Does this game require a rework up from tier 6?

[Vaderan]

Hello captains!

 

I want to know, if it is just me who beleaves that a complete rework of the higher-high tier meta of this game would be a great benefit for this game.

My thoughts are based on a lot of pondering, aswell as my experiences in gameplay, starting from the closed alpha test till today.

 

On a sidenote, i want to keep this as "superficial" as possible, without going into specific tiers or commenting or reviewing a special ship type or class.

My reflections are based on the following impressions: up to tier 6, this game follows some kind of red line, a basic concept without too many exceptions or outbreaks. Destroyers are small and stealthy, with torpedo ranges between 4,5 and 8 km, a detection range with basically something around 5-7km, and a variation of guns and aaa, reflecting the specific nations interpretation of the DD concept. CAs just start seperating into 6" and 8" gun cruisers and receive their AAA consumable, but share more or less identical characteristics. Bigger than a DD, less mass than a BB, fast firing guns, torpedoes, increasing strenght of AAA, more or less the same firing range as the BBs have (yes, IJN BBs are, once upgraded, the exception so far, but besides that, the difference is rather small). BBs are big, slow and have strong guns. Their advantage lies in armor and hitpoints, aswell as the ability to either wreak havoc among cruisers or burn down like torches. Carriers threaten any other ship, but can be countered or at least decreased in efficiency, if a player has good map awarness and some skill in using his AAA power.

To this point, the game basically teaches a new player, how to look for himself. The mechanics are designed to provide a gamestyle which introduces to the rock-, paper-, scissors- (, Spock-) system, and any average intelligent player sooner or later figures out the basics of this mechanic (which seems to apply to roughly 30% of the playerbase, though...).

In other words, BB players get a basic understanding how to lead and aim, what ammuntion to use, how to watch the minimap etc., developing a playstyle he considers suiting to a class. The same process is or should be going on in the brains for players of the different classes aswell.

DD-players learn how to engage and fire torpedoes, CA players how to counter other CAs and DD plus providing AAA support, CVs how to grind the mapborder and execute more or less coordinated attacks on enemy ships.

 

However, as soon as the average player hits the tier 7+ games, the meta starts to change drastically. Ships inbetween their specific classes start to become more and more and even more specialized, the numbers of range, damage, hitpoints and stuff start to become more extraordinary.

One factor, which just increased slightly over the lower tiers, suddenly kind of erruptes andspreads to almost all tiers: range!

Whereas up to tier 5 or 6, most battles were fought on short to medium range (with the exception of IJN BBs, of course), tier 6+ battles start to see increasing numbers of long range battles. Whoever is capable of keeping an advantage in range over his target, will try to hold on this advantage as long as possible. In addition, the top tier battles (8-10) receive units which provide torpedo ranges with 15-20km.

Last but not least, the squadrons of carriers enter levels of toughness and survivability which is too much to be handled by a single aaa assortment.

From the designers point of view, this just seems completly logical and consequent. Provide ships in the high tier meta, which allow for a high degree of specialisation. In addition, make those classes depending on each other, to support, enforce and reward group-/teamplay.

However, what sounds and seems like a consequent and well elaborated concept, doesn´t transfer into reality.

Let´s face it: the majority of players, especially talking about those who never ever even have a look on these forums, lack the skill, foresight, understanding and intelligence to work with the designers concept. At best, they check the stats of the ship they are moving out with, and try to play to it´s strength, or do what they consider playing to it´s strenght.

They are used to do their stuff right from tier 1, die their way up through the tiers and are happy with it. So far, so good. However, this means, that all these players will ever do is, keep fighting on maximum range, ignoring most or even any aspects of coordination and teamplay.

 

The result of all this are these horribly boring, or onesided or ever repeating matches we experience most of the time a day. BBs staying at range, Cruisers somewhere inbetween, feeling out of place, DDs attempting to bring their torpedoes to work, which results in these ridiculous 15-20km torpedo-carpets we can see at tier 9-10.

 

Now, what is my idea of a change?

Plain and simple: return the high tier meta to the standards of mid tier meta! There is a reason, why people love their Minekazes, Clevelands, Omahas, Kongo´s and stuff. All these ships provide fun and are easy accessable. The battles/matches up to tier 6 feel much more intense, faster and thrilling, since engagment ranges and flight times are so much shorter.

In my opinion, we don´t require 27km range BBs, 21km range CAs and 20km torpedo range DDs.

 

Is there anyone out there who would say "no" if his Shimikaze or Fletcher would be changed in a way that it feels and plays like a Minekaze? Provide 15km torpedoes so much more fun than 7km torpedos?

Do we need 7-10km secondary batteries? Are artillery duells on 27km so much better than shell exchanges on 12-17km?

If all theses aspects are reworked at once, i´d say we would experience much more intense and thrilling battles. Yes, a Yamato would quickly be in gun range of a New Mexico or Colorado, and the HE spam of cruisers would start earlier, but this could all be balanced out.

Reduce the range of high tier BB secondary batteries back to a stock 4,5-5 km, but compensate with better accuracy. Reduce the 20km torpedo range to 7-8km, but adjust speed and stealthyness of the DDs, so they can have their stealthy torpedo runs at ranges of 6-8 km.

Reduce the BB main battery range of BBs to 17-20km at maximum, but enhance their survivability against low tier BB shells and compensate for the fact, that CA HE and AP fire will come way more early, more intense and efficient.

Adjust CA batteries to 15-17 km range, so the distances to cross to engage BBs are reduced, firing efficiency increased.

As a welcome side effect, fail divisions wouldn´t be that much of a burden anymore to a team, as they are these days. Reduced engagement ranges mean, that even lower tiers can engage earlier in combat and are allowed to contribute to the team.

 

Of course, all this would require a lot of rework and rebalancing, but i dare to say, it would be worth it. I don´t know about your opinion, i am bored of these long range engagements, duelling with other ships on maximum range, trying to keep as many enemies as possible out of their range, hoping for that one lucky hit when firing at 18-25km range and always trying to keep as much distance as possible to the next island, just to avoid any DD surprise, waiting for another draw.

Since any player is more concerend about his ships paintjob, than teamplay, strategy or efficiency, it is time to change the gameplay in a way which brings back the heat of lowtier battles into the high tiers.

 

Agreed? What do you think? Would it even be possible to rework this game that way? Did i miss anything?

 

[wremise]

just one question: why should i lvl then all the way to tier X, then i can have the same "meta" at tier VI?

 

its just a question, why should i lvl all my way though to the Yamato, then the Kongou has the same range and you could say has the same playstyle and only what difference them is, that the yamoto has (~+40%) more in everything but the enemys has the +40% too.

so in the end, you switch your ship with a higher tier one, and you do the same thing, you have done in the previewer one. you only do 10% more dmg, at an enemy who has 10% more live.

[Cor3y]

While vederan's point makes sense, the reply by wremise does the same!!

 

Would love to see this discussion being followed up by people with far more experience than I do. Just made it to tier8, so I didn't see tier X battles for myself, just streams and videos

[Needy_Game]

i agree on the fact that T8+ games are not as fun as lower tiers, something just feels off, like getting one shotted from stupendously long ranges, or ineffective AA on CA against high tier CV's 

just my opinion though 

[Sharana]

Where are your high tier ships to comment about the tier X battles? Stock pensacola and Tirplitz? You have 22% hitratio on your Tirplitz which means you really try to snipe with it ... and that's so faw away from Tirplitz's strenght. Mine is 30% and I always try to be at 10-15km where I can deal my damage while tanking some as that's my job as a BB. The results are so far away from "suiciding" - yes you have range, but that doesn't mean you are supposed to play on max range.

 

The low tiers are easy - just pew pew on close ranges where after 10-15 battles you simply can't miss because of the ranges and you don't really need much aiming skill + most of the players are noobs so it's even more early. I don't like the pew pew tanks on water gameplay where everyone can yolo everyone and teamwork is simply not required, so I skip such ships with free exp and start to grind from tier 6. Cruisers are the easiest and most noob friendly class till tier 6 because they are made to be the training ships where noobs can score good and if you take their ability to yolo a BB with HE spam at any range for granted you have problems in the higher tiers as you are getting 1-2 shotted if you come under 10km and show your broadside to a BB.

The gameplay evolution looks like this - capital ships (BB and CV) become more and more important while CAs and DDs start filling the support role. They can't yolo the enemy BB anymore, but they have to support their own BBs. For cruisers that's fire support (they have great long range accuracy unlike BBs) and AA/anti DD escort + they are mobile and can react to situation changes where BB won't be able to. Cruisers become allrounders but without some clear strenghts (which good players can use) they don't excel in the hands of above avarage players unlike BBs/CVs for example. CVs transform from spotter (many fighters) and periodical annoyance (low amount of bombers vs more smaller and agile targets) to one of they key ships in the fleet and the main damage dealer or the best AA ship (air superiority deck). The ships have to group otherwise they are easy targets for CVs even if they are cruisers - they are no longer Cleveland vs tier 6 CV, so they have to be in a group with others too for combined AA.

 

The entire point is that high tiers meta is heavily teambased game with classes that have to support each other or fail miserably. That high tier gameplay will be used in the endgame content like team battles, clan wars ect. Why would you grind tier X ship if not for the endgame content? if you like the tier 5 pew pew gameplay and you have your fun there you can simply stay there and play for fun (that's what we all play for). WG gives you a choice - for me it's to play the top tiers (got 1 tier X and now grinding 2 another tier IXs) as I have most of the fun on tiers 8-10 and don't play randoms because I don't see fun in tier 6-7 and prefer to invest my time to unlock more tier Xs. For you it can be to stay on tier 5-6 and have your fun there, you even won't have to pay for premium account and premium ships to support the high tiers grind

 

or ineffective AA on CA against high tier CV's 

IJN cruisers have better guns, but much worse AA. USN cruisers are for the AA escort - the IJN ones only the delay button in form of a temporal panic to the planes during the AA defensive fire.

[Vaderan]

Where are your high tier ships to comment about the tier X battles? Stock pensacola and Tirplitz? You have 22% hitratio on your Tirplitz which means you really try to snipe with it ... and that's so faw away from Tirplitz's strenght. Mine is 30% and I always try to be at 10-15km where I can deal my damage while tanking some as that's my job as a BB. The results are so far away from "suiciding" - yes you have range, but that doesn't mean you are supposed to play on max range.

 

The low tiers are easy - just pew pew on close ranges where after 10-15 battles you simply can't miss because of the ranges and you don't really need much aiming skill + most of the players are noobs so it's even more early. I don't like the pew pew tanks on water gameplay where everyone can yolo everyone and teamwork is simply not required, so I skip such ships with free exp and start to grind from tier 6. Cruisers are the easiest and most noob friendly class till tier 6 because they are made to be the training ships where noobs can score good and if you take their ability to yolo a BB with HE spam at any range for granted you have problems in the higher tiers as you are getting 1-2 shotted if you come under 10km and show your broadside to a BB.

The gameplay evolution looks like this - capital ships (BB and CV) become more and more important while CAs and DDs start filling the support role. They can't yolo the enemy BB anymore, but they have to support their own BBs. For cruisers that's fire support (they have great long range accuracy unlike BBs) and AA/anti DD escort + they are mobile and can react to situation changes where BB won't be able to. Cruisers become allrounders but without some clear strenghts (which good players can use) they don't excel in the hands of above avarage players unlike BBs/CVs for example. CVs transform from spotter (many fighters) and periodical annoyance (low amount of bombers vs more smaller and agile targets) to one of they key ships in the fleet and the main damage dealer or the best AA ship (air superiority deck). The ships have to group otherwise they are easy targets for CVs even if they are cruisers - they are no longer Cleveland vs tier 6 CV, so they have to be in a group with others too for combined AA.

 

The entire point is that high tiers meta is heavily teambased game with classes that have to support each other or fail miserably. That high tier gameplay will be used in the endgame content like team battles, clan wars ect. Why would you grind tier X ship if not for the endgame content? if you like the tier 5 pew pew gameplay and you have your fun there you can simply stay there and play for fun (that's what we all play for). WG gives you a choice - for me it's to play the top tiers (got 1 tier X and now grinding 2 another tier IXs) as I have most of the fun on tiers 8-10 and don't play randoms because I don't see fun in tier 6-7 and prefer to invest my time to unlock more tier Xs. For you it can be to stay on tier 5-6 and have your fun there, you even won't have to pay for premium account and premium ships to support the high tiers grind

 

IJN cruisers have better guns, but much worse AA. USN cruisers are for the AA escort - the IJN ones only the delay button in form of a temporal panic to the planes during the AA defensive fire.

 

To be honest, i´d expected something more constructive from a supertester, despite some "stat bashing" and an attempt to tell me how to play the Tirpitz.

First, i agree with the fact that the Tirpitz is meant to brawl. However, the few battles i "dared" to take her to PvP saw me more or less as mid to bottom tier. I seriously don´t attempt to charge a Yamato or Montana, which is supported by CAs and DDs, while my team stays back for sniping. I hang back and try to support at max range as good as possible, stick with the team etc. Although i am very, very accurate with lead and aim, RNG does have it´s impact. That´s why i try to avoid sniping as often as i can. Since Alpha Test, by the way, and yes, Alpha, Beta and testservers, thats where my experience is based on aswell. I had em all, Yamato, Montana, Des Moines, you name it. I might not have been able to play hundreds of games with them, but enough to get a feeling for them. Playing a Pensacola in a tier 9 game or a Tirpitz in a tier 10 game doesn´t provide experience in a Yamato or Shimikaze, agreed, but it allows me to watch other people play. And if my tier 7 Pensacola ends up second in the List, way above Iowa, New orleans and Co, obviously some other players didn´t do all too well

 

And that´s where my suggestion and question kick in. I don´t need the highest tier in a battle to see how people play. I don´t suggest the rework of this game to improve my personal stats. I know what i can do, what i can´t do, and where RNG and game mechanics limit my possibilities.

My point is simply, that the game doesn´t all too well in teaching players for teamplay. Lowtiers up to tier 6 are, just as you said, Sharana, more or less elementary school. However, and i am sad that i have to repeat this, you cannot take your point of view, or that point of view of any player with average experience and intellect.

That´s what the devs did, and that´s what leads to these horrible, horrible high tier games.

The majority of WoWs players lack the ability to evolve their skills by learning and experience. They start at tier 1 and move on, not caring about their teams, their wins, their strategies or anything. They are resistant to advice, help, assistance, maybe aren´t even able to read english chat messages because they only know their mother tongue.

 

At tiers 1-6, maybe even tier 7, you can have fair...well, lets say "progress", without having to care for anything. You can do your solo-yolo runs, die by a view hits into the citadell or ignore that DD and his torpedoes, and still go on. Inbetween, some return to the Forum from time to time and demand nerfs on that class which just owned them 3 minutes ago. And then, suddenly, when going and dying alone was just good enough to grind through the lower tiers, the game demands even more teamplay than before.

Of course, this game recommends teamplay right from the first game. But for most people, teamplay consists of just making sure they are not the one who get´s shot at first, but make sure someone else is sacrificed.

The worst of all are the "tunnel-vision" BB players with their 20+ km range.  Sacrificing everything else, just to make sure noone can scratch their paintjob, but to sink within seconds once their "Screening slaves" are taken out.

This playstyle is supported by long range guns, and -at least from the point of view from these players- is enforced by HE spamming CAs and 15-20km range torpedoes from high tier DDs.

And i can understand them. Teamplay in WoWs is being abandond by your teammates in 8 out of 10 times, when enemy fire starts to hit home. DDs who charge in their rush for glory die first. Then the cruisers turn away, due to the lack of BB support, then the BBs go down. Noone wants to get hit, and especially not sacrifice HP for someone else.

 

You cannot build up a complete end game meta in a PvP game based on the wish how playstyle of the players should evolve, when it doesn´t evolve as it should.

High tier meta provides so many reasons to stay at distance, that the reasons to close in to the enemy seem unattractive. No matter how smart or dumb a player is, he will most of the time ask one question first: "if i got the ability to fight an enemy while he cannot fight back, no matter the odds, why should i move in into a range where he can fight back? If i have a 5% chance to hit the enemy, but he has 0%, why should i give up this advantage? Now add a Kagero, Fletcher or Shimikaze etc. and the player will most of the time try to stay out of "surprise torpedo range" aswell.

The uninterested player will stick to this strategy, and barely change it. The skilled and experienced player recognizes this behaviour. What is he supposed to do? Lead the way, be a good example? Most average players won´t even recognize that example. They will let him go, probably even thankfull for having another "noob" (from their perspective) who is going to sacrifice his HP for them.

You can type your fingers bloody to suggest strategies and tactics, and have to be thankfull if you do not receive stupid answers. Maybe, some less preoccupied players will agree and join your plan, but then, once the enemy opens up on them, you can see most of them turn and run again.

 

There is basically just one way to play high tier games in a way to enjoy: division up with two friends. If that division works, random players might be willing to follow the division, and follow the example, since at least 3 players hold their ground. As a lone wolf, however, it´s a matter of luck what kind of team you get.

 

WoT has shown, that the majority of WG customers, those thousands of f2p gamers, basicallyjust don´t care about teamplay. How does WG think, a game which requires even more teamplay and coordination could work better?

As long as the meta allows for selfish gameplay, and as long as this selfish gameplay has the slightest chance of success, the majority of the players will stick to it.

 

 

[Elendor]

Range really isn't an issue. Or shouldn't be.

 

I've had only one game this entire week where the engagement was clearly a long range battle. Each team had at least 8 BBs and there was a total of 5 Yamatos, 4 Montanas, and I forgot the exact numbers of tier 9.

Clearly, exceptionally rare circumstances where the match making struggles to make a balanced battle.

And when I say long range, I mean between 15-20 km. I wasn't more than 17 km away from my targets. I never had duels at 20-27kms. Like... ever.

 

So the vast majority of the time, it's all fine. There are plenty of opportunities to get close.

If you're in a Shimakaze and always torping from > 8 km, you're doing it wrong.

If you're in a high tier BB and always shooting from > 15 km, you're doing it wrong.

 

Range isn't mandatory, but only something you can use at times when you got no other choice. The rest of the time, you're always more effective from closer.

 

So no, I don't agree at all with your "reworking". Battles aren't decided by who manages to stay at range. The guy who keeps putting range is usually the one losing. Battles are decided at much closer ranges.

 

The main difference in gameplay in my opinion, is that as you tier up, you face more experienced players. Experienced players in capable ships. Players that will effectively punish you for any mistake... Like showing your side at the wrong time, making a wrong turn, being at the wrong place... Just doing the wrong thing.

The consequences can be swift.

 

Sure, ships are a bit more specialized. They have more specific roles, to an extent. But that's not the issue, that's not 'why' people get punished.

The reason is purely the mistakes that people are making, and whether or not there are people on the other side capable / on the lookout to punish them.

 

Put a good player in an Arkansas or a Wyoming, he might have a relatively short range, he will still punish any cruiser making the mistake of making it easy to get their broadside.

So I really don't think range is an issue, or that the changes you're suggesting would improve the game.

 

 

Edit: I find your second post to be in total contradiction with itself.

 

On the one hand, you seem to complain about all those selfish players who don't care for teamplay at all, and just stay in the back and snipe, splitting up, going yolo on their own, and not doing what they should do.

Obviously they're getting punished for that.. they're losing, because it's inefficient. 

 

So everything is encouraging them to play differently, to be more team oriented. They'll either keep losing to players who adapt, which is fine by me, or they'll adapt themselves. And honestly I find that at higher tiers a lot of players are cooperating at least to some extent. So it's gotta be working.

 

But then on the other hand, you're blaming the game for encouraging teamplay. Because what you like about lower tiers is that you can carry on going yolo, and do things by yourselves, just what you're blaming, and it doesn't work so bad. Because at low tiers, against newcomers, if you yolo better than the rest it doesn't work so bad.

 

So you want to bring yolo to high tiers, because that way no teamplay is needed whatsoever, and you won't have any reasons to blame the other's lack of teamplay?

I quote : "At tiers 1-6, maybe even tier 7, you can have fair...well, lets say "progress", without having to care for anything. You can do your solo-yolo runs, die by a view hits into the citadell or ignore that DD and his torpedoes, and still go on."

 

How is that a good thing? Why would you want to bring that to high tier? There is still enough of that at high tier already to be honest.
If what you want is to adjust the gameplay so that you can try to carry games on your own by going solo-yolo, I suggest you stick to sealclubbing the tiers 3-6.
 

[Blue_Bug]

Hello captains!

 

I want to know, if it is just me who beleaves that a complete rework of the higher-high tier meta of this game would be a great benefit for this game.

My thoughts are based on a lot of pondering, aswell as my experiences in gameplay, starting from the closed alpha test till today.

 

On a sidenote, i want to keep this as "superficial" as possible, without going into specific tiers or commenting or reviewing a special ship type or class.

My reflections are based on the following impressions: up to tier 6, this game follows some kind of red line, a basic concept without too many exceptions or outbreaks. Destroyers are small and stealthy, with torpedo ranges between 4,5 and 8 km, a detection range with basically something around 5-7km, and a variation of guns and aaa, reflecting the specific nations interpretation of the DD concept. CAs just start seperating into 6" and 8" gun cruisers and receive their AAA consumable, but share more or less identical characteristics. Bigger than a DD, less mass than a BB, fast firing guns, torpedoes, increasing strenght of AAA, more or less the same firing range as the BBs have (yes, IJN BBs are, once upgraded, the exception so far, but besides that, the difference is rather small). BBs are big, slow and have strong guns. Their advantage lies in armor and hitpoints, aswell as the ability to either wreak havoc among cruisers or burn down like torches. Carriers threaten any other ship, but can be countered or at least decreased in efficiency, if a player has good map awarness and some skill in using his AAA power.

To this point, the game basically teaches a new player, how to look for himself. The mechanics are designed to provide a gamestyle which introduces to the rock-, paper-, scissors- (, Spock-) system, and any average intelligent player sooner or later figures out the basics of this mechanic (which seems to apply to roughly 30% of the playerbase, though...).

In other words, BB players get a basic understanding how to lead and aim, what ammuntion to use, how to watch the minimap etc., developing a playstyle he considers suiting to a class. The same process is or should be going on in the brains for players of the different classes aswell.

DD-players learn how to engage and fire torpedoes, CA players how to counter other CAs and DD plus providing AAA support, CVs how to grind the mapborder and execute more or less coordinated attacks on enemy ships.

 

However, as soon as the average player hits the tier 7+ games, the meta starts to change drastically. Ships inbetween their specific classes start to become more and more and even more specialized, the numbers of range, damage, hitpoints and stuff start to become more extraordinary.

One factor, which just increased slightly over the lower tiers, suddenly kind of erruptes andspreads to almost all tiers: range!

Whereas up to tier 5 or 6, most battles were fought on short to medium range (with the exception of IJN BBs, of course), tier 6+ battles start to see increasing numbers of long range battles. Whoever is capable of keeping an advantage in range over his target, will try to hold on this advantage as long as possible. In addition, the top tier battles (8-10) receive units which provide torpedo ranges with 15-20km.

Last but not least, the squadrons of carriers enter levels of toughness and survivability which is too much to be handled by a single aaa assortment.

From the designers point of view, this just seems completly logical and consequent. Provide ships in the high tier meta, which allow for a high degree of specialisation. In addition, make those classes depending on each other, to support, enforce and reward group-/teamplay.

However, what sounds and seems like a consequent and well elaborated concept, doesn´t transfer into reality.

Let´s face it: the majority of players, especially talking about those who never ever even have a look on these forums, lack the skill, foresight, understanding and intelligence to work with the designers concept. At best, they check the stats of the ship they are moving out with, and try to play to it´s strength, or do what they consider playing to it´s strenght.

They are used to do their stuff right from tier 1, die their way up through the tiers and are happy with it. So far, so good. However, this means, that all these players will ever do is, keep fighting on maximum range, ignoring most or even any aspects of coordination and teamplay.

 

The result of all this are these horribly boring, or onesided or ever repeating matches we experience most of the time a day. BBs staying at range, Cruisers somewhere inbetween, feeling out of place, DDs attempting to bring their torpedoes to work, which results in these ridiculous 15-20km torpedo-carpets we can see at tier 9-10.

 

Now, what is my idea of a change?

Plain and simple: return the high tier meta to the standards of mid tier meta! There is a reason, why people love their Minekazes, Clevelands, Omahas, Kongo´s and stuff. All these ships provide fun and are easy accessable. The battles/matches up to tier 6 feel much more intense, faster and thrilling, since engagment ranges and flight times are so much shorter.

In my opinion, we don´t require 27km range BBs, 21km range CAs and 20km torpedo range DDs.

 

Is there anyone out there who would say "no" if his Shimikaze or Fletcher would be changed in a way that it feels and plays like a Minekaze? Provide 15km torpedoes so much more fun than 7km torpedos?

Do we need 7-10km secondary batteries? Are artillery duells on 27km so much better than shell exchanges on 12-17km?

If all theses aspects are reworked at once, i´d say we would experience much more intense and thrilling battles. Yes, a Yamato would quickly be in gun range of a New Mexico or Colorado, and the HE spam of cruisers would start earlier, but this could all be balanced out.

Reduce the range of high tier BB secondary batteries back to a stock 4,5-5 km, but compensate with better accuracy. Reduce the 20km torpedo range to 7-8km, but adjust speed and stealthyness of the DDs, so they can have their stealthy torpedo runs at ranges of 6-8 km.

Reduce the BB main battery range of BBs to 17-20km at maximum, but enhance their survivability against low tier BB shells and compensate for the fact, that CA HE and AP fire will come way more early, more intense and efficient.

Adjust CA batteries to 15-17 km range, so the distances to cross to engage BBs are reduced, firing efficiency increased.

As a welcome side effect, fail divisions wouldn´t be that much of a burden anymore to a team, as they are these days. Reduced engagement ranges mean, that even lower tiers can engage earlier in combat and are allowed to contribute to the team.

 

Of course, all this would require a lot of rework and rebalancing, but i dare to say, it would be worth it. I don´t know about your opinion, i am bored of these long range engagements, duelling with other ships on maximum range, trying to keep as many enemies as possible out of their range, hoping for that one lucky hit when firing at 18-25km range and always trying to keep as much distance as possible to the next island, just to avoid any DD surprise, waiting for another draw.

Since any player is more concerend about his ships paintjob, than teamplay, strategy or efficiency, it is time to change the gameplay in a way which brings back the heat of lowtier battles into the high tiers.

 

Agreed? What do you think? Would it even be possible to rework this game that way? Did i miss anything?

 

 

I think a lot can be achieved when they repair the economy as from tier 8. A lot of people play save because of the high repair bills. And it is true that playing save will likey prevent a very big lose of credits at tier 10. It also gets you this kind of gameplay. As this is a team game you are almost obligated to camp as the mayority of your BB's are camping. 

 

On some way (I don't know how) they should reward agresive play. An reward for spotting damage seems like a good start. This is also my main problem with the current two point domination, it rewards defensive play.

[Mauzzer]

Only advantage of tier X is that you wont play against higher tier ships.

 

repair costs will take the fun out of that though.

 

[brainfear1]

correct me if im wrong but you wan't to make ships on higher tier play the same as in the mid tier.

wouldn't that make the entire top tier ships pointless to get?

[GunnyL]

correct me if im wrong but you wan't to make ships on higher tier play the same as in the mid tier.

wouldn't that make the entire top tier ships pointless to get?

 

Yep you got it in one.

 

Also would like to point out that DD's becomes less and less fun to play after Tier 5, the same is the case for CR's, not got that high with BB's yet, so don't know. T4-5 is the best game play, so no point going past that.

 

[Cor3y]

Unless... High tier game play Will become fun for all the classes, not only CV's and BB

[Nakazul]

I think the OP brings up a good question. And as normal beings we should be able to politely agree or disagree.  I dont agree on all his points, but he asked nicely for a discussion, not a name calling who is best etc. So i try to add my thought.

 

My experience is playing BB´s all the way to TIR X since OBT.

 

Im not sure whether to agree or disagree. Yes, it gets somewhat boring at TIR X, and yes, the cost of loosing a BB is making me cautious. I try to observe the team and go with the flow, because if i rush in i will be alone, TIR X BB or not,i will die. Currently, i die alot because its so boring staying back, i try to call out to the team and give some suggestions and 1 out of 10 they try to follow the idea and we win with me NOT sinking.

But i would also say that working your way to the Yamato or Montana or Zao or any other class of ships HAVE to be rewarding. I get your smoother curve of play, but then people would just reach TIR X faster and still not learn or appreciate the game and get better at teamplay. But maybe your right that the current randomness is giving the game much better choice if it was a smoother curve to the top in a "-lets just relax and shoot at stuff and look at pretty ships". Instead for the most part, i belive that the game would get healthier with some simple ships balancing here and there where it STILL needs balancing, but not by much. And that instead the focus on rewarding and learning to team should be in in the game developers mind instead. As long as there is "random battles" you never going to get very co operative matchmaking. And the brilliant Co Op matchmaking isnt rewarding enough to make me roll out a ship there, wich otherwise is a good matchup type to have some fun. Maybe a simple clean up and adjustment to "game" types could make more people happier. Co Op for when you want to shill, have some fun with set objectives, and even more incresed team play focus on random battles so that the hard core players get there fix. I belive historical battles with high focus on realism would just as much please a crowd. The problem with this planet is mostly that its full of people, so gameplay should maybe be more diverse depending on playstyle and senarios you like to play? Dont know, just thinking out loud on my keyboard. But as a last comment, if they remove the heave pennalties money wise for TIR X i think it would solve alot of issues, but lets not forget that while Wargaming may have a brilliant game on there hands, there first and foremost bussniess men, they think money, gameplay is secondary, so i sadly expect this game to go down, or never really grow because its potential is being held back, like most things in the world today, by money.

[Vaderan]

[Elendor]

edit: *sigh*, wall of text again :-/

 

Wall of texts it is!

 

I do understand your position better now, although I can't quite say that I agree.

A lot of your dissatisfaction seems to be about sniping. In very very short, because some BBs are sniping in the back, they're aren't "team-playing".

 

And therefore you want to take away the possibility to snipe. But I don't like that.

Sniping isn't always bad, it has its uses... Sometimes, you're holding a flank in a 2v5 or 2v6... and you want to make use of that range, to hit them, slow their progression, scare them away, while using that range to reduce the damage you're taking. From closer, you'd be quickly overwhelmed and dispatched.

So the possibility is there and has a reason to be. BBs simply shoot further than CAs, just looking at the guns makes it obvious. The fact that the possibility is there doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.. In many cases, sniping is bad, you know that. And yes, sometimes, a few players still fall into the trap of still doing it.

 

So here is my 1st point: I'm just not a fan of removing possibilities because a few players can't handle them. It's just wrong. Then eventually we'll take away the ability to turn left or right... Because sometimes your team goes left and needs you to support them, but some people go right. Or because sometimes there are torps just on the right, and going right is bad. So the ships will be in autopilot, and we'll just fire the guns. Then something will show us where to point the guns too, and torps will be automatic, etc... I'm obviously over-simplifying, but you get the idea.

Don't take away the possibility for people to make mistakes. It's what decides battles. The player's mistakes, and the ability of others to punish those mistakes. If a few players trip and fall, let them trip, don't take them by the hand. After enough death and losses, they'll learn... If they don't, roll over them.

 

Overall, you'll see as much snipers in your team and in the enemy team, over the long run. So it really doesn't impact your own results. You'll still fairly often find BBs and CAs and other classes of ships willing to cooperate.. particularly at higher tiers.

 

Which leads me to my 2nd point: You don't have many high tiers currently. So you must not have been in that many high tier battles recently, or have seen a lot of sniping Yamatos. And I don't mean to dismiss you by saying that, I'm getting somewhere.

You did in the CBT, but maybe things changed since then? I think in the CBT a lot of players were playing quite casually, not worrying too much, just testing things out. Everybody knew everything was gonna be wiped.

 

As the first players got to high tier after the release... yeah, there was a lot of sniping going around. Hated it.

But lately? It seems to be better. I don't know if people are learning. Or if it's just me, as I know which areas of the maps tend to turn into a sniping face-off, and avoid them for "closer, more decisive action", and therefore don't feel bothered by it anymore?

I know where I like to fight, see who is going around that area, and try to cooperate with those. I make due with that, and it works out.

I would say that I find more and more cooperation going on. Really don't know if it's me being in a good mood, or a real trend.

 

So, here it is, in short:

1. Don't dumb down the game just for a few people's sake

2. I feel like things are slowly improving, less sniping, more cooperation

 

I don't think shrinking everybody's range of engagement would solve anything. Same issues, but on a different scale.

There would be so much more moving around the map, which is slow in this game... And so many people already struggle to stay in range of the key objectives as it is. The maps are huge.

People would need to stay even closer together to support each other... and you know they wouldn't.

 

Because there isn't only AA and the likes, there is also basic fire support. Shooting at the same target. On many maps I like to keep a somewhat central position, because this way I can easily relocate, and support either down the middle, or somewhat east, or somewhat west... And as I relocate to the next area that seems to require immediate attention, I can already make use of my BB's range and shoot, start giving some support. Take away the range, and you're also hurting some forms of support.

 

 

Now one last thing I wanna address: I've seen a lot of people, and you've mentioned it, say that it's the economy.

Repairs are expensive, and people play too cautious. The game is encouraging them to snipe.

 

I strongly disagree. Even credit-wise, sniping is inefficient.

Someone sniping is often gonna lose because of his lack of impact on the game.

Best case scenario, he loses but survives. I still doubt that the money he's making from his low sniping damage will make up for the number of shells (most of which splashed the water), and the costs of simply taking out the ship.

Worst case scenario, once everyone else is dead, he's getting ganked by 4+ ships and gets overwhelmed not having the time hit back hard. Full costs, and certainly not a lot of income either.

 

So here's a shocker: I'm making money on my Montana. And I play her aggressively. Okay, not a lot (and that's with a premium account, so +50% credits) but still.

Some games don't go too well, and with consumables and all I lose a bit. Then some games are decent, and i'm slightly in the positive. Then some games do go well, and I make +100-200K.

Overall, I'm definitely in the green. She's no moneymaker, but I'm clearly not losing any money taking her out. On average, I'll make a +50K credits per game.

So, cautious isn't the key. I'm not suicidal either, but my survival rate on the Montana is at ~50%, which is also my overall survival rate. So I do pay those repair bills... But I do more damage than sniping.

The game encourages damaging ships, every aspect of the game encourages that. Even the economy.

 

Another high tier, my Iowa: I was actually using her as a moneymaker at some point, for real.

Once upgraded, I was making an average profit per game of 150-200K with that ship. Which is less than some of my premiums, but was still some respectable and reliable earnings.

As I really liked the ship's aggressive style, and was fairly successful with her, I was using her to make money.

 

So we can't say that sniping or being cautious and selfish is encouraged by the economy, it really really isn't.

People who think that have got the game wrong. Don't change the game for them, they'll still get it wrong. They're the ones that need to change / learn... And if they won't, it's only too bad for them.

 

(another wall of text!)

[Mayv]

I think the problem with high tiers is that WG are trying to force CAs and DDs into a support role.

They want CAs to protect BBs from air attacks and deter DDs. They want DDs to provide area denial with torpedoes, a bit of spotting, and capping. None of which provide a decent amount of xp atm, if any at all.

 

CVs and BBs are the only two classes that have a constant increase in power, as you climb the tech tree.

DDs get bigger, less stealthy, less manueverable, and some of them slower. Torpedoes reloads become longer with an increase in range from which they are spotted.

CAs don't see an increase in gun performance and BB AA increases to which it is at a level greater than CAs. Leaving CAs to provide the defensive fire cooldown only.

[Needy_Game]

IJN cruisers have better guns, but much worse AA. USN cruisers are for the AA escort - the IJN ones only the delay button in form of a temporal panic to the planes during the AA defensive fire.

i have an AA rating of 60 something on my ibuki, and i only manage to shootdown one or two TB from a T10 CV

[mjfred]

I think the problem with high tiers is that WG are trying to force CAs and DDs into a support role.

They want CAs to protect BBs from air attacks and deter DDs. They want DDs to provide area denial with torpedoes, a bit of spotting, and capping. None of which provide a decent amount of xp atm, if any at all.

 

 

 

Totaly agree, playing a Benson at the moment and while I love the ship playing it is completely unrewarded.

No xp for spotting, fair enough I suppose but still annoying.

No xp for capping and denying the cap even though you get nice little badges for it is just stupid though.

Like cruisers only a tiny reward for AA.

 

If I want to get xp and more importantly keep credits out of the loss column then the last place I should go is a cap or out spotting other dds. Instead I should take pot shots at the edge of spotting range trying to set fires on BBs and wait for oportunist torpedo runs when enough people are dead.

Because I actualy enjoy playing a DD in its intended role though I choose not to play smart and instead get sod all xp and borderline 0 credits.

[Vaderan]

 

Wall of texts it is!

 

(...)

 

(another wall of text!)

 

I don´t mind a wall of text, especially when it is written thoughtfully and with the intention to provide information. It just adds to a valuable discussion in a positive way and makes a point or position more understandable, quiet the opposite of a "red badge" below a comment where you don´t know what it is for.

 

I personally have no problem with sniping. My lead and aim are fairly accurate, and i recall those glorious times in Alpha and Beta when i shelled the citadell of enemy ships at ranges around 20km. Even with my Tirpitz, not too long ago, i gathered the Rage of a Des Moines when i took the precious cruiser out of the water at some 18+km range.

 

What troubles me, however, are these BB-captains who move into a position with good range of fire and drop to a full stop. Then the remain in that position, presenting their broadside to everyone around and start engaging their targets just by turning the turrets. I first recognized them at lowtier battles, but the more often i enter high tier battles, the more often i meet them in those battles aswell. My "favourites" inbetween them are those with tunnel vision and zero map awarness, neither recognizing the incoming torpedo squadrons, nor the enemy Destroyer.

I think we can all agree that it makes you wanna cry if you got those players in your team once more, especially when you are playing in a ship which is meant to support those guys.

As a consequence, i am no fan of taking away any kind of freedom to make decisions, but -as has been pointed out- DDs and CAs are reduced to support roles in high tier battles, and for that reason i am pondering about how to (re-)balance BBs or the game to "force" BB players into the role they are supposed to play in a high tier battle. If the players with the most responsibility, the BBs, are not able to provide a playstyle you can support, you are almost for sure doomed to loose. Probably a reason why CAs and DDs become so unpopular in high tier battles.

 

What i want to achieve with this thread and this discussion, is to elaborate a strategy or a change/rework for the game, to make teamplay in high tiers more of an "automatic" behaviour.

I have no doubt that the forum users, willing to add to this thread, are able and have the skills to provide a proper gamestyle and teamplay, so guides, hints, advice and battle-reports are kind of misplaced. However, these open minded players and veterans know about the game, and can add valuable input and suggestions, things which are most welcome in here!

[punkbunny187]

First of all, I want to give all you guys the thumbs up. It happens so rarely that a discussion is conducted so constructive and is kept free of mimimi and bashing. It really was a pleasure to read through all of this, even if the posts were admittedly very long. But don't panic, I'm gonna do just the same, wall of text inc.

 

I found this thread by searching for "cruiser high tier", feeling that cruisers struggle to do well in higher tiers. I'm aware that DDs suffer from similar problems, but i don't have any experience beyond T5 in them. Actually i don't have any experience beyond T8 in cruisers too, but i start to feel the problems.

 

Typical high tier cruiser range is something about 16km atm (incoming german cruisers seem to extend that). In the first third of each battle, when everyone is really cautious, a cruiser has real issues. If he stays with his BBs, he can't shoot at anything. He can provide AA support, sure. But that's not gonna earn him much xp and what if there is no enemy CV or if the air attack is on the other side of the map? He can chase off enemy DDs, which he should do, as this is his supposed role, the thing that he is good at. But DDs aren't always stupid and they stay hidden for most of the time, so nothing to shoot at again. Being there just to keep an invisible enemy at bay doesn't feel very rewarding, and it isn't in real countable things, such as credits and xp. Of course DDs get greedy and impatient too, so they get too close and finally CAs can deal with this big threat. But now and then they get away, which is frustrating yet again and what happens if you chase after them? Right. Boom, you are suddenly down to 1/3 of your HP, enemy BBs and CAs start shooting you up and maybe you can save your [edited]and limb back to your team. Achieved anything useful? Negative. Crippled for the rest of the match? Check.

 

Of course i have plenty of games, in which i'm being ignored (for some reason i don't understand, but hey, not complaining), and i can contribute to the game. And I am still having fun in my cruisers, don't get me wrong. But these are tendencies I observed and i don't like them. I don't need to be ruler of the waves or something. But i guess what we all want is the feeling to be an asset to the team and that we can really be decisive either by playing well or sucking. I don't have that feeling in my cruisers. At least in the first minutes of a battle, where gunnery duels take place at 15-25km range until someone finds his courage. And that has got to be the BBs. Spearheading CAs are dead CAs. No time to dodge shells from mid ranges, no armor or health to survive focus fire. So CAs depend immensely on the team. I feel that no other class is so dependent.

 

I don't have any problems with being the major prey for BBs whatsoever. But there is one situation, that comes to my mind: I sail towards 3 BBs in my Pensacola to get into firing range. Suddenly a DD or some other threat appears on my right so i have to turn away. The moment I made 90°+ of my turn, all BB shells hit my side and I sink in an instant. Full HP just gone. That tells me that all 3 of them watched me very closely, held their fire (allthough there were other targets around and they seemed to be busy) and waited for the exact moment for me to turn broadside on. Which i had to. You can't always go straight towards the enemy or head away. At some point you have to turn. That exposes your weakpoint and smart BB players just wait for that. I'm no different! When I'm sailing out in a BB, I focus on cruisers too, even if they are a bit further away than some BBs. It's the potential to do loads of damage, so no complaints here. It's that "omnomnom, glasscanon Pensa out there, kill it!" thing. But on the receiving end, that can be really frustrating. Because you can't always angle yourself against every threat. Best example is Hot Spot. How much i hate that map in my cruisers. Most of the time I spawn near C cap point. So sooner or later I get surrounded (the occasions where we manage to brake through and escape in time before the enemy team from A/B arrives are very rare).

 

On the other hand, a cruiser can be very powerful in later stages of the game. As a jack of all trades, there is no other class in the game that can deal with every other class in a 1 vs 1 situation as good as cruisers do. Perhaps we won't win against a BB, but by angling, keeping our distance and zigzagging, we can at least hurt them and be effective to some point.

 

So how to fix all of this? Actually, before I found this thread, I was not against lowering BB range. I didn't think of it as the best solution, but it seemed ok. Elendor changed my mind. But then again, what to do? For cruisers, maybe increase survivability. Not by much and not by making their armor work against BBs, but maybe by giving them a little bit more health or reducing the size of their citadel (I got citadelled in my Pensa from the front, mid tier IJN cruisers are just as bad and seem to be made out of citadels). 10-20% wouldn't be too much I guess, considering that hp pools don't evolve too much from T6 to T9 anyway. For DDs, I don't know, there are threads out there that deal with why high tier DD game play is unattractive and as someone who can't give first hand experience, I'm the wrong guy to promote changes, but reload on torps and their visibility seem to be some of many issues.

 

Back in the days in World of Tanks, there was no spotting dmg. After the introduction, spotting got more rewarding for light tanks. I'm pretty confident that WG will sort something out for DDs. And CAs too.

[Shaka_D]

I love hearing the advice of 'cruisers need to support BB's' etc etc which is all fair and well in a textbook scenario in higher tiers, but in randoms, or in games where you're outranged, or there are no CV's, or even lastly there are a multitude of BB's? Not sure how the the 'support you BB's' actually translates into gameplay because it's one thing to talk the talk, but how exactly would you walk the walk? This type of advice is pointless unless it is accompanied by some real game examples that make sense otherwsie it's useless textbook crap that means very little. We all know what is mean't to happen, but we also all know what actually happens, and the two could never be so vastly different.

[Francois424]

Q. Are 15km torpedoes so much more fun than 7km torpedoes?

R. Depends on situation.  faster but 12km ones would be better.  When a Yamato can secondary you from 10km, longer range torps are a must.   I think 15+ torps should be reserved for special boats (Such as the Kitikami).

 

Q. Do we need 7-10km secondary batteries?

R. Oh god YES.  A big, huge resounding YES.  Secondaries are a joke at lower tiers...  I agree to keep the power creep in check but that one is absolutely NEEDED. Sec's should have minimum 5km range @ all tiers.  slowly inching upwards as tier progresses.

 

Q. Are artillery duels on 27km so much better than shell exchanges on 12-17km?

R. No... I hate long-range duels.  Too hard to aim, too easy to dodge if your opponent (or you) knows what they are doing.  Max rage should be 21km (Kongo) and get rid of spotter planes for everyone in the game.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

My opinions on the 3 questions that really matter to me, your mileage may vary.

By the way OP, nice post.

[Admiral_noodle]

Personally I think people need reworking... That's 90% of the problem. It was much better in CBT (subjectively)

[Vaderan]

Nice to see this topic is still alive!

 

@punkbunny187: don´t get me wrong, but i´d say, BBs are the most teamdependend class. My point is based at the fact that BBs have to make their stand where they go, since they cannot turn, run and hide. I agree that CAs require BB support and company. Just as BBs require cruiser support.

 

Basically you can say that any class requires the support of a different class, as soon as a specific situation occurs. That´s why groups of players/ships which stick together and work as a team are so much more successfull than individuals.

 

And this is, where admiral_noodle´s point kicks in: we lack the players who are able, capable or willing to play as a team. Usually, you can say that random games are always "everyone for me and i for myself". There are just to few players who know when they have to stay back, and when they have to take a few for the team.

And since nobody wants to be the first to take damage, or to take any damage at all, everyone stays at the maximum range he is able to shoot at least at anything.

 

So, yes, it´s the mindset of the players which has to change, but how will WG ever achieve this, if not by a complete rework?

 

If they don´t rework the classes, they have to implement some kind of reward system. If a player would receive XP for taking damage, while an ally is nearby, let´s call it "tanking damage", we might see more volunteers for sacrifice work. Add some other teamplay rewards like "doing damage to the ship the nearest ally fired at", taking down planes or formation/escort duties, and people will start to change their mindset.

People always want rewards. Mechwarrior online recognized that and itroduced a mechanic which rewards teamplay. It works. However, i doubt WG will do the same like other companies: watch what the others do and copy smart improvements.

Until they change this teamplay thingy, sacrifice will allways go to the worse for the teamplayer, rarely to his advantage...

[punkbunny187]

What I was trying to say by this whole who depends on who thing: A cruiser cannot lead an attack or push. He will just get annihilated, if he gets too far ahead. So he has to wait for the BBs and the rest of the team to push, otherwise he is doomed to sit there, see all those targets out of his gun range and wait.

 

Of course everyone depends on everybody to a certain extent. After all this is a team based game. It may take WG some time to find solutions to this and to encourage and reward team play. But I'm pretty optimistic. So far ;) Because the ideas are already around. Can't be too hard to balance and implement them.