To disencourage defensive and static gameplay !!

[Genie_of_the_Lamp]

WG made the game more dynamic for CV players

 

Well how about my opinion that it is time to make the whole game more dynamic???

 

What we all see especially in the high tiers and in the so called "Kings of the Sea" stuff and clanbattles is the following:

 

Ships that stay almost the biggest time of the game stationary on their appointed spots. Most of the time a corner of an Island

But BB s especially those with much guns in the bow section practice this and the other team tries to penetrate it which is a hard thing to do.

We are seeing here often the Russian BB s doing it and the french.  In real wars I dont think it was routine in a sea battle right?

 

I hate this gameplay; it destroys the fun.

 

Ships should be stimulated to just keep moving instead of being a piece sticking on 1 position on a chessboard

 

My idea is as follows:

 

Each ship that is stationary will have a dispersion penalty and attacking moving ships will get a dispersion bonus when shooting at a stationary target.

Sounds logical to me. And to prevent clever players from just reverse a bit and go forward a few steps (we can see this also already happening); this penalty must be given towards each ship that is

moving slower than 1/4 speed. This should stimulate offensive gameplay.

[skoebiedoe1]

My smolenk loves camping bb’s ….so no . ;)

 

[Karasu_Browarszky]

14 minutes ago, Genie_of_the_Lamp said:

Ships that stay almost the biggest time of the game stationary on their appointed spots. Most of the time a corner of an Island

But BB s especially those with much guns in the bow section practice this and the other team tries to penetrate it which is a hard thing to do.

We are seeing here often the Russian BB s doing it and the french.  In real wars I dont think it was routine in a sea battle right?

 

Correct.

 

14 minutes ago, Genie_of_the_Lamp said:

 

I hate this gameplay; it destroys the fun.

 

Correct. It is much more fun IMO to have battles where the ships are constantly maneuvering and the battle is conducted in a dynamic fashion. Personally, I haven't the foggiest why so many in the community love the stagnant game play so much, unless that is part of the 'arcade' gaming or something.

 

14 minutes ago, Genie_of_the_Lamp said:

 

Ships should be stimulated to just keep moving instead of being a piece sticking on 1 position on a chessboard

 

Correct. Those who like to play chess, could go and play chess. With ship shaped pieces.

 

14 minutes ago, Genie_of_the_Lamp said:

 

My idea is as follows:

 

Each ship that is stationary will have a dispersion penalty and attacking moving ships will get a dispersion bonus when shooting at a stationary target.

Sounds logical to me. And to prevent clever players from just reverse a bit and go forward a few steps (we can see this also already happening); this penalty must be given towards each ship that is

moving slower than 1/4 speed. This should stimulate offensive gameplay.

 

I'm not sure if there is currently any mechanic that takes into account if the target is stationary or not. Based on the game play, I think there isn't which is very counterintuitive. Logically, as you keep firing at a stationary target, your aim/dispersion should dramatically improve with every shot fired. (Minus the fact that you are yourself moving as otherwise it would defeat the purpose of the mechanic...).

[lovelacebeer]

WG clearly have no desire to discourage passive gameplay, and with the upcoming introduction of subs you can expect to see an awful lot more passivity. 
 

OPs idea of punishing players who are near stationary is interesting at least, but it goes against everything WG has been encouraging.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

1 minute ago, lovelacebeer said:

WG clearly have no desire to discourage passive gameplay, and with the upcoming introduction of subs you can expect to see an awful lot more passivity. 
 

OPs idea of punishing players who are near stationary is interesting at least, but it goes against everything WG has been encouraging.

 

Could it be they know their maps are way too small? Or is there some sneaky underhanded psychobabble reasoning at play?

[The_Chiv]

27 minutes ago, Genie_of_the_Lamp said:

WG made the game more dynamic for CV players

 

Well how about my opinion that it is time to make the whole game more dynamic???

 

What we all see especially in the high tiers and in the so called "Kings of the Sea" stuff and clanbattles is the following:

 

Ships that stay almost the biggest time of the game stationary on their appointed spots. Most of the time a corner of an Island

But BB s especially those with much guns in the bow section practice this and the other team tries to penetrate it which is a hard thing to do.

We are seeing here often the Russian BB s doing it and the french.  In real wars I dont think it was routine in a sea battle right?

 

I hate this gameplay; it destroys the fun.

 

Ships should be stimulated to just keep moving instead of being a piece sticking on 1 position on a chessboard

 

My idea is as follows:

 

Each ship that is stationary will have a dispersion penalty and attacking moving ships will get a dispersion bonus when shooting at a stationary target.

Sounds logical to me. And to prevent clever players from just reverse a bit and go forward a few steps (we can see this also already happening); this penalty must be given towards each ship that is

moving slower than 1/4 speed. This should stimulate offensive gameplay.

Against a BB I have no problem with this, but as some one mentioned in another post Cruisers would suffer from this a bit unjustly.

 

Personally I would be more inclined with a system that provides something similar to what you are suggesting as a penalty based on Horizontal lines. Like if in A line you get increase dispersion as well as an increase to be hit. At b line a reduction of this and at c a reduction of this and of course mirroring for the other side. To me this seems a bit more fair, does what you want and would be the simplest to implement by WG. Hell they can eve change the mini map to have colored sections representing these zones. 

[Cyclops_]

Sorry but totally disagree, what about a DD caping whilst smoked?? A CA defending a cap by parking correctly alongside an island, a lightly armoured CL behind an island or parked in smoke? I could go on, it is called tactical play, What you are looking for is a full on arcade game. KOTS and clan battles are all about tactics, running around like blue arsed flies is Call of Duty with multiple  respawns during a time allotted game. Maybe a good idea for an Alternative game mode though.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

12 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

Against a BB I have no problem with this, but as some one mentioned in another post Cruisers would suffer from this a bit unjustly.

 

True, it might be also be set to work 'in class' meaning between ships belonging to the same class.

 

12 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

 

Personally I would be more inclined with a system that provides something similar to what you are suggesting as a penalty based on Horizontal lines. Like if in A line you get increase dispersion as well as an increase to be hit. At b line a reduction of this and at c a reduction of this and of course mirroring for the other side. To me this seems a bit more fair, does what you want and would be the simplest to implement by WG. Hell they can eve change the mini map to have colored sections representing these zones. 

 

Er... just no, sorry. That would make it completely asymmetrical, also OP's idea was not based on range but on speed. The improved dispersion would have to apply against stationary targets in order to effectively 'force' them to keep moving.

[Profilus]

3 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

The improved dispersion would have to apply against stationary targets in order to effectively 'force' them to keep moving.

People dont leave their preferred spot even after 1st 15 Shima torps around them. So a mechanic most people dont even know about(they will not) wont make them move neither.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

1 minute ago, Profilus said:

People dont leave their preferred spot even after 1st 15 Shima torps around them. So a mechanic most people dont even know about(they will not) wont make them move neither.

 

The really sad part is there shouldn't even be a mechanic needed to make people move in a ship game..

[Profilus]

3 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

The really sad part is there shouldn't even be a mechanic needed to make people move in a ship game..

True, but we all know trying to make them move doesnt work or epicenter would be fun map mode.

Edit: and Ocean map

[Molly_Delaney]

Make the grid squares smaller (ie more of them) and allow fire by co-ordinates.

Just like in Battleships.....

 

Proper indirect fire, like the real ones do.

 

[Yxkraft]

The lack of dynamic gameplay is because the ballistic model wargaming has chosen severely punishes broadside ships but not edge on ships.   This means that you cannot probe forward and turn and escape if you find too much opposition, because that would cause you to take massive amounts of damage. Also lateral (sideways) transport on the map is made very hard because you have to do it outside spotting range or risk instablapping. The usual workaround here is to advance by backing so that you can run without turning.  There are so many things that are so wrong with wargamings chosen game model that I dont know where to start. This game is designed to promote camping and static gameplay. That is why it looks like this. 

 

Wargaming giving ships like cruisers thin full overwater beam citadels also do not help. Cruisers like Alaska are not overpowered, they are barely medium power. The only ship class that can probe is the DD which can spot and turn without being spotted, but even dds back into caps where they expect to run into other dds. And the abominable RPF skill enables blind torpedo salvos on unspotted targets, yes, some guys are so good at interpreting RPF that they can land torp salvos on other DDs without ever spotting them.  The wargaming developer Q&A session that I saw on youtube were pure cringe, these guys, they are simple people, makers of javascript office software, not any kind of creative artisan like a designer of games.  I am amazed at the success wargaming has with its game titles, it shows that advertising is the most important thing, and that the circa 90 IQ crowd is the most profitable.  

[tocqueville8]

1 hour ago, Genie_of_the_Lamp said:

This should stimulate offensive gameplay.

There is plenty of offensive gameplay these days, but good players know to farm and out-trade enemies from a safe position before moving in during the late game, unless there's a weakness to exploit to gain map control, caps and and crossfiring positions.

 

You don't carry a game with 3k base xp by running around, you do it by abusing (well, using) island cover or smokes to make the trades as favorable as possible.

If you push too soon, you'll get dumpstered, if you push too late you'll be useless.

[tocqueville8]

22 minutes ago, Profilus said:

Edit: and Ocean map 

I dunno, my last 3 Ocean games have been a blast...

[The_Chiv]

36 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

True, it might be also be set to work 'in class' meaning between ships belonging to the same class.

 

 

Er... just no, sorry. That would make it completely asymmetrical, also OP's idea was not based on range but on speed. The improved dispersion would have to apply against stationary targets in order to effectively 'force' them to keep moving.

Hmmmm valid.

 

 

[Karasu_Browarszky]

24 minutes ago, Molly_Delaney said:

Make the grid squares smaller (ie more of them) and allow fire by co-ordinates.

Just like in Battleships.....

 

Proper indirect fire, like the real ones do.

 

 

Not a bad suggestion at all, I've always liked using gauges to set the firing coordinates... others here, though...

 

10 minutes ago, Yxkraft said:

The lack of dynamic gameplay is because the ballistic model wargaming has chosen severely punishes broadside ships but not edge on ships.   This means that you cannot probe forward and turn and escape if you find too much opposition, because that would cause you to take massive amounts of damage. Also lateral (sideways) transport on the map is made very hard because you have to do it outside spotting range or risk instablapping. The usual workaround here is to advance by backing so that you can run without turning.  There are so many things that are so wrong with wargamings chosen game model that I dont know where to start. This game is designed to promote camping and static gameplay. That is why it looks like this. 

 

Wargaming giving ships like cruisers thin full overwater beam citadels also do not help. Cruisers like Alaska are not overpowered, they are barely medium power. The only ship class that can probe is the DD which can spot and turn without being spotted, but even dds back into caps where they expect to run into other dds. And the abominable RPF skill enables blind torpedo salvos on unspotted targets, yes, some guys are so good at interpreting RPF that they can land torp salvos on other DDs without ever spotting them.  The wargaming developer Q&A session that I saw on youtube were pure cringe, these guys, they are simple people, makers of javascript office software, not any kind of creative artisan like a designer of games.  I am amazed at the success wargaming has with its game titles, it shows that advertising is the most important thing, and that the circa 90 IQ crowd is the most profitable.  

 

Office software... so they designed a game you can comfortably play holding a coffee mug in your left hand... figures...

 

Spot on analysis you given us, I think, btw.

 

6 minutes ago, tocqueville8 said:

There is plenty of offensive gameplay these days, but good players know to farm and out-trade enemies from a safe position before moving in during the late game, unless there's a weakness to exploit to gain map control, caps and and crossfiring positions.

 

You don't carry a game with 3k base xp by running around, you do it by abusing (well, using) island cover or smokes to make the trades as favorable as possible.

If you push too soon, you'll get dumpstered, if you push too late you'll be useless.

 

Yeah...'good players'. That is what I call 'incredibly bad play' and conversely it is what gets them the results they have....

 

3 minutes ago, tocqueville8 said:

I dunno, my last 3 Ocean games have been a blast...

 

Ocean is the greatest! It's like... The Ocean.

[tocqueville8]

4 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

Yeah...'good players'. That is what I call 'incredibly bad play' and conversely it is what gets them the results they have....

I'm afraid I disagree.

 

An IJN DD can run around and sink several enemies with his torps alone while barely ever being spotted, but what's a Baltimore supposed to do in T9-10 MM? Just run around shooting HE in the face of a Thunderer? Overmatch, lack of range and lack of a heal all dictate that cruisers should use island cover.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

Just now, tocqueville8 said:

I'm afraid I disagree.

 

An IJN DD can run around and sink several enemies with his torps alone while barely ever being spotted, but what's a Baltimore supposed to do in T9-10 MM? Just run around shooting HE in the face of a Thunderer? Overmatch, lack of range and lack of a heal all dictate that cruisers should use island cover.

 

From my perspective, it tells me there are serious flaws with the game design, but some people seem to actually like it this way. It's a funny old world.

[Cyclops_]

1 minute ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

From my perspective, it tells me there are serious flaws with the game design, but some people seem to actually like it this way. It's a funny old world.

 

 

I guess that learning the game mechanics is not a strong point with yourself??

[hellhound666]

1 hour ago, skoebiedoe1 said:

My smolenk loves camping bb’s ….so no . ;)

 

not that successfully though ...

[geschlittert]

26 minutes ago, Yxkraft said:

Cruisers like Alaska are not overpowered, they are barely medium power.

excuse me? the alaska is an insanely strong ship and i would call her overpowered.

Sounds like a you problem

[Profilus]

30 minutes ago, tocqueville8 said:

I dunno, my last 3 Ocean games have been a blast...

Well, my last Ocean map was several months ago and it was merry go round at map border.

[tocqueville8]

18 minutes ago, Profilus said:

Well, my last Ocean map was several months ago and it was merry go round at map border.

In my recent ones:

 

- Wooster: terrible ship for this map, but my DDs were in a cooperative mood and we hunted DDs around C

- Asashio (T10 match): lots of DDs and few BBs per team, so a bad target environment, but I scored top of the team with 2 solo caps and some good moves against the enemy DDs (RPF helped). I also Dev-Struck a friendly GK with my torps, thinking I would help her against a Yamato

- Saint-Louis: I ran up the Western flank burning down a Bismarck and an Alabama. It's a good thing I was on that flank, as on the other one the enemy team had 3 of those YEBOI unicums. Their Slava in particular kept trying to snipe me from max range, but being a noob I run IFA on all my cruisers

[DFens_666]

1 hour ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

The really sad part is there shouldn't even be a mechanic needed to make people move in a ship game..

 

Remove the "neutral" gear so to say Can either move forward or backward. Switching directions should only be able to be done until a certain speed has passed, to prevent people from just moving -1 / +1 kts

Id like that