The state of the game

[Prophecy82]

On 7/30/2021 at 8:52 PM, Redwing6891 said:

 

CVs get a lot of hate but at least if they are present, ships have to keep on moving. I found in one game that three (!) battleships were huddling behind one island. Come on - what is that all about?

 

Is there a difference between camping behind an island and "moving" the 8-line back and forth?

[ghostbuster_]

4 minutes ago, Adm_Andre said:

Same for DD, CL/CA, BB; if they can lead the shots in the right direction they can scratch your paint.

Wrong 

If you are skillful enough, you can counter any class with any class. If you are skillful BB player (more skilled than your enemy) you can dodge torps from less skilled player, you can blap less skiled cruiser etc.

In cruisers, if you are more skilled than the BB player, you can dodge, bait and farm him to death. 

In DDs, you can easly counter less skilled cruisers. 

There is only one class with which this isnt the case. CVs.

4 minutes ago, Adm_Andre said:

And a campfest were high tier games since the beginning of WoWs and this without correlation to CV RTS or CV reeeework.

 

Thats true. But if you noticed, i didnt make any comment about camping, did i?  read my post again.

[Adm_Andre]

Vor 14 Minuten, ghostbuster_ sagte:

Thats true. But if you noticed, i didnt make any comment about camping, did i?  read my post again.

I commented to the topic "The state of the game"  rEaD mY pOsT aGaIn,

 

[ghostbuster_]

5 minutes ago, Adm_Andre said:

I commented to the topic "The state of the game"  rEaD mY pOsT aGaIn,

 

Then dont qUoTe mY pOsT jackss

[Redwing6891]

I don't want to get side-tracked... back on the main point:

 

Are we essentially saying that higher tier gameplay is by design a camp-fest with sniping over long distances, interspersed with some torpedo dodging and one-sided CV gameplay?

 

Because if that is true, I wonder what exactly is enjoyable about this? Each to their own, but I'll stick to lower tiers from now on...

[Redcap375]

4 hours ago, Redwing6891 said:

I don't want to get side-tracked... back on the main point:

 

Are we essentially saying that higher tier gameplay is by design a camp-fest with sniping over long distances, interspersed with some torpedo dodging and one-sided CV gameplay?

 

Because if that is true, I wonder what exactly is enjoyable about this? Each to their own, but I'll stick to lower tiers from now on...

 

In the basic of nut shells...Yes, the majority are until one side crumbles. 

 

WG have made it like that. We can only play with the hands we are delt. Long range guns and torps, more accurate then things should be guns, HE spam, radar, hydro, smoke everywhere and Unkillable CV planes to name a few. 

 

Brawling or pushing early/mid is a one way ticket back to the port. 

 

8 is the last tier you wanna be playing if you want to move around more freely and get "stuck in". 

 

A lot of good players have moved to the middle teirs now as the high tiers are clogged with simply awful players and the lost of 2-3 ship can be critical. 

 

[Redwing6891]

7 minutes ago, Redcap375 said:

 

In the basic of nut shells...Yes, the majority are until one side crumbles. 

 

WG have made it like that. We can only play with the hands we are delt. Long range guns and torps, more accurate then things should be guns, HE spam, radar, hydro, Unkillable CV planes to name a few. 

 

Brawling or pushing early/mid is a one way ticket back to the port. 

 

8 is the last tier you wanna be playing if you want to move around more freely and get "stuck in". 

 

A lot of good players have moved to the middle teirs now as the high tiers are clogged with simply awful players and the lost of 2-3 ship can be critical. 

 

Thank you very much for your honest appraisal.

 

I have never been attracted to higher tier play because of the prevalence of unrealistic paper ships there but this style of play is definitely not for me. I just ventured up to VIII as I still like the historic ships there. 

 

I used to think that tiers V and VI were the sweet spot but even they are getting unenjoyable in comparison to tier IV. At this rate I'll be playing tier I by Autumn... or finding another game to spend my little free time on.

 

Coming back to the title of the thread, 'The state of the game', in summary, I'd like to say, it is a bit sad, really. :(

[Redcap375]

22 minutes ago, Redwing6891 said:

Thank you very much for your honest appraisal.

 

I have never been attracted to higher tier play because of the prevalence of unrealistic paper ships there but this style of play is definitely not for me. I just ventured up to VIII as I still like the historic ships there. 

 

I used to think that tiers V and VI were the sweet spot but even they are getting unenjoyable in comparison to tier IV. At this rate I'll be playing tier I by Autumn... or finding another game to spend my little free time on.

 

Coming back to the title of the thread, 'The state of the game', in summary, I'd like to say, it is a bit sad, really. :(

 

Been playing since 2014 and state of the game now is shocking. Both in players, company and gameplay. 

 

Without going through every bad call WG have made during the last 7 years, let's just say its drove about 80% I would say of the players I used to know from the game at different intervals and subs will be the final nail I reckon. 

 

My advice is play the teir you wanna play and don't go seeking riches in the higher tiers if your happy where you are... Because you will be disappointed. 

 

Sure give It go, don't take my word for it but if its "this ain't for me" go to the tier you enjoy. Tier 5 - 10 still has the same quality of players and like WG have already stated, player skill is not a factor in tier 10 at all. 

 

Lovely model ships, strong AF ships and all that jazz doesnt cover over gameplay, or what you like in gameplay. 

 

Remember, WG wants you in these higher teirs for game economy.

 

Some people like that "chess" kinda game play so it's each to their own I suppose and I only really play it to keep me CB match fit, but I prefer middle teir games now. 

[Kiagy]

Constant one sided domination, one team barely deals damage, the other huge damage

 

Constant landslide wins/losses

 

 

[Pukovnik7]

3 hours ago, Prophecy82 said:

 

Is there a difference between camping behind an island and "moving" the 8-line back and forth?

There is. Camping behind an island is useful. Moving at the 8th line is not.

 

2 hours ago, Redwing6891 said:

I don't want to get side-tracked... back on the main point:

 

Are we essentially saying that higher tier gameplay is by design a camp-fest with sniping over long distances, interspersed with some torpedo dodging and one-sided CV gameplay?

 

Because if that is true, I wonder what exactly is enjoyable about this? Each to their own, but I'll stick to lower tiers from now on...

Yes. I played four games in my Friedrich der Grosse, then sold it and decided to stick to tiers IV-VIII, for that very reason.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

14 hours ago, Aethervoxx said:

Finally, after a 6 months 'vacation' from the forum here, I can add my soggy paper note to this thread.

(which I threw out of a port hole while I was on board the 'prison ship to request a 'rescue'. No one found my scribbling probably cause the ink would have washed off my 'note')

Unfortunately, my opinion of the state of this game is it's 'sorry' (as in going in the wrong direction).

 Has the CV rework been a success? I, personally, doubt it.

Has the Captain skills rework been a success? I, personally, doubt it.

Has the new 2-3 months roll out of new ship tech tree lines been a success? I, personally doubt it.

Has the new hybrid ship idea (guns & planes) been a success? I, personally, doubt it.

Will the introduction of Subs be a success? I, personally, doubt it.

I am not against CVs (per se) nor am I against Subs (per se). both of these vessel classes must be in a 20th century naval game. Anyone who naysays that is, imho, barking at the moon.

However, I would like RTS CVs in the game (yes, as if - we know that boat sailed out of port what 2+ years ago now).

Even though Subs weren't supposed to show up - come on - what bona fide 20th century naval game would not have Subs?

 

 

Aw... this game is too complex to work as an arcade game. If we just have the three classes of ships in a battle, BB's, cruisers and DD's... it sort of works, but when we throw the CV's into the mix, it starts to break apart, and bringing the subs into the fray will make things even worse.

 

One of the problems is lack of semi-effective counterplay, typically when it comes to the CV's, but it's actually an issue across the board. Currently, we have situations where (typically) the offensive element is much closer to being OP than semi-effective. Occasionally we have cases where the defensive element is closer to OP than to being semi-effective.  This is a game design and a balance problem at its core and WG has never really addressed it. We should have neither offensive or defensive capabilities that are too effective (read OP), they should always remain within a varying scale that centres on 'semi-effective'. Like, for instance, we shouldn't have AA that is super OP even if it, for obvious reasons, would negate the threat posed by the CV's completely.

 

With the subs, we will run into similar problems. I doubt they will be able to balance them even on paper, much less in the actual game. WG has not competently solved the issues with the CV element in the game, there's no logic behind CV attack patterns, nor is there any logic in the 'fleet' defenses against the CV threat. I fully expect them to mess up the subs in a similar manner. What kind of defenses/counterplay options will we get? Will our DD's be tasked with detecting and deterring the enemy subs in the vicinity of their team mates? If so... enjoy the crap show that follows, because I doubt we will have many DD's or DD players, more precisely, that will be interesting in 'staying alert' and screening the other ships against the underwater threat.

 

From game design to balance, from balance to lack of team play and coordination, there are the key areas of failure where WG truly shines like that proverbial 'polished turd'. We have no build in game design incentives for team play, WG has not enforced ship combat roles neither with the carrot nor the stick which, in effect, means that once we get into battle you will typically see the team scatter like a flock of hens each player doing their own 'thing' and, in the end, the battle is decided not so much by coordinated tactics or team play but more probably the win goes to the team that managed to have more of those players who, either through skill or with luck, managed to do more or less the 'right' thing.

[Redwing6891]

I suppose getting a balanced game here where the play pieces are based on replicating technology that is designed to achieve exactly the opposite is a fool's errand.

 

The only balanced war game that springs to mind is chess. And that is hard enough...

[Redcap375]

3 hours ago, Redwing6891 said:

I suppose getting a balanced game here where the play pieces are based on replicating technology that is designed to achieve exactly the opposite is a fool's errand.

 

The only balanced war game that springs to mind is chess. And that is hard enough...

 

Chess is a solo game. You win and lose on yours and only your skill alone. 

 

Here you are forced to rely on others to win. And unlike a player tier system, when you play around your peers to a around about level, here anyone with any skill can do what they want.

 

Yesterday, Had a enemy CV steam into the middle of the cap when the game began and died. Sums it up, what chance did that team have now.. We lost 2 ships in total, complete white wash. 

 

You can have the greatest game of your wows life but if you have enough muppets on your team, your gonna lose. 

 

Like a relay team with the last person using a zimmer frame and an oxygen mask. All that hard work you have put in, all that training and beating your opponent only for someone who shouldn't even be their throw it away whilst your looking on in astonishment at the end or on the case of this game, at the beginning. 

[Karasu_Browarszky]

1 hour ago, Redwing6891 said:

I suppose getting a balanced game here where the play pieces are based on replicating technology that is designed to achieve exactly the opposite is a fool's errand.

 

The only balanced war game that springs to mind is chess. And that is hard enough...

 

Well, in the real world it would depend on the interplay of technology and human skill, so you'd need to put some RNG into the equation when it comes to a multiplayer game.

 

1 hour ago, Redcap375 said:

 

Chess is a solo game. You win and lose on yours and only your skill alone. 

 

Here you are forced to rely on others to win. And unlike a player tier system, when you play around your peers to a around about level, here anyone with any skill can do what they want.

 

Yesterday, Had a enemy CV steam into the middle of the cap when the game began and died. Sums it up, what chance did that team have know.. We lost 2 ships in total, white wash. 

 

You can have the greatest game of your wows life but if you have enough muppets on your team, your gonna lose. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

[surfer_gr]

play what you enjoy playing

i dont care about meta i dont care what iam up against.

i enjoy playing certain ships and i play them

i adapt my playstyle to the current meta but thats all 

still playing what i like and mind you i only play tier10s the last 3 years  :P

dont care about stats to many battles to change anything anyways lols

 

most plaied ships in randoms  ?  the pure fun ships !!!!!!

 

 

 

mind you i only play coop during snowflakes no captains skills no modules no camos nothing lols

 

 

[Camperdown]

41 minutes ago, surfer_gr said:

play what you enjoy playing

i dont care about meta i dont care what iam up against.

i enjoy playing certain ships and i play them

i adapt my playstyle to the current meta but thats all 

still playing what i like and mind you i only play tier10s the last 3 years  :P

dont care about stats to many battles to change anything anyways lols

 

most plaied ships in randoms  ?  the pure fun ships !!!!!!

 

 

 

mind you i only play coop during snowflakes no captains skills no modules no camos nothing lols

 

 

+ 5000 games in Khaba 

[Hades_warrior]

This game is lately in so good shape that I didn't played a single battle for entire summer.

planes everywhere? - No thanks. Torps everywhere (subs included)? - i'll pass on that one too.

[ColonelPete]

55 minutes ago, Hades_warrior said:

Torps everywhere (subs included)? - i'll pass on that one too.

Nope, contrary to what some people claimed after the rocket plane rework...

Spoiler

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20210731/eu_week/average_class_u.html

 

[Karasu_Browarszky]

10 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Nope, contrary to what some people claimed after the rocket plane rework...

  Hide contents

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20210731/eu_week/average_class_u.html

 

 

The CV's look interesting...

[159Hunter]

24 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

The CV's look interesting...

CV players too low, indicating a failed rework. If it weren't for subs they'de be buffed first.

Alas, the dev team is fully occupied with subs where more money can be made than CVs.

So CV players will need to weather the storm for a while.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

2 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

CV players too low, indicating a failed rework. If it weren't for subs they'de be buffed first.

Alas, the dev team is fully occupied with subs where more money can be made than CVs.

So CV players will need to weather the storm for a while.

 

Perhaps there will be a time when we get to see more of our friendly CV's in battle!

[ColonelPete]

CV numbers are still 50% higher than before the CV rework.

Their playstyle is just too different from the other classes. It is obviously not a power issue. Even when CV were completly ridiculous shortly after the rework, the class never went above 10%.

[Aethervoxx]

On 8/1/2021 at 2:16 AM, Bellegar said:

No, this is not the game the devs want. We had the game the devs want in the years 2015-2018. This is the game the producers' accountants want. 

Unfortunately for the players, whereas the developers were initially free to do what they wanted, the producers took over development a few years ago. Coincidentally, that was around 2018. Could those two be connected in any way? 

I 100% agree with this sentiment.

On 8/1/2021 at 2:24 AM, Bellegar said:

I strongly disagree. We do not need less islands, or heaven forbid, more ocean. What we need is proper maps. 

Almost all maps nowadays follow the same concept: a horizontal line of islands, with a vertical line somewhere dividing the map in two or sometimes even three parts. They just copied Mountain Range (the worst map after Ocean) and slapped it over all the other maps. 

We once had a good Islands of Ice map. They reworked it into an icy Mountain Range. 

 

I recently started to think why I enjoy lower tiers instead of higher tiers. While all the camping and sniping at T8+ doesn't help, I came to the conclusion that it's mostly due to the maps. On lower tiers, you get the older maps, from the game's earliest stages of development. You know, when the developers were actually still trying to make a good game, instead of a money milking machine. Back then they had creativity, and you see that in the map designs. There's just much more variety in the maps you see up to T6. 

I 100% agree with this sentiment.

In fact, I think your two posts, Bellegar, are worth repeating (so I did).

 

[Redwing6891]

On 8/1/2021 at 9:05 PM, Aethervoxx said:

However, I would like RTS CVs in the game (yes, as if - we know that boat sailed out of port what 2+ years ago now).

I also deplore the loss of that game mode, which actually offered something refreshingly different and certainly got me at the time into dabbling in CVs. It also had the seed of a possible command structure in it as the CV player was the only one who had constant overview over the whole course of the battle and could try to influence other players accordingly. I thought it was a brilliant idea and had lots of potential.

 

Alas, WG squashed it totally and made CVs into some strange and even more arcade version of plane flying in Battlestations Pacific. When I now play CVs, I feel somehow weirdly disconnected from the whole battle, as if you are playing on your own. It's just a shooting gallery, and you have no connection whatsoever to the actual team or to the ships as a whole, not even your own carrier. She looks nice in port, but in battle she might just as well be an airfield on an island. Come to think of it, as there are so many islands around, some of them with actual airfields on them, why do we need carriers at all? 

[Bellegar]

On 8/2/2021 at 9:48 AM, Redwing6891 said:

I don't want to get side-tracked... back on the main point:

 

Are we essentially saying that higher tier gameplay is by design a camp-fest with sniping over long distances, interspersed with some torpedo dodging and one-sided CV gameplay?

 

Because if that is true, I wonder what exactly is enjoyable about this? Each to their own, but I'll stick to lower tiers from now on...

To be completely fair to WG here, this has always been the case. Even in Closed Beta, there was already a huge gameplay difference between T7- and T8+. The recent additions and changes only emphasized on that difference. 

And it makes kind of sense too. In real life (as far as ships as Montana, Izumo and the H classes can be considered real life) this was the point where gun calibers became so big, that the ships' armour was no longer able to defend against its own guns. If you strip away everything else, this essentially means that two of the same T8+ ships will have an easier time dealing damage to each other than two of the same T6 ships for example. The T6 ships have to be smarter about it, move around more, be sneaky and try to ambush the enemy. 

Couple this with the general rule of 'higher tier = more displacement = slower and less maneuverable', and it's very clear why higher tier battles are by definition more campy than lower tiers. 

 

The latest changes to the game and its mechanics just made it worse. A lot worse (IMHO). But in essence the difference was always there, just not as big or noticable as it is now.