9 said:

@Pukovnik7 has a point.

 

Low tiers need somet love, to keep them alive.

Apparently NTC was not a solution (as we told WG).

 

How exactly? .. idk.... and tbh, idc anymore :)

Low to mid tiers turning out to be real pain in the a.. to play. I have been regrinding two new lines just to get this upcoming Vampire. T4,5,6,7 is just like constant hell, full of CVs, sometimes double CVs. I played like twenty games in T7 in last two days and maybe once or twice i was top tier, the rest i was middle or bottom tier. Only 2 or 3 games didn't have CVs. Rest had CVs and double CVs. T4,5,6 were even less enjoyable to play. In one T4 or T5 game (can't remember now) there were 10 bots in each team and only 2 real players. I don't see how a new player who just started playing this game will get enjoy out of it. "Welcome to World of Warshi...Planes! Get ready to roll and sink soon..Also, don't forget to check out our amazingly fun bot teams".

[HardCandy89]

17 minutes ago, Execute0rder66 said:

Low to mid tiers turning out to be real pain in the a.. to play. I have been regrinding two new lines just to get this upcoming Vampire. T4,5,6,7 is just like constant hell, full of CVs, sometimes double CVs. I played like twenty games in T7 in last two days and maybe once or twice i was top tier, the rest i was middle or bottom tier. Only 2 or 3 games didn't have CVs. Rest had CVs and double CVs. T4,5,6 were even less enjoyable to play. In one T4 or T5 game (can't remember now) there were 10 bots in each team and only 2 real players. I don't see how a new player who just started playing this game will get enjoy it. "Welcome to World of Warshi...Planes! Get ready to roll and sink soon..Also, don't forget to check out our amazingly fun bot teams".

I am regrinding the Z52 line to better learn the gameplay (it is a very difficult line for me), and recently I bought back Gaede. 2 games played, both of them with CV and against t8. I was forced to fight against Oland, Lightning, Fantasque. No chance to torp anything, as they were between me and the enemies, a gun fight against them was really hard (although I managed the exchanges with Fantasque and Oland thanks to my teammates support, the one with Lightning was lost completely). I can remember that my first grind of Gaede gave me much more fun and didn't seem so difficult. I wasn't that experienced at that time, moreover, I have 2 other "universal" DD lines (Gearing, Yueyang). What changed? Is it only caused by the presence of perma-spotting CVs, being a bottom tier with high spot and not that good guns, or something else?