t10 games are sub-par compared to lower tiers - issues

[Lieut_Gruber]

 

.............

As to topic: I don't play much high tier games because the switch from tier V - VIII to tier X and IX is quite big and it hurts my performance. ...................

 

This is the first time i see this arguement against TX battles, its like admitting u sealclub for stats?

[Stache64]

I personally stop researching ships after tier VII !(because even a tier VIII can get you into these horrible tier IX and X matches),IMHO the playstyle and enjoyment plummets towards 0 ones the tier IX and X ships appear .

 

I see a shitload of hiding ,backpaddling and all the while i'm busy dodging a gazillion 20km range torps and hope none of these high tier CV's  take an interest in me .

 

All in all its boring and horrible and it makes me pauze before i even consider playing a tier VIII ship...........

[Diabolik__]

One fine mix of cowardliness and stupidity, that is it.

[steviln]

I would say that CVs cause camping rather than prevent it. With CVs in the game, ships get afraid to risk being left alone and being an easy target for plans, so they try to stay close to their teammates to have better AA protection. 

[svadilfari]

i´ve stopped grinding towards tier 9 and 10 alltogether. my highest tier ships are the fletcher and the ibuki. i feel with DDs you can still have some fun in tier X whereas any other class is just frustrating and boring to play.

i´ll get the kagero and the iowa at some point and then i´m done grinding.

does have it´s advantages tho, i don´t need premium time any more lol

[chaosrealm93]

honestly i dont see T10 as that big of a problem

 

at T10, life should be on a knife's edge

its that constant high pressure thats exciting to a lot of players

T10 ships are basically the dream ships you've been wanting ever since you started the game

all throughout the tiers, every single ship had a niggle you wish it didnt

and finally you reach T10, the guns are great, the armor is good, its potent, its dangerous and what do you do??

you complain about it.......

if you want forgiveness for everything, go play mid tier

its death by a thousand paper cuts

the shells feel like rubber bullets and a lot of the inefficiencies feel unnatural and "engineered in"

 

 

 

there are legitimate issues however

 

yamato, the shells are ridiculous. they penn at any angle and easily shave off multiples of thousands of hp. there is one common thread to why people dont push and it's the insane damage the yamato puts out. even the equivalent T10 BB cant stack up and the only real counter is to zao it to death, hence camp until you kill the yama. even torpedos dont hurt it as much as it should

 

repair costs, make it 85% of what it is now

making dumb moves and getting yourself killed quickly is fine, but to then say you owe money is a bit much

 

they already nerfed the shima so now the 20km torps are heavily cucked and shima is forced to play a lot closer and in radar range

 

if ppl keep complaining about how CVs can solve the camping problem, then find a way to introduce more CVs into T10 games

whether its lowering the XP and or money u need to buy a T10 CV or making CV gameplay more exciting (because ppl moan and whine about how a battleship game shouldnt play like a RTS)

[viceadmiral123]

at T10, life should be on a knife's edge

its that constant high pressure thats exciting to a lot of players

 

It's just that it isn't.

[mtm78]

 

This is the first time i see this arguement against TX battles, its like admitting u sealclub for stats?

 

Ow horsecrap, go around the forum and go quote everyone who says playing tier IV to VIII is more fun ( and people have more fun when they perform to their own expectations ).

 

Now, if you just wanted to grab your chance and point out I'm a sealclubber, you didn't need to bother -> 

 

 

 

[daki]

The main issue of this topic is that t10 games usually are full of "campers", or players that do not go for objectives but prefer to stay at long range. That leads to somewhat dull experience for everyone. In comparison, lower tier games (t5-t8) are universally accepted as more fun. I've had quite a few games in t10 matchmaking, and I can pinpoint the shortcomings of the gameplay in high tier.

 

1. Repair costs. On average, a non-premium decent player will be beeding credits. Dealing damage to enemies brings a lot of credits, and it will cover the repair bill, but it is hard to deal damage when everyone is camping. Doing a little damage and taking a little damage results in credit loss, because of the flat tax you pay for entering the ship in battle. Doing a lot of damage and dying may result in credit gain.

Repairs should be a bit cheaper, and other incentives should be introduced to make the encounters more enjoyable and encourage players to get closer.

 

2. t10 ships don't need experience. Captains do, but most players at t10 have an 18 point captain, or have enough points on the captain not to bother anymore. And at 18 point t10 ship captain, experience is short of useless. Low tier ships have something to gain by pushing into the cap zones, even if it means they die. They will get the cap, do damage to the enemy, and potentially win the game for even more experience. Maybe if the winning team had a better reward, a better teamplay would emerge?

 

3. Ship classes balance. While in lower tiers everything is a boiling soup, in high tiers there is pretty much a set gameplay. You can't move forward without support. Players tend not to play their ship's role, but prefer to snipe. I don't see a "fix" for this, as it is mostly the result of higher tier ships having better range, and destroyers getting long range torpedoes and relatively weaker guns vs high tier armor.

 

4. Lack of aircraft carriers in t10 games (inb4 nerf cv buff dd). I believe WG intended most games to have a CV on each team. Carriers drastically change the gameplay. They provide scouting and can flush out campers. The result is - a team has to stay somewhat in a group to counter the planes (and play the objective), destroyers no longer run around the map doing free torpedo salvos, the ships that have good AA have more impact. Unfortunately, carrier players are deterred by the AA strength of t9-t10 ships. It becomes a paradox that AA gets stronger, but it less often needed. I wouldn't say CVs are a must for every game, but they do make t10 games more fun.

 

I'm not pushing for any "solution" here. I can play all tiers. And since the ceiling of 100k exp on captain retraining, I can move around 18pt captains easily. But it is rather strange that t10 should be the most boring one.

 

First of all, I fully agree with the sentiment from the topic name.

 

A few comments:

1. Repair costs: I doubt very much that reduced repair costs would make play more aggressive. Lets be honest, we had the reduced costs special for some time and I have not seen any change in HT playstyle. Imho the repair costs are just a suitable excuse by many players.

2. Incentives: Fully agree there, one of the best ways to influence the playstyle is to give additional incentives. Though this requires significant improvements by WG, especially on how to capture positive contribution.

3. Ship class balance: As such nothing wrong with it. Hence too much sniping has to be dealt with through various mechanics fixes. My suggestions would be:

a. Introduce non-linear increase of dispersion, i.e. lower than existing at closer ranges and much higher from say 14km+

b. Reduce the team size - in 12v12 there are always at least 3-4 campers, 5-6 "undecided" (they will camp or push depending on what they think the rest of the team will do), and 2-3 "rabbits" (pace setters, i.e. more aggressive players no matter what). That is why we often see 6-8 player camping blobs in the back, as larger numbers also provide additional sense of "security", while the rest of the team tends to die out quickly in the front. Hence I suggest reducing the teams to say 7v7 (no more than 9v9). This will make campers feel much more alone and insecure in the back so they are incentivized to switch to their favorite alternative tactic  - lemming train - which in this case is a good thing.

4. Lack of CVs: I personally hate playing them, do not play them, and dislike the gameplay (never was into RTS games), however for me this is one of the worst parts of HT meta, i.e. lack of carriers. Yes they make life harder for all other classes, nevertheless they add quite a bit of depth and excitement to the game.

 

For me the main motivation for playing this game in randoms is having fun. I would play more seriously only in proper competitive modes (did the same thing in WoT), but we are yet to see it implemented. TB was a good start, but WG rather failed in promoting this mode and set certain team restrictions too rigidly.

Hence as I hate wasting 15mins sniping from the back and getting pissed-off watching most of the team being useless while the points bleed, the only good fun I have in HT randoms is when I approach the matches like Co-op.

Just full speed ahead and yolo with all guns blazing, which at least gives me a few minutes of fun. Of course I do not do it all the time, since I do not want to be too selfish and ruin the game too often for my fellow teammates. Nevertheless, it is sad that HT meta promotes so much the bad gameplay (either too much camping or too much yolo).

[Exocet6951]

 

Ow horsecrap, go around the forum and go quote everyone who says playing tier IV to VIII is more fun 

 

 

 

The truth has been spoken.

 

If I have a choice between hopping in an Ibuki and slinging HE from 17km away, or sailing out in a ridiculously fun tier5 cruiser or a Kongo, or even a low tier DD, I'll take the latter(s).

 

 

It's not sealclubbing, it's called having fun in a game. 

And it doesn't get any more fun than being in a Derpski spamming 10 torpedoes every 20 seconds on a tiny map with islands everywhere. 

[_FTD_]

 

The truth has been spoken.

 

If I have a choice between hopping in an Ibuki and slinging HE from 17km away, or sailing out in a ridiculously fun tier5 cruiser or a Kongo, or even a low tier DD, I'll take the latter(s).

 

 

It's not sealclubbing, it's called having fun in a game. 

And it doesn't get any more fun than being in a Derpski spamming 10 torpedoes every 20 seconds on a tiny map with islands everywhere. 

That's your definition of fun.

[Exocet6951]

That's your definition of fun.

 

And I'm sure sitting behind a rock 20km away shooting every 30 seconds is fun for some people, but overall, people play non-strategy wargames for action, not glorified point-and-click adventure games.

[RenamedUser_92906789]

 

And I'm sure sitting behind a rock 20km away shooting every 30 seconds is fun for some people, but overall, people play non-strategy wargames for action, not glorified point-and-click adventure games.

 

hearhear.

 

I play tier3,4,5,6,7 .. did not enjoy tier8 much and I have no desire to play 9 and 10.

[viceadmiral123]

T9 and T10 see few carriers. I can expand on what I have mention in the first post - carriers are good for the game.

 

When I play in a battleship, I love getting in a game with carriers. This would some contradictory - carriers should be my mortal enemy. However, with the current anti-air strength of battleships (and any anti-air specced ship), I don't feel the threat. Carriers help battleships by revealing enemy DDs and torpedoes, and giving enjoyment of dodging bombers and shooting down squads. A battleship captain would feel more comfortable when advancing if the enemy torpedo boats are spotted. Carriers make the game more exciting. The fact that there are less carriers in top-tier games is just one of the reasons I prefer lower tiers.

[The_SDM]

T9 and T10 see few carriers. I can expand on what I have mention in the first post - carriers are good for the game.

 

When I play in a battleship, I love getting in a game with carriers. This would some contradictory - carriers should be my mortal enemy. However, with the current anti-air strength of battleships (and any anti-air specced ship), I don't feel the threat. Carriers help battleships by revealing enemy DDs and torpedoes, and giving enjoyment of dodging bombers and shooting down squads. A battleship captain would feel more comfortable when advancing if the enemy torpedo boats are spotted. Carriers make the game more exciting. The fact that there are less carriers in top-tier games is just one of the reasons I prefer lower tiers.

 

Which in turn means less fun for low tier ships, because T4-5 CVs are a bit too strong, their torpedoes do to much damage for that tier and AA is quite underwhelming on T4-5 cruisers. While on higher tiers AA gets ridiculous and Torpedo damage stays the same (more dmg = op?).

[Admiral_noodle]

 

First of all, I fully agree with the sentiment from the topic name.

 

A few comments:

1. Repair costs: I doubt very much that reduced repair costs would make play more aggressive. Lets be honest, we had the reduced costs special for some time and I have not seen any change in HT playstyle. Imho the repair costs are just a suitable excuse by many players.

2. Incentives: Fully agree there, one of the best ways to influence the playstyle is to give additional incentives. Though this requires significant improvements by WG, especially on how to capture positive contribution.

3. Ship class balance: As such nothing wrong with it. Hence too much sniping has to be dealt with through various mechanics fixes. My suggestions would be:

a. Introduce non-linear increase of dispersion, i.e. lower than existing at closer ranges and much higher from say 14km+

b. Reduce the team size - in 12v12 there are always at least 3-4 campers, 5-6 "undecided" (they will camp or push depending on what they think the rest of the team will do), and 2-3 "rabbits" (pace setters, i.e. more aggressive players no matter what). That is why we often see 6-8 player camping blobs in the back, as larger numbers also provide additional sense of "security", while the rest of the team tends to die out quickly in the front. Hence I suggest reducing the teams to say 7v7 (no more than 9v9). This will make campers feel much more alone and insecure in the back so they are incentivized to switch to their favorite alternative tactic  - lemming train - which in this case is a good thing.

4. Lack of CVs: I personally hate playing them, do not play them, and dislike the gameplay (never was into RTS games), however for me this is one of the worst parts of HT meta, i.e. lack of carriers. Yes they make life harder for all other classes, nevertheless they add quite a bit of depth and excitement to the game.

 

For me the main motivation for playing this game in randoms is having fun. I would play more seriously only in proper competitive modes (did the same thing in WoT), but we are yet to see it implemented. TB was a good start, but WG rather failed in promoting this mode and set certain team restrictions too rigidly.

Hence as I hate wasting 15mins sniping from the back and getting pissed-off watching most of the team being useless while the points bleed, the only good fun I have in HT randoms is when I approach the matches like Co-op.

Just full speed ahead and yolo with all guns blazing, which at least gives me a few minutes of fun. Of course I do not do it all the time, since I do not want to be too selfish and ruin the game too often for my fellow teammates. Nevertheless, it is sad that HT meta promotes so much the bad gameplay (either too much camping or too much yolo).

 

In my view this kinda nails it. The smaller games and games including cvs seem to eliminate campers and cause fleet actions. Which is what I at least want. Action!

[chaosrealm93]

 

It's just that it isn't.

 

if playstyle is the same through all the tier, then what's the point of the tiers? just have 1 tier and be done with it

 

its only natural things get more dangerous the higher you move up

[ghostbuster_]

T9 and T10 see few carriers. I can expand on what I have mention in the first post - carriers are good for the game.

 

When I play in a battleship, I love getting in a game with carriers. This would some contradictory - carriers should be my mortal enemy. However, with the current anti-air strength of battleships (and any anti-air specced ship), I don't feel the threat. Carriers help battleships by revealing enemy DDs and torpedoes, and giving enjoyment of dodging bombers and shooting down squads. A battleship captain would feel more comfortable when advancing if the enemy torpedo boats are spotted. Carriers make the game more exciting. The fact that there are less carriers in top-tier games is just one of the reasons I prefer lower tiers.

i agree with you until some point. if you get a bad cv player in your team against a good one, it means your game is ruined. skill differences of CV players affects the game more than skill differences in other classes.

[GulvkluderGuld]

I've started to be AFK the first 3-4 minutes of tier 9-10 matches.

Basicly nothing happens anyway and if I play DD, I tend to push forward to cap, get left to do it alone by my team, and die.

 

If I wait 3-4 mins, the craven CA and BB have usually moved forward enough to make capping safe, or if they haven't, it is basically a lost game and I will farm damage and play safe for the rest of the match.

Did I mention how much I hate tier 9/10 games?

T9 and T10 see few carriers. I can expand on what I have mention in the first post - carriers are good for the game.

 

When I play in a battleship, I love getting in a game with carriers. This would some contradictory - carriers should be my mortal enemy. However, with the current anti-air strength of battleships (and any anti-air specced ship), I don't feel the threat. Carriers help battleships by revealing enemy DDs and torpedoes, and giving enjoyment of dodging bombers and shooting down squads. A battleship captain would feel more comfortable when advancing if the enemy torpedo boats are spotted. Carriers make the game more exciting. The fact that there are less carriers in top-tier games is just one of the reasons I prefer lower tiers.

 

This is my impression too. As a DD i HATE CVs though - and the few remaining CVs usually dont give a crapabout their own dds, only try to kill the other sides DD.

[Dragnorak]

I'm not going back to t10 till my WR is above 60%. I'm having much more fun at T5 than I ever did at T10

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

WoWS needs to reward aggressive gameplay and gamestyle which is possible on lower tiers partly because it is harder to make citadel hits on low tiers and partly due to shorter ships and equal dispersion to high tier ships which makes it harder to hit.

The problem is the higher the tier the more severely the players are punished for making mistakes and this leads to the pervasive passive gameplay, playstyle and the current high tier meta that rewards the defensive strategy and punishes the offensive that takes out the fun of the game.

If Wargaming wants the players to have fun while playing WoWS they need to adopt a development strategy that rewards offensive gameplay and at best, from the defensive point of view, offers no benefit from camping near the base or rear area.

[Admiral_noodle]

 

if playstyle is the same through all the tier, then what's the point of the tiers? just have 1 tier and be done with it

 

its only natural things get more dangerous the higher you move up

 

Dangerous and different are fine. However if a large proportion of the player base (and here we have the issue, we've no idea what the percentage is) find it unrewarding and "not fun" it's bad for business. 

 

So the question really comes down to is it fun enough for enough people? I don't know, but right now it's not fun for me. (Nor is it at all knife edge seat of the pants stuff to my mind. More helpless onlooking and frustration. But that's subjective)

[Woofbark]

I'd have thought T10 is the ultimate sealclub tier because you are literally guaranteed to be top tier. 

[Dragnorak]

If I'm honest with myself I actually went to T10 too early and suffered terrible stats as a consequence not to mention frustrating games. I'm improving now and might go back one day but not while I'm having so much fun playing my mini.. I play games to unwind after a day at the office and for enjoyment in general, it's not another job for me and it needs to be both relaxing and rewarding. At the moment it is both.

[_Teob_]

I'll preface this by  saying that I love high tiers and despise lower tiers. 

 

The main issue at high tiers is that there is a lot less room for error. Show your broadside or turn the wrong way and there's a high chance that you will lose your ship in the next 1-2 minutes. At lower tiers that doesn't happen nearly as often. However I for one like that. It's thrilling and for me it makes the game more fun.

 

I really dislike lower tiers mainly because it's so easy to play there. You are up against so many people just starting out in the game. They can't aim properly yet, sail in straight lines etc. It just feels unrewarding every time you get a kill. This is especially true if you do low tier divisions. 

Not to mention that I dislike facing ships 2 tiers higher (Kongo vs Nagato is not even a contest or Nurnberg vs Hipper)

 

If anyone thinks that people at tier 10 have no clue (and a lot of them don't) then just compare with lower tiers. It's night and day. The average player at tier 8+ is significantly better than below tier 8.

 

Different strokes for different folks.