How to solve the camping problem once and for all

[periscope_up]

Just introduce the AI bombers, that are gonna repeatedly bomb the crap out of the lone wolfs in BBs, that are staying far back behind their teams and sniping from the 20+km, and set them on fire over and over again.

 

Campers are using their teammates as a meat shield to prolong their game and fire maybe 3-4 more random shots from 20+ km, as there is no cost involved for them. If the cost of not engaging in the close combat and soaking the damage will be the same or higher as actually playing the game - they will be forced to play properly.

There really is no other way, as they don't give a fk about maintenance costs, credits, XP or anything else, anyway so there are no numerical penalties that could've changed their way of playing the game, AFTER the battle is already over.
Harsh HP penalties should be applied during the battle as it would be a good idea to let them know that if they decide to stay back - it's not gonna keep them out of the enemy fire, just the opposite.

[Comrad_StaIin]

equip them with Fritz-X or Tallboys pls

[anonym_V7A9ocbepLD9]

Free  ship repairs for all of the winning team, none for the losing team.

Simple rule that will make all players think twice if they camp and/or are passive during the battle.

[Nechrom]

Free  ship repairs for all of the winning team, none for the losing team.

Simple rule that will make all players think twice if they camp and/or are passive during the battle.

 

Hahahahahaha!!! 

[Earl_of_Northesk]

Free  ship repairs for all of the winning team, none for the losing team.

Simple rule that will make all players think twice if they camp and/or are passive during the battle.

 

You still think the problem is maintenance cost? It's not and never was.

[anonym_V7A9ocbepLD9]

 

Hahahahahaha!!! 

 

Yes, I know it sounds crazy
It is not so crazy, however.

 

The idea explained in more detail:

0. Both teams get credits for the damage done to the enemy, as it is now;
1. The winning team has their ships repaired without tax. They pay for ammo+torpedoes+consumables cost;
2. The winners can play with this exact ship as many battles for the day till the moment their team loses a battle;
3. The losing team has no repairs for their participating ship till the end of the calendar day. What is sunk is sunk
On the next calender day the ship is automatically repaired with the ship+ammo+torpedoes+consumables cost;
4. The losers are kindly forced  to use other still not sunk ship from the port of theirs, if they wish to play more.  What is sunk is sunk for the day.

 

[Comodoro_Allande]

equip them with Fritz-X or Tallboys pls

 

Not enough, better to make nuclear tests on the borders, with fallout that causes some kind of attrition 

[EsaTuunanen]

Having bot submarines patrolling map borders for those basically full hp Balless Boats running to there would be better.

Heck, it would also historically quite accurate for what submarines did.

 

Of course just to make things sink in better getting sinked by those should incur some kind special Deserter achievement with credits and XP transferred to rest of the team.

Three of those in certain time frame/number of matches and ship's commander gets courtmartialed and executed and ship locked for say week before being able to put new commander into it.

 

 

 

3. The losing team has no repairs for their participating ship till the end of the calendar day. What is sunk is sunk

On the next calender day the ship is automatically repaired with the ship+ammo+torpedoes+consumables cost;

Aka punish those who still tried to fight enemy when cowards run away.

Any more bad ideas?

[The_Tyke]

Of course just to make things sink in better getting sinked by those should incur some kind special Deserter achievement with credits and XP transferred to rest of the team.

Three of those in certain time frame/number of matches and ship's commander gets courtmartialed and executed and ship locked for say week before being able to put new commander into it.

 

Now this . . . I like

[anonym_V7A9ocbepLD9]

Aka punish those who still tried to fight enemy when cowards run away.

Any more bad ideas?

 

Oh, I see. You have never been in the army ...

When at war an army loses the battle, it does not matter if one was a hero or a deserter. All prisoners of war are treated the same.

 

[Earl_of_Northesk]

 

Oh, I see. You have never been in the army ...

When at war an army loses the battle, it does not matter if one was a hero or a deserter. All prisoners of war are treated the same.

 

 

What the....

[Azalgor]

Revamp BB AA and improve CV gamplay and their economy, also remove the limit of 1 from high tiers back to 2 CV per team, cause mostly its them disturbed campers complaints that CVs are OP.

[Commander_Doom_]

3. The losing team has no repairs for their participating ship till the end of the calendar day. What is sunk is sunk
On the next calender day the ship is automatically repaired with the ship+ammo+torpedoes+consumables cost;
4. The losers are kindly forced  to use other still not sunk ship from the port of theirs, if they wish to play more.  What is sunk is sunk for the day.

 

So what you are saying here is that we need to screw people over, case in point lets say i have a really good game in a ship but my team sucks and we lose, are you then gonna say "no your team lost so you can't play this ship the rest of the day" do you know how anoying and frustrating that will be, how are you gonna grind a line in good time if when ever you team lose it says no not anymore of this ship for you. And that's just the start of the problems from your stupid idea.

 

[Shirakami_Kon]

We just need forts at the border of the map.

[Hedgehog1963]

Free  ship repairs for all of the winning team, none for the losing team.

Simple rule that will make all players think twice if they camp and/or are passive during the battle.

 

So, if you lose but don't take any damage you pay no repair costs.  Would anything promote staying at the back more than this idea?

[Shirakami_Kon]

 

So, if you lose but don't take any damage you pay no repair costs.  Would anything promote staying at the back more than this idea?

 

Emm... You pay a fixed repair cost every battle regardless of if you take damage or not. So you would just have free repair cost if you win.

 

The thing with that it's that winning doesn't depend on only you playing like you should, so if you play well, but the rest of the team doesn't you get dragged by them too, so it's not a good idea.

[RegularLogic]

I think you guys are insane. Play the game how you want to play it, not how someone else does.

[Ferry_25]

Free  ship repairs for all of the winning team, none for the losing team.

Simple rule that will make all players think twice if they camp and/or are passive during the battle.

 

Actually this doesn't sound like a bad idea at all IMO. Even when losing and still doing your best it's not that hard to make some profit, strike even or have a manageable loss... When communicated properly giving the message: "whn you win, you've got nothing to lose" will in my opinion more or less force players to play their role. Cruisers covering DD's, BB's covering cruisers, DD's scout and push the objectives. That way all will play their role and the match is decided by skill, wit and teamplay. That way nearly all players will have a sense of gratitude. Whether being on the losing or winning team: we all want those epic battles, don't we?

[Syrchalis]

Free ship repairs just means bonus credits for the winning side. We have bonus XP for the winning side since day 1.

 

IT

DOES
NOT

WORK

 

The campers are those who don't even realize that they are doing something wrong. You cannot fix them this easily. If you swap BB rewards for potential damage and damage dealt that would probably help, because you will make most of your profit by tanking damage (and not the broadside I die in 10 seconds method).

 

But I really don't see a really good way because camping = staying alive = not needing to wait for your ship in port and THAT actually matters to those players.

[Zathras_Grimm]

WG wants BB to be the strongest ship.
 

They can one shot CAs, DDs have to get through enemy DDs and CAs to get close; CVs have to run the gauntlet of AA. The only ships that can effectively kill BBs are BBs, so until the end of the game they will be quite happy watching DDs and CAs kill each other whilst taking pot shots.

 

Honestly the game has laid on so many layers of protection that it is difficult to think of something simple to change that will improve things: Reduce BBs AA ability and take away torpedo belt armour. With enemy DDs, CAs, Hydro, Radar, Spotters and RPF a DD isn't going to get near them anyway lol. However, if CVs could effectively hit and hurt them then this could work, forcing BBs forward to use strong AA from other ships.

 

I also feel that rewards should go to the top 10 players (from both of the teams). If you have a fantastic game but lose due to A-holes then if you manage to come in the top 10 ships you still win! It could be 7 from the winning team and 3 from the losing team, but they are the ones that did the most, so they get rewarded. Just a thought.

 

EDIT: There could also be penalties to those that are in the bottom 10 depending on how poorly they contributed (I don't wish to penalise someone who has a good game but falls out of he top 10, but rather punish those who have obviously done nothing for their team).

[EsaTuunanen]

I also feel that rewards should go to the top 10 players on both sides. If you have a fantastic game but lose due to A-holes then if you manage to come in the top 10 ships you still win! Just a thought.

That's double-edged sword.

It might just make more people hide in rear to minimize risks.

So damage tanking, capping, spotting etc rewards should be well balanced.

[Zathras_Grimm]

That's double-edged sword.

It might just make more people hide in rear to minimize risks.

So damage tanking, capping, spotting etc rewards should be well balanced.

 

But if they hide in the rear they can't do much damage and the lack of AA makes them a target for the CVs that are all to happy to stay away from the CAs that have AA set ups(?) That's if you incorporate both of my ideas.

Agree with the fight and profit approach.

[Sander93]

I think you guys are insane. Play the game how you want to play it, not how someone else does.

 

​How can I play the game how I want to (winning matches) when some bobs on my team are camping at the map border?

[_ramrus_]

Dead BB is not fun BB, much easier to camp than to get focused on front line.

In BBs I enjoy alternating between 1st and 2nd line with DDs, but how can I tell DD where I want the 1st line to be. Chatting in combat is impractical, and there are no code words.

This idea that fastest ship gets to decide where 1st line should be does not always sit with me, because I'd like to be the one to decide where it should be. If I judge staying on a flank to support DD will cost me more hp than I'm willing to give up I will turn tail and run ( even before getting shot ).

Another point is, staying on the 1st line with BBs too long will lead to death, and players don't really communicate and cover each other.

BBs that take the front tend to stay in front and die. Which is why you get those nobody moves at start games. Nobody want's to take the front.

 

Camping is already a solution to problem of getting sunk.

In the eyes of campers their team is crap for getting sunk in the middle of the map.

People came here to shoot bloody ships, not sail inside white circles.

 

[Allied_Winter]

Just today I had the pleasure of meeting a quite relaxed player in his Nagato cruising on the 10 line on Shards. While the battle chat was quite heated up, because I didn't like what he was doing (he brought the usual points, like 'what do I have 23km range for, if I don't use it' or 'I am effective, see I battle this Gneisenau, that's equally far from the cap'). We lost because the enemy BBs pushed with all their might into each cap. After the battle I wrote him, apologized for the iffy talk in battle, but I don't like being left out hanging in a cruisers, supporting the DDs, when the BB is way back.

 

He responds, that BBs shouldn't cap, that's a job for cruisers and DDs. 

 

And the way he told me that, assured me, that he was perfectly fine with loosing, so any credit or XP punishments would be pointless. By now I'm quite certain that even if Wargaming put in tons of tutorials for the different roles a certain type of ship needs to fullfill, you'd still have BBs camping and sniping in the back.

 

If one player refuses to learn, you can't to anything. The only way (and that's a way I'm equally certain WG will never go) I see would be to implement skill walls for all classes. As in:

 

"You unlocked a T7 ship. Prove in these three practical scenarios (with your current T6 ship) and a written test, that you understood what you have to do in your ship." 

 

 

Greetings