Wargaming don't treat the symptoms and fix the real problems

[Spithas]

[edited]

 

Wargaming stop focusing on trying to cure a symptom (Passive play) based on totally erroneous diagnoses (Economy of high tiers, BB bow tanking, Standard Battles promoting camping).

Instead fix the 3 real problems that are plaguing Random Battles:

 

1) Map design.

 

The design of the maps (mostly the new ones) cause a lot of passive play. Maps like Loop, Sea of Fortune, Fault Line, Estuary and Tears of the Desert all suffer from the same problem that the island placement creates a 2 line dead zone around the mid section of the map and promote static play or simply herd the sheep to the very sides.

Then you have maps like Trap, Hotspot, North, Land of Fire and Shatter which although in general are designed to allow the enemy teams to come closer much better than the other maps mentioned still have glaring faults aka [edited]l and brave of the player base to locations that are totally useless in terms of team-play and objectives:

D cap and lines 1 and 10 for North. The "come sit behind me and be useless" islands in the back of lines 3-4 of Land of Fire. Lines 9-10 for Shatter and the "WTF were you thinking" island in C. For Hot Spot it's lines A and J. Finally line 10 for Trap and the 2 needlessly big islands around B.

 

Maps like Trident, Neighbors, Okinawa, Atlantic are examples of good maps with very few mistakes where the action starts soon and no matter how the teams deploy the players are always close enough to objectives. (Okinawa section north of A is a bit of a noob magnet although rarely used). PS Add to the list of maps that worked the OLD (standard battle) Ocean which despite the overwhelming amount of whining by people who just couldn't live without islands was working well.

 2) Domination Mode Point Economy

 

Domination mode greatly compounds the effect of Passive play effectively blowing it out of proportion. Points are generated too fast by the Caps and coupled with the fact that the Passive team will in general lose ships faster without killing ships in return end up with games lasting under 10 mins or games finishing with less than 50% of the total ships in game being destroyed.

 

People play this game to shoot their huge naval cannons at enemy ships and sink them not get 3 of the 4 caps and then sail around for 4mins before the battle ends.

 

Point gain needs to be adjusted as to not compound upon the Passive play so much. Also tweak the points loss for ships.

 

3) DD significance (especially in relation with points 1 & 2)

 

The problem with map design and domination point economy as described make DDs ultra significant on the outcome and the way the battle will be played out.

 

With the current map design problems higher numbers than 3 DDs per side simply force passive play, even for people that don't wish to play like that.

Also with the current domination point economy the team that loses their DDs early on is almost incapable of retaliating because of the time pressure the Cap Points puts on them.

 

In Conclusion:

 

Even if you don't want to divert from your current Map Design or spend time correcting the faults of individual maps at least fix the Domination Cap and Ship Destruction Point gain and limit the number of DDs to a max of 3 per side.

Don't make mistakes by nerfing DDs or BB bow armor (i know it's cancelled) or over-buffing the CAs (which at the hands of capable players are perhaps the strongest class.

P.S.

Stop making the situation worse with [edited] weekend missions that push people to overpopulating specific classes and stop trying to shoehorn classes into a specific style play with equally retarded missions such as DD must kill BB, BB must kill CA, CA must kill DD. Make them simply Kill any ship missions and always make a double focus if you want to stick to that so at least it's not only 1 class being played.

[BlueMoon51]

When you consider all DD's aren't created equally(for example the Ru/So ones are DD hunters)surely restricting the number of DD's would actually cause another effect. Speaking for myself when I'm playing my IJN DD's I want as few other DD's in the game that way I can aggressively hunt heavy ships without counter.

Another issue how balanced do you think the game would be if you sides are made up almost entirely of Battleships, as what you suggest would further impact how useful Cruisers are. Or perhaps you think double figures in Battleships per game is actually healthy.  

Your part about domination mode just doesn't make sense at all, what you suggest is to encourage passive play basically playing until one side dies. As for why people play the game, I think you are wrong, clearly if you are playing a DD or a cruiser you don't simply play "to shoot their huge naval cannons at enemy ships and sink them". Domination forces teams into action, if you don't want to lose in 4mins then you have to do something about it and there are times as a BB you have to contest cap zones against DDs and as a BB there are times I have had to do just that(particularly when you have lost all your DD's or they have run off to kill carriers leaving the capzones to sing!) 

[Spithas]

When you consider all DD's aren't created equally(for example the Ru/So ones are DD hunters)surely restricting the number of DD's would actually cause another effect. Speaking for myself when I'm playing my IJN DD's I want as few other DD's in the game that way I can aggressively hunt heavy ships without counter.

Another issue how balanced do you think the game would be if you sides are made up almost entirely of Battleships, as what you suggest would further impact how useful Cruisers are. Or perhaps you think double figures in Battleships per game is actually healthy.  

 

 

If you can't even stay on topic and you have limited or no knowledge of what you are talking about why bother posting?

 

1) Feel free to go in and hunt DDs with your Russian DD, tell me how well that works out for you.

2) Other DDs are not the counter to your IJN or whatever other nation DD. Radar Cruisers and CVs are. Even the new german BB line have strong counters to DDs too.

3) Double figure BBs are the rare result of idiotic Weekend mission + Recent New Line. Also hard caps work for other classes too. Not that it will be needed from my experience with the game but how dumb do you have to be to not even consider that if there is a risk of too many BBs if you cap DDs that you can also cap the BBs as well?

[BlueMoon51]

 

If you can't even stay on topic and you have limited or no knowledge of what you are talking about why bother posting?

 

1) Feel free to go in and hunt DDs with your Russian DD, tell me how well that works out for you.

2) Other DDs are not the counter to your IJN or whatever other nation DD. Radar Cruisers and CVs are. Even the new german BB line have strong counters to DDs too.

3) Double figure BBs are the rare result of idiotic Weekend mission + Recent New Line. Also hard caps work for other classes too. Not that it will be needed from my experience with the game but how dumb do you have to be to not even consider that if there is a risk of too many BBs if you cap DDs that you can also cap the BBs as well?

You clearly have less than me, as you can go 10 games without seeing carriers at higher levels and as US cruisers are pretty uncommon I'm much more worried about things that can spot within my torp range thus Russian DD's that can chase you down and keep you spotted are much more worrying.

 

If you don't think some DD's counter other ones you clearly are missing something and I can't really comment further.

 

You clearly are missing my point in terms of figures, if you remove one class it impacts other classes(while I agree . For example during Beta  Carriers were much more popular(many would say very OP), In turn, that made US cruisers also more popular(whats the point of having the best AA in the game if there are no aircraft). Thus if you restrict the number of DD's you raise the numbers of something....... Carriers.. unlikely, Cruisers doubtful, Battleships.. most likely as they are the class that would gain most by your proposed change. As for capping everything, is that really workable??? and wouldn't that make games unbelievably dull with the same make up every game and the wait times crazy in length,

 

As for your first sentence, if you don't want people to comment about your idea's don't post. For whatever you might think of me I have as much right to comment as you or indeed someone who just started playing this morning. You don't have to have a great grasp of the game to discuss the impact that your idea would have on the overall health(either thinking its good or bad).   

​

[IceyJones]

- taking out pressure ----> even more camping and sniping

- who supports the own DDs should win! as this mechanic is the only one actually that rewards teamplay! all this sniper-babies in their BBs dont deserve to win!

- reducing the effect of cap points -----> even more camping and sniping. then the BBabies will NEVER push as they dont need to. watch standard battles....is this enjoyable for you?

 

no......increase dispersion on long range is the answer!

 

make snipers WORTHLESS!

 

[T0byJug]

Reducing DD's wont help!! game with 2 or 3 DDs in a domination game means DDs can often cap without seeing each other. More DD's mean that the DD's meet in the caps and Juke it out! the teams that CA/BB are close enough to the cap to support there DD's tend to win this DD fight and go on to win the game. This SHOULD be encouraging the BB to site behind the caps. but not to far away. More DD's actually make it safer for BBs in the first half of the game as the enemy DD's cant get close and what Torps they do launch from long range will probably be spotted by DD leaving a switched on  BB commander Plenty of time to manover.

[Spithas]

- taking out pressure ----> even more camping and sniping

- who supports the own DDs should win! as this mechanic is the only one actually that rewards teamplay! all this sniper-babies in their BBs dont deserve to win!

- reducing the effect of cap points -----> even more camping and sniping. then the BBabies will NEVER push as they dont need to. watch standard battles....is this enjoyable for you?

 

no......increase dispersion on long range is the answer!

 

make snipers WORTHLESS!

 

 

Reducing =/= Taking out. And no it doesn't lead to more camping or less camping. Camping will be the same as the people who camp don't CARE about the caps or teamplay or whatever other fantasy you have in your brain. The purpose of reducing the pressure from too high cap point gain is to actually get to play the game regardless if the enemy is camping.

 

If you are hoping to solve the passivity issue or any other issue Random Battles have atm by simply saying "You should team-play" then you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

 

Compared to the 8 minute 1000 - 250 Point game Domination mode with 2 ships dead per side? Yeah Standard battles are more enjoyable to me because i don't have a problem with dealing with enemy campers and if my team camps then at least i have a chance of winning because the enemy still has to fight them eventually. My biggest problem is not getting to play the game, which is to shoot-torp and sink ships, because the battles are over.

 

Snipers are part of the game and almost irrelevant to the current issue. If you don't like sniping go play Tier 3.

 

[mtm78]

Tbh I kind of agree that mentioning a hard cap for DD's looks 'bad' without explictly mentioning you would do the same for other classes.

 

Imo, team composition should be close to 

1-2 CV

3-4 BB

2-4 DD

~rest cruisers 

[Spithas]

Reducing DD's wont help!! game with 2 or 3 DDs in a domination game means DDs can often cap without seeing each other. More DD's mean that the DD's meet in the caps and Juke it out! the teams that CA/BB are close enough to the cap to support there DD's tend to win this DD fight and go on to win the game. This SHOULD be encouraging the BB to site behind the caps. but not to far away. More DD's actually make it safer for BBs in the first half of the game as the enemy DD's cant get close and what Torps they do launch from long range will probably be spotted by DD leaving a switched on  BB commander Plenty of time to manover.

 

Really thx for the totally irrelevant post on what strategy to employ to win in this game.

 

So the team that supports it's DDs wins? you don't say i would have never imagine. So you killed the enemy DDs because enemy team were passive. Now you control all or most of the caps and already have a 200 point lead from the ship kills enjoy the remaining 5 minutes of the game while sailing and doing nothing.

 

Reducing the number of DDs makes complete dominance of cap points a harder thing to achieve. Thus prolonging the battle and giving the chance to people who don't want to be passive but are part of a camper team to fight back. Also what stops the DDs from meeting each other in the next cap the go to?

 

The bolded part: You are really drinking the Cool aid aren't you?

[IceyJones]

snipers are part of the game, because WG made sniping somewhat effective.

- DDs snipe with torps from long range (nerfed already, see shima 20km torps)

- cruisers snipe, because long range, good dispersion and OP HE and fire damage

- BBs snipe because range, rel good dispersion on long range and high AP damage even on range

 

the nerf of 1 (DDs) worked out. shimas take 12 km torps mostly, forcing them to go in the range of radar, getting spotted

 

why not nerf the other reasons also?! and buff other capabilities?!

 

nerf HE/Fire

nerf long range AP values for BBs

nerf long range dispersion!

nerf front citadel probability

buff AP damage at short range

buff dispersion on SHORT range

---> to summarise: buff SKILL!

 

ships are FORCED to brawl more and AIM better!

as soon players realize, that they are more effective in short ranges, they will close in!

 

and as sniping BBs are the root of MANY of the games problem atm, this is the only way to counter this

 

to artificially prolong games, makes such camper baby tactics even more valid

 

 

[Spithas]

Tbh I kind of agree that mentioning a hard cap for DD's looks 'bad' without explictly mentioning you would do the same for other classes.

 

[edited]

[IceyJones]

quoted post removed

 

typical spithas comment

 

[T0byJug]

 

Really thx for the totally irrelevant post on what strategy to employ to win in this game.

 

So the team that supports it's DDs wins? you don't say i would have never imagine. So you killed the enemy DDs because enemy team were passive. Now you control all or most of the caps and already have a 200 point lead from the ship kills enjoy the remaining 5 minutes of the game while sailing and doing nothing.

 

Reducing the number of DDs makes complete dominance of cap points a harder thing to achieve. Thus prolonging the battle and giving the chance to people who don't want to be passive but are part of a camper team to fight back. Also what stops the DDs from meeting each other in the next cap the go to?

 

The bolded part: You are really drinking the Cool aid aren't you?

 

How douse it make dominance of caps harder? Less DD's are free to cap unchallenged as less DDs reduce the chance of opposing DDs selecting the same cap. Less DD's make the DD furball shorter in duration if they do meet. Leaving the survivers free to cap again unchallenged. 4 or 5 DDs in a team make the first mins of the game All fighting and less cap ownership meaning the counters are only going up when ships die not from Cap ownership. 

[Spithas]

snipers are part of the game, because WG made sniping somewhat effective.

- DDs snipe with torps from long range (nerfed already, see shima 20km torps)

- cruisers snipe, because long range, good dispersion and OP HE and fire damage

- BBs snipe because range, rel good dispersion on long range and high AP damage even on range

 

the nerf of 1 (DDs) worked out. shimas take 12 km torps mostly, forcing them to go in the range of radar, getting spotted

 

why not nerf the other reasons also?! and buff other capabilities?!

 

nerf HE/Fire

nerf long range AP values

nerf long range dispersion!

nerf front citadel probability

buff AP

buff dispersion on SHORT range

---> to summarise: buff SKILL!

 

ships are FORCED to brawl more and AIM better!

as soon players realize, that they are more effective in short ranges, they will close in!

 

and as sniping BBs are the root of MANY of the games problem atm, this is the only way to counter this

 

to artificially prolong games, makes such camper baby tactics even more valid

 

 

 

You completely fail to grasp one very important thing. The italics of my original post. Go read them 5 times. The bolded part in the quote simply shows you have absolutely no understanding of the average player.

 

If you perform all the nerfs and buffs you proposed the effect is going to be this:

 

The passive and campers will be even less effective becoming absolutely useless to their teams. Will they stop camping? No. 

The aggressive players or player who actively support the team will be even stronger.

 

Enemy team ships that do try to cap or push will be annihilated games will be over even quicker. 

 

Only way for a camper not to camp is if he can't shoot. And that isn't the solution.

 

You also have to understand that i am not trying to eliminate camping or passivity since this is inherent in players. What i am suggesting is making the game more enjoyable for the rest of the players. Why wouldn't you like to have the time to get closer to the campers so you can brawl if you want that so much? 

[Spithas]

 

How douse it make dominance of caps harder? DD's are free to cap unchallenged. Less DD's make the DD furball shorter in duration if they do meet. Leaving the survivers free to cap again unchallenged. 4 or 5 DDs in a team make the first mins of the game All fighting and less cap ownership meaning the counters are only going up when ships die not from Cap ownership.

 

So it's ok for 1 class to have it's 2 mins of fun and then the rest to just sit and sail for the remaining of 6 mins?

 

4-5 DDs per team usually ends up in a wipe out of 1 side with 2-3 DDs left on 1 team and 0 on the other. In other words a 8 minute game max.

 

Also how 4-5 DD per team creates a furball of fire and hell for the DDs in the first minutes but suddenly 3 DDs per team translates to DDs never seeing each other and basically capping everything uncontested, really boggles my mind. Care to explain this?

[IceyJones]

The passive and campers will be even less effective becoming absolutely useless to their teams. Will they stop camping? No. 

 

The aggressive players or player who actively support the team will be even stronger.

 

YES! EXACTLY!

 

reward active play!

reward balls!

reward SKILL!

 

make good players better and not worse as they are by stupid RNG mechanics!

 

punish the passive ones even harder! if they dont adopt, they will leave the game!

i would like that!

[Spithas]

 

YES! EXACTLY!

 

reward active play!

reward skill!

reward balls!

reward SKILL!

 

make good players better and not worse as they are by stupid RNG mechanics!

 

punish the passive ones even harder! if they dont adopt, they will leave the game!

i would like that!

 

[edited]

Good and skilled players are better by definition. No amount of RNG can turn a camper into a better player than a skilled aggressive one.

 

My original post basically answers this:

 

Question: What do you get when you are skilled, aggressive, team-player? 

 

Answer: In most cases a 8 minute boring win, or a steamroller defeat where you had 0 time to fight back. All because of poor map design, bad domination cap point economy and the over significance of DDs due to these 2 factors.

 

You cannot eliminate camping. Campers will always camp no matter what. But you can make the games a lot more enjoyable for the rest of the players in both of the teams.

[T0byJug]

 

So it's ok for 1 class to have it's 2 mins of fun and then the rest to just sit and sail for the remaining of 6 mins? If they are supporting there DD's thay are not sitting at back doing nothing 

 

4-5 DDs per team usually ends up in a wipe out of 1 side with 2-3 DDs left on 1 team and 0 on the other. In other words a 8 minute game max.  This normaly happans because one teams DD's commanders are more skilled and/or there teams BB/CA were closer to the fight and supported there DDs

 

Also how 4-5 DD per team creates a furball of fire and hell for the DDs in the first minutes but suddenly 3 DDs per team translates to DDs never seeing each other and basically capping everything uncontested, really boggles my mind. Care to explain this? Where did i say NEVER is said LESS CHANCE of seeing each other.

 

[Spithas]

What you are basically asking for IceyJones is for WG to cater to you and remove any possible counter to the brawling tactic by other means. This imho makes for very bad gameplay.

 

What i am asking for is not to penalize the people who go for objectives, are more active by basically creating scenarios where steamrolls are so common.

 

If the enemy can't lemming train to D in North because that cap doesn't exist anymore, if the enemy can't sit behind islands of no significance in maps like Land of Fire or Sea of Fortune, if there are not so many DDs that can achieve cap dominance in 2 mins then the passivity of enemy or your team doesn't hinder the gaming experience of the rest so much.

[Spithas]

Where did i say NEVER is said LESS CHANCE of seeing each other.

 

Less chance of DDs meeting up in the first 1-2 mins of the battle and 1 side wiping the other out is a GOOD thing for EVERYONE on BOTH teams.

[Quetak]

What about some dimishing returns for cap points?

Your first cap -> as nowadays (not sure how much it gains so lets take 4 points every 5s)

Your second cap only 2 points/5s

Third cap 1 point/5s.

Fourth cap also 1 point/5s

 

So when its 2v1 caps its only 6 vs. 4 points /5s

When its 3v1 its only 7 vs 4 points/5s (nowadays it something like 12 vs. 4) 

 

Caps will still be important but not as much as now.
 

[GenerallKrizmuz]

DD hardcap needs to become a thing

[Spithas]

What about some dimishing returns for cap points?

Your first cap -> as nowadays (not sure how much it gains so lets take 4 points every 5s)

Your second cap only 2 points/5s

Third cap 1 point/5s.

Fourth cap also 1 point/5s

 

 

So when its 2v1 caps its only 6 vs. 4 points /5s

When its 3v1 its only 7 vs 4 points/5s (nowadays it something like 12 vs. 4) 

 

 

Caps will still be important but not as much as now.

 

 

Nice suggestion.

[allufewig]

Wow rude Spithas.

 

But in essence I think youre right.
 

Camping largely stems from player insecurity, lack of knowledge or brain. Economics, individual gamemechanics and maps do their share as well, but probably have a lesser impact.
 

In a hard-to-learn game like WoWs with its rather intransparent mechanics ( where info seems to be scattered among reddit, wiki, forums, official-, leak- and fansites) and no helping tutorial or beginner-gamemodes, we will always have camping.

 

A slight reduction in the gaining rate of the points in domination and a hardcap for DDs were long on my wishlist. Actually I think that every class should be hardcapped, with the exception of cruisers. The only class that doesnt really screw gameplay when encountered in large numbers.

[Capra76]

DD hardcap needs to become a thing

 

Why?

 

I'm curious why you're banging on about a hard-cap for DD when BB numbers have exploded out of control?  It's not as though DD numbers are problematic at the moment, BB on the other hand..........