Concurrent games, each one only lasted 8 mins

[Mr_Damager]

14 hours ago, ThePopesHolyFinger said:

This used to be a great game.
Now it's headed towards WoT levels of stupidity.
8 minute games aren't fun for anyone.

The funny thing is that they expect us to believe that it all happens naturally, only because of randomness itself.

8 hours ago, 22cm said:

This is the future. This is what WG wants.

Do players want this?

[SurfaceFish]

Happens in all tiers, just lost 5 out 5 T5 games, 4 of which we had 0 chance (half the team dead before 5 to 7 mins), last game our CV refuse to reset home cap until it too late, home got capped by a single BB!

 

All you can do just walk away and do something else, otherwise you start to think WG is out to get you by make you lose on purpose! The win rate will even out over time.

 

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

1 hour ago, Mr_Damager said:

The funny thing is that they expect us to believe that it all happens naturally, only because of randomness itself.

Actually, it does. But if you put more bad players into the input the results are more average, because for every side that wins, one has to lose (discounting draws, as they are quite rare). You notice that on the weekends, when worse players are to be found on the servers, when you repeatedly can't carry a games, no matter how hard you try.

 

But if there are too many bad players, blowouts happen when the bad players are on one side only.

 

[Mr_Damager]

19 minutes ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

Actually, it does. But if you put more bad players into the input the results are more average, because for every side that wins, one has to lose (discounting draws, as they are quite rare). You notice that on the weekends, when worse players are to be found on the servers, when you repeatedly can't carry a games, no matter how hard you try.

 

But if there are too many bad players, blowouts happen when the bad players are on one side only.

They lose too quickly. If those one-sided games occur because of bad players (they happen to be in one team, good players are in the other, what a coincidence!), then the matchmaker should be skill-based. That's all.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

1 hour ago, Mr_Damager said:

They lose too quickly. If those one-sided games occur because of bad players (they happen to be in one team, good players are in the other, what a coincidence!), then the matchmaker should be skill-based. That's all.

Or you just could git gud.

[Wulf_Ace]

21 hours ago, ThePopesHolyFinger said:

This used to be a great game.
Now it's headed towards WoT levels of stupidity.
8 minute games aren't fun for anyone.

 

FUN TIMEEEEE

 

got AA def expert, enemy CV lost 35 planes to kill me. amazing. 

 

They all died so fast....

 

[Woof_for_Me]

HMyes

[Figment]

7 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Other people list all the things that are deadly to DD (even in this thread), but when your DD get sunk, these things do not work for your team anymore?

They do, but radar does not screen for torpedoes, nor provides longer range or consistent scouting.

 

While the enemy DD with less threat of getting spotted and shot at with accuracy due to proximity are in a more active, deadlier “hunting mode”, rather than a “scout out a save approach” mode. They can now largely by-pass the radar cruisers as the other gaps in defense have become wider.

 

On top of that the numerical leverage starts to add up. The enemy DPS becomes both more focused and more accurate, not having to fire at the most nimble enemies.

 

Meanwhile you and your dwindling amount of allies in more and more cross-fired and overrun positions are distributing your own damage output over a larger number of (every minute relatively healthier) enemies, who are often able to fire from cover with high rof HE spam, using DD as scouts with no return fire as option and still have to aim for nimble ships when they do get spotted. Often times you can even only target the heaviest and healthiest units and most players don’t or in this situation can’t control well how many ships are targeting them. Your side also loses a lot of ambush and devastating strike capacity with the loss of DD with their high concentrated alpha torpedo strikes. So you often lose the element of surprise as well.

 

How can you not comprehend that the loss of DD results in increasingly large strategic and tactical leverages on al kinds of levels? Losing a cruiser is off-set easily as they are high profile and relatively weak universally dev-strikable ships.

 

Having radars and being in a position to use them by aiding fellow DDs for instance is not possible if the teamwork option has been compromised…

[Nibenay78]

9 hours ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

Maybe WG will, at one point, make islands block radar and hydro. 

WG answered in a Q and A page (which is now deleted, i used to have the link to it as my signature) that land blocking radar and hydro would be too hard for players to understand.

[Bland_42]

49 minuti fa, Nibenay78 ha scritto:

WG answered in a Q and A page (which is now deleted, i used to have the link to it as my signature) that land blocking radar and hydro would be too hard for players to understand.

I have always had this question in mind, but WG conjectured the players skills based on those of its devs?

[Schelfie]

This is what's wrong with the game, and it's everytime its a dockyard event or some other long mission crap where salty lowlifes want to make a quick buck in Co-Op...

 

I lost so many karma points to morons like this one it's no fun anymore...

[Figment]

8 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

WG answered in a Q and A page (which is now deleted, i used to have the link to it as my signature) that land blocking radar and hydro would be too hard for players to understand.

Yes, it's very hard to communicate this to players by making a circular ranged overlay layer on the map using the existing circle and straight lines around the edges of blocking and partially blocking terrain with a dimmer shade of colour...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or would it just be considered a @#$@($*#%* to code and players are used as a scapegoat?

[Nibenay78]

1 minute ago, Figment said:

Yes, it's very hard to communicate this to players by making a circular ranged overlay layer on the map using the existing circle and straight lines around the edges of blocking and partially blocking terrain with a dimmer shade of colour...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or would it just be considered a @#$@($*#%* to code and players are used as a scapegoat?

The latter. it will cost time and money to code, and server resources to check area blocked by land.

[OldschoolGaming_YouTube]

8 min is a long game these days. DD dies very fast and after that its a quick snowball effect. We already have 3-4 cap dom mode which forces DDs to push into kill boxes (cap zones) to die to all focus of the enemy team and if that wasn't bad enough WG had to come up with an even more stupid game mode, Arms race which even further rushes these already quick games into 5-6 min steamrolls and with boosters spawning in the middle of the map at start of the game, to ensure most of the DDs die in the first 2 minutes or the team loses out on the boosters. 

 

 

[Figment]

2 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

The latter. it will cost time and money to code, and server resources to check area blocked by land.

Exactly. And it's fairly obvious they just tried to find any excuse over having to make it both more complex and yet completely understandable. I do think one of their weaknesses, especially early on in the game as minor improvements have been taken from mods to implement for all, was Quality of Life User Interaction design. It's one of those things that doesn't make money immediately in a measurable way as you can't apply a number to retention rates for instance. And when applied is often taken for granted as "logical" by players, when good UI design simply takes time and effort and gives the user a better experience than a frustrated or clearly hamfested approach (which eventually will be accepted/tolerated/even defended, "because it's what it is" conservatism setting in over time).

 

Communicating radar and hydro to players in an understandable fashion using visuals should after all be pretty straightforward. In fact, it would make these systems a lot more comprehensible because - egads - line of sight would be a thing. The area of effect would dynamically follow the terrain.

 

Now, for hydro I don't mind it going around the corners of islands, but it should be more like a sailing distance (distance traveled through water) than depicting the "distance of a flying crow". So rather than a circle, this would be a pretty wild shape with circular max distances, but even that is easy to communicate and explain in a tooltip and pre-match tutorial loading screen. Which should be used to share way more information tbh.

[Figment]

10 minutes ago, OldschoolGaming_YouTube said:

[...] if that wasn't bad enough WG had to come up with an even more stupid game mode, Arms race which even further rushes these already quick games into 5-6 min steamrolls and with boosters spawning in the middle of the map at start of the game, to ensure most of the DDs die in the first 2 minutes or the team loses out on the boosters. 

When they first introduced arms race for events many people already reported the effect of leverage differences, in particular unbalanced steadily increasing leverage over time by a numerical superior team (and at the time I think the healing boost was even greater?) making it impossible for a team to win after it loses a few units more than the enemy, especially stealth units.

[Seraphice]

The amount of radar DDs and BBs is rather limited - Ragnar and Smaland are not very common as they are not as easy to obtain and radar Yueyang is also not a very popular pick.
For BBs there is practically still only missouri (with only 9.5km) and Borodino.
CV spotting has only become less effective since their rework (e.g. with plane speed nerf).

Most of what is being described is more down to player actions.
Has the game sped up since its launch? Undoubtably; There are more ships with higher DPM, and such now than there were before.
 

18 hours ago, tocqueville8 said:

 

This, pretty much. Compared to the low-mid tiers, playing DDs at Tier 9-10 is a survival horror:

• to borrow a term from physics, DD vs DD collisions become less "elastic", meaning it's harder to bounce back: the DPM is so high on many of them that if you enter a bad knife-fight you're going to be dead just as you slow down and smoke up, or shortly afterwards from blindfire. Never mind if you get radared. For instance: Daring, Halland and Z-52, with the module, have 200%, 200% and 130% more DPM than their Tier 6 predecessors, but only 70%, 60% and 30% more hp, respectively. The turret traverse also makes the engagements more lethal, as little time is wasted bringing the guns on target.
• every other game you're going to be RPF'ed, so at least some enemies know exactly where you are 
• Soviet radars parked next to islands might be a low-effort play, but they work at making 1/3 of the frontline a no-go zone

I mean...I enjoy the challenge, but it's a very different, more punishing meta for DDs than lower down the tiers. And the thing is: it's not the same for BBs and cruisers, which arguably get easier: less overmatch for the first, a heal for the latter.

As someone who likes to play DD quite a lot, I have to disagree with the statement that playing DD is "a survival horror"

There are certainly situations where you can get caught and die early. There is no mistaking that, but I recognise that in all of those situations, if I had played my cards right, such a thing would not have happened.
Playing around the tools that the enemy has and playing with the tools you and your team have available is crucial, even if you cant always rely on teammates to make the right decisions.

Soviet radars parked on islands in most cases is free farm for your DPM cruisers and setting themselves up to get devstruck at some point - It works better in competitive because you have a lot less players spread out across the map, but in randoms, because things are so random, and you have more players, its harder to find an angle that:
1. Allows you to shoot freely
2. Makes you take minimal damage in return
3. Still provides good radar coverage
At least for most maps. There are exceptions. Still if your flank gets overrun you are pretty much guaranteed to die in such a position.

 

17 hours ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

Please differentiate between light and heavy cruisers. And between short range light cruisers and long range light cruisers with a much improved survivability simply due to the range, because, you know, who would need a Nevsky near a cap anyway?

 

Maybe WG will, at one point, make islands block radar and hydro. And then remove the casual spotting from CVs.

The former is rather unlikely. The latter is something we are still looking into.

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

[Figment]

1 minute ago, Seraphice said:

The former is rather unlikely. The latter is something we are still looking into.

By the latter, do you mean radar and hydro + CV spotting, or just the CV spotting?

 

 

Information is everything and IMO there's too much information available against stealth units, but as information advantages can mean everything to lower DPS units, so ships that are reliant on teamspotting might suffer. Of course, the higher the DPS and alpha strike, the bigger impact a ship can have when information is available.

 

Are you considering a spotting system that relies more on the proximity of the spotter to the the receiver of the information? Like the radio system in WoT, but with secondary linked units (receiving spotter's information via allied ships) receiving just map information.

 

Of course, in such a situation scouts become more important and sides could become blinded more easily. I don't think that's a horrible thing, especially if it's done such that the numerically superior foe can't always bring all its firepower to bear on the entire map through universal spotting, but it's something to consider.

[Seraphice]

2 minutes ago, Figment said:

By the latter, do you mean radar and hydro + CV spotting, or just the CV spotting?

 

 

Information is everything and IMO there's too much information available against stealth units, but as information advantages can mean everything to lower DPS units, so ships that are reliant on teamspotting might suffer. Of course, the higher the DPS and alpha strike, the bigger impact a ship can have when information is available.

 

Are you considering a spotting system that relies more on the proximity of the spotter to the the receiver of the information? Like the radio system in WoT, but with secondary linked units (receiving spotter's information via allied ships) receiving just map information.

 

Of course, in such a situation scouts become more important and sides could become blinded more easily. I don't think that's a horrible thing, especially if it's done such that the numerically superior foe can't always bring all its firepower to bear on the entire map through universal spotting, but it's something to consider.

It was meant towards the CV spotting.

We've done several tests with CV spotting now but for now there is nothing in the near future about this that I'm aware of, though we've certainly not forgotten.

4 minutes ago, Figment said:

Are you considering a spotting system that relies more on the proximity of the spotter to the the receiver of the information? Like the radio system in WoT, but with secondary linked units (receiving spotter's information via allied ships) receiving just map information.

This was tested, though I can't share any details on the results I'm afraid

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

[Figment]

23 minutes ago, Seraphice said:

It was meant towards the CV spotting.

We've done several tests with CV spotting now but for now there is nothing in the near future about this that I'm aware of, though we've certainly not forgotten.

This was tested, though I can't share any details on the results I'm afraid.

Thanks for the clarification and that the specific suggestion at the very least has been/is being considered. :)

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

6 hours ago, Seraphice said:

CV spotting has only become less effective since their rework (e.g. with plane speed nerf).

6 hours ago, Seraphice said:

The latter is something we are still looking into.

[ColonelPete]

18 hours ago, Figment said:

They do, but radar does not screen for torpedoes, nor provides longer range or consistent scouting.

 

While the enemy DD with less threat of getting spotted and shot at with accuracy due to proximity are in a more active, deadlier “hunting mode”, rather than a “scout out a save approach” mode. They can now largely by-pass the radar cruisers as the other gaps in defense have become wider.

 

On top of that the numerical leverage starts to add up. The enemy DPS becomes both more focused and more accurate, not having to fire at the most nimble enemies.

 

Meanwhile you and your dwindling amount of allies in more and more cross-fired and overrun positions are distributing your own damage output over a larger number of (every minute relatively healthier) enemies, who are often able to fire from cover with high rof HE spam, using DD as scouts with no return fire as option and still have to aim for nimble ships when they do get spotted. Often times you can even only target the heaviest and healthiest units and most players don’t or in this situation can’t control well how many ships are targeting them. Your side also loses a lot of ambush and devastating strike capacity with the loss of DD with their high concentrated alpha torpedo strikes. So you often lose the element of surprise as well.

 

How can you not comprehend that the loss of DD results in increasingly large strategic and tactical leverages on al kinds of levels? Losing a cruiser is off-set easily as they are high profile and relatively weak universally dev-strikable ships.

 

Having radars and being in a position to use them by aiding fellow DDs for instance is not possible if the teamwork option has been compromised…

That is why there is hydro. And yes, radar can be good for scouting.

 

While losing a ship is always bad, a team usually loses more firepower when losing a BB or CA, than a DD. And losing a radar CA early in the game can as or even be more desastrous as you lose DPM and cruical spotting.

And yes, when the teamwork option is compromised, being a good spotting and surviving DD does not do much, as your team is unable or unwilling to take out important targets.

Teamwork means you need all classes, not just one.

[OldschoolGaming_YouTube]

10 hours ago, Seraphice said:

.......
CV spotting has only become less effective since their rework (e.g. with plane speed nerf).
 

As someone who likes to play DD quite a lot, I have to disagree with the statement that playing DD is "a survival horror"

There are certainly situations where you can get caught and die early. There is no mistaking that, but I recognize that in all of those situations, if I had played my cards right, such a thing would not have happened.
Playing around the tools that the enemy has and playing with the tools you and your team have available is crucial, even if you cant always rely on teammates to make the right decisions.

Soviet radars parked on islands in most cases is free farm for your DPM cruisers and setting themselves up to get devstruck at some point - It works better in competitive because you have a lot less players spread out across the map, but in randoms, because things are so random, and you have more players, its harder to find an angle that:
1. Allows you to shoot freely - Every cap zone has islands perfect for sitting unspotted in until you start to shoot the DD. In many instances you can even shoot the DD without even being spotted (Des Moines for example)
2. Makes you take minimal damage in return - Islands block most if not all of potential return fire (doesn't block the radar tho....) and that even if allied are awake and tries to shoot the radaring cruiser hidden instead of the Satsuma 19 km away.
3. Still provides good radar coverage - All said islands right next to caps gives perfect radar coverage. Radars should work like spotting when it comes to islands, more then middle of the ship should be visible before radar even work to spot behind islands.
 

 

 

 

How less effective has plane spotting gotten by speed nerf? Planes still outfly any DD in the game and can just circle around them and keep them perma spotted since DD AA with minor exeptions (Småland, Halland Gronigen) cant do anything against planes and CV doesnt even have to waste his time to keep him permaspotted since he can just throw out a portable radar anywhere on the map .... fighterplanes which has a waird similarity to Spotter planes... Also how effective has said speed nerf gotten since the increasing numbers of Super-CVs where you in every other game face a CV with planes flying 300-400 knots. Also thanks for creating a CV specially for dumping rockets on DDs (Malta) with those massive rocket strikes with .... for some strange reason .... shorten machine gun delay .... hmmm. Soon we will also have a ton of players playing the new US BB hybrid lines so the servers will be flooded with planes that spot.

 

I have to disagree. Playing a DD has quite a lot of "Jump Scares" just like a survival horror. Stealth radaring Russian cruisers, CV planes popping out from nowhere to spot you, Radar AND Hydro popping up out of nowhere from a ship sitting behind an island. Radars on BBs, Radars on cruisers, Radars on DDs, Subs popping up out of nowhere, Subs permaspotting you and since Radio Location works just as well as a compass on the north pole its even hard to know what direction the sub is when the marker keeps swinging back and forth like its drunk. Planes from hybridships like Tone and Kearsarge, 

 

How do you "Play your cards right" in Arms race? Suicide in collecting the middle boosters and die first 2 minutes or just give them for free to enemy team which will then win because they get all boosters? Which is "right"? I really wanna know. You took a game that in Randoms already finish in 7-8 min steamrolls and threw in boosters for the game to be over even faster? How do I "play my hands right" when I get radared by an unspotted ship and second later I get hosed down by half the enemy team? How do I "play my hands right" when I see a Annapolis at 10.9 km, second later he has me in his radar and before my DD even started to turn he have killed me from full HP with his little cute F-button "gimmick"? Its not that easy to just "play around". And please dont fool ourselves, teammates Never make the right decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

18 minutes ago, OldschoolGaming_YouTube said:

I have to disagree.

Comrade! Drink deep of bottle! It contains the compressed and liquefied souls harvested by supershits in gulag randoms.....

 

[Peffers]

shorter games = more revenue