Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
AkosJaccik

Large-scale PvE operations

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
920 posts
11,130 battles

Naturally, none of this will be more than some screwing around in Paint Shop in a sunday evening. Night. Actually, monday ni... anyway.

What lead me to make this topic are the Hunt for Bismarck - and other - campaigns as well as the relatively successful halloween event. Now, the Graf Spee-campaign was a rather nice event, just as the Bismarck-one will be, however, wouldn't it be nice to do something that actually resembles the historical setting instead of doing basically the same "hit 20 citadels"-missions, but the reward this time is a skin or a ship, not some signals? Reading different discussions and topics, the main issue of historical or semi-historical battles are the problems balancing those and making them enjoyable for both sides. PvE has the great advantage that it requires attention only on one side; moreover it enables gameplay features that would not work in random battles - yes, even submarines, they don't even need 3D models to work as bot-controlled entities. Again, we already had something along those lines, halloween's convoy (well, one-ship-convoy) escort mission, but I took it one step further, and "made" an entire campaign out of the idea. That way, WoWs could somewhat model large-scale battles lasting more days, while the whole thing might need less resources than it first seems so as there is no need to balance the missions and maps to be "fair".

Tl;dr take this topic as any fan-made tech tree: Nothing more than some wishful thinking.

 

How do I imagine it?

Maybe 2-4 times a year for a weekend or a week players could choose to play these operations, either made-up or based on actual historical battles.

psnVtWi.png

 

In this section, we find a similar screen like we can under "campaigns", but this time the nodes do not mean mission requirements, but entire and actual maps. For the sake of political correctness (and lazyness...) I just made everything up except for Hawaii. This could be some historical scenario as well by all means.

DIGNHuS.jpg

 

Let's check out the middle one, which represents the third battle situation.

SZItVEd.jpg

This scheme could allow fleet compositions not yet used in WoWs, like entire carrier groups. Did I steal a whole lot from Battlestations: Pacific? I sure did!

However, my idea has a whole lot of problems of course, like how to work with the matchmaking - say, one wants to continue his progress in the operation near it's ending date and in a time when not a lot of players are online anyway, so although he would like to push his carrier on, he can't find enough destroyer players for the task force. We are talking about PvE though, so using a few unsinkable bots in that case might be some workaround.

 

ZLrD4RG.png

The main selling point of the PvE operations are though that basically anything goes. Mechanics that could never work in PvP, like mines, ground-based aircraft attacks, subs, AA balloons, or even ship types like torpedo boats, mine layers or seaplane tenders could be used. Objectives could vary wildly, and actually sinking the enemy could even be something of a low-priority point. In my example on the last mission I even hinted at a battle with limited ammunition - something that would be outrageous in PvP, but this is why it could work for just one PvE battle: it's something entirely different and uncommon.

For my "thought experiment", an important point is that the maps should somewhat resemble to the actual location of the real battle, estabilishing connection between the "strategic" and "tactical" map. No need for fancy new 3D models and whatnot, just make the coastline and scenery objects believable. This is again nothing new, we already have radio towers, radars etc. and had coastal fortresses in the game - it's just now they will actually serve a purpose.

 

 

7EHSg17.jpg

A well-done operation not only could be somewhat educational, having a few lines of "encyclopaedia" about what happened in history regarding the missions (actually, I could use a page with a few pictures and drawings, graphs about the ships themselves too rather than the current three sentences of "the ship was stronk") and raise interest in general, but of course, it could give some basic (after all, it's PvE) rewards, preferably something to do with the missions. Special upgrades might do the trick, let's say the operation is about the sinking, or - just to make it interesting for the sake of the argument - let it be a "what-if" scenario, so about the saving of the Taiho: the reward could be some nifty Damage Control Party, along with some words about their historical significance and flaws in carrier design.

 

If you are still reading this, first of all, let me congratulate, wow, you have some endurance, and then let me thank you for your attention and time. While we know that WG "works on PvE", but if they do so as they "worked on the CVs", then we might not see a whole lot of actual improvement other than having the already existing maps sport more bots than before. (Although we did that on one of the Test Servers, not sure why they got rid of that.)

What do you think? Would you be interested? Would you be interested, but rather not have WG allocate too much resources to anything that is not PvP? Or are you completely fine with the current events and leave the game as it is? Or maybe you think this would be interesting, but for some reasons, it could never work? Or just put it simply - less casual, more competitive?

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALONE]
Modder
2,173 posts
13,725 battles

Looks really cool, I hope the will make it somehow like this. :medal:

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
920 posts
11,130 battles

Well, I have my doubts, to put it lightly, but it doesn't stop me from making even more stupid sh*it regarding the topic.

This time some examples that could not be implemented in PvP, but it might(?) work for these PvE events. First, everyone loves balloons!

 

Z4Dy8Cp.png

 

They might serve as some kind of "aerial minefield", forcing the carrier's planes to linger over ground based AA a bit longer in order to reach their destination. Talking about AA, land-based air raids and the relatively low priority of surface targets could result in the air superiority deck (dive bombers & fighters) becoming actually useful, or just changing the setup according to the mission requirements something to consider instead of auto-1/1/1-ing or strike force-ing all day everyday. Concentrated AA fire or rotated DefAA of the players could also be a thing, although I still don't have any illusion really.

 

dNy1pHq.png

 

Ground-based forces attacking the players' fleet shouldn't be a one-way street though.

 

GvOC70s.png

 

Radars could do radar-ish things, instead of the magic button.

 

zVHLhgP.png

 

There are other means too for checking around in the darkness, of course.

 

x7yinTb.png

 

And while we are at it, Sonars could also do their thing a bit less "press button to win"-fashion against bots, even if it's not a lot more - or else - than the RPF. No, that's certainly not a depth charge. :tea_cap:

 

MXdG7lj.jpg

 

And of course, "much more", like the much-debated torps aimed with gyrocompass etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,556 posts
1,899 battles

I actually like some of these ideas. Especially since PVE is not limited in the same way as PVP as you said with balance and so on.

Ofcourse it still needs to be the right amount of challanging or people get bored or just turns in to an easy grind fest.

 

However, most of these ideas are probably not that easy to do anyway, since I imagine they would require a lot of coding in several cases, and some things would even need 3d models.

Still WG has said that they are interested in some kind of PVE scenarios and if they do something along this I would be very happy.

 

One thing I do believe needs to be done, is give the different ships differant stats for PVE and PVP, as they will encounter different situations and be required to do different things.

Like in order for US DD's being used as escort ships for cariers and battleships and so on, they would need a new AA balance for PVE or Light cruisers working as Destroyer squadron leaders and scouts they might need torps/stealth equal to DD's or contrallable scout planes.

Edited by SBS
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[R3B3L]
Players
893 posts
29,551 battles

A realistic displaying of radar and sonar would be great, but how many people would understand it?



 



On the artillery radar screen I see a big target in 17 km distance and sonar says there´s something in 320 degrees. But someone who is not familiar with these things will only see some dwrrbzzzzling. Add a screen for surveillance radar (plus one for air detection) to it and the confusion is perfect.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,556 posts
1,899 battles

A realistic displaying of radar and sonar would be great, but how many people would understand it?

 

On the artillery radar screen I see a big target in 17 km distance and sonar says there´s something in 320 degrees. But someone who is not familiar with these things will only see some dwrrbzzzzling. Add a screen for surveillance radar (plus one for air detection) to it and the confusion is perfect.

 

Well, not like a lot of WG gamemechanics are not vague anyway, like the small wait before getting concealment back after firering, the sigma values and overmatch mechanics.

Much of this is never even told, but only known because it was data mined.

 

But you are right, not that this could not be fixed with a quick tutorial that maybe last just 3 min, or at least have some sort of written guide in game where people can look up things real quick if they need to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles

Impressive photo treatment to illustrate your points. I would hire you to provide pictures for my design too if I had the money. A.I. will not be very advanced enough for complex scenarios, but other things in the design might work. Some of the points such as fleet formation I had already incorporated into my design to a higher degree, but guess I'll have to actually release it first for there to be conversation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
920 posts
11,130 battles

Thank you guys, just a quick and general answer for now:

I sort of agree @drmajga, now that I think about some of the topics of the forum, but on a second thought, there are some arguments.

  • This is for PvE. People will not get handicapped for not mastering a gameplay element a whole lot, as the oppositions aren't humans. Sure, the teammates will be somewhat screwed, but nothing intolerable. 
  • While I did not "design" it in-depth by any means, my iteration of the sonar works basically like RPF does now in the game. In that case, the gameplay element, athough I use it differently, is already implemented. (I also thought about utilising the sounds/headphones, but I should pretend that not everyone is playing with sound on probably). Moreover, seeing it in motion should catch up people really fast. Same with the radar, give it a minute and it's ready to go! Just for funsies, I might think about how a radar-assisted targeting could look like instead of the simple surveillance radar.

I also agree with you, @SBS, in a broader sense too: in-game trainings should have been a thing looong before now, even if there are/should be(?) elements that are somewhat unclear, like maybe the XP-calculation.

 

Another wild idea of mine is that all these cr*p could be actually the "operation rewards" that might go on a different slot on your ship only usable for this purpose (so it does not screw with PvP balance but you can still refit your ship with reward equipment that can be specifically selected for these missions). Similarly to "upgrades" in nature but "consumables" in practice. For example, obtaining a new radar could result in a new, easier-to-read screen, that you can use on the next operation. Or let's say, instead of depth charge rails, you get throwers, gaining some more directional control over your armament. Or in these PvE scenarios, you could not use the "Manual AA" skill without an actual centralized AA fire control module.

But... too many words. Hopefully in the weekend I get to d*ck around in Paint Shop a bit more so I can post d*ck pic more "fan art", or however should I categorize these. Have a nice day, guys!

Edited by AkosJaccik
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
920 posts
11,130 battles

I knew I had this topic lying around somewhere... :]

Much to my surprise, ever since my earlier brainfarts a fair amount of stuff actually happened to find it's way into the game - we have now mines, coastal batteries, large(ish) aerial attacks and some other nifty, materialized ideas.

As thinking is free and the gamemode grants a lot of freedom to play around with things that would be impossible to implement in PvP, I decided to push the boundaries further in my mind (or think about stupid sh*t, depending on the viewpoint).

 

First issue I'd cover is the lack of replayability of these operations. Sure, the stars grant more or less good enough rewards - once. But it also seems to be a widely accepted opinion for a good reason that just like this year's halloween scenario compared to last year's, there is really not much point replaying them apart from the occassional fun with divisions. And so I took these three things:

  • Operations seem to require a fair amount of work to produce, so might as well make their lifespan somewhat longer with increased replayability
  • Reward ships are a thing for different game modes (Flint, Black, potentially Salem or the soviet "cruiser" at T10, the name eludes me, maybe Stalingrad?),why not for operations? ...I know, but hold on, before you stone me to death, let me continue.
  • Arguably one of the biggest comparative advantage of WoWs over other titles (like even WoT) could be the diversity of it's vehicle selection. The counter-argument is the well-known "It's hard to implement / doesn't fit in the game", which is perfectly sensible argument (even though that the "normal" ships which are already in the game get more and more crazy and inexplicable day after day, but that's for a different page) - for pvp. PvE can be as inbalanced as one desires, just about anything goes.

This could potentially open the gate for random ships you could get / buy after or by playing these operations repeatedly. My idea is that these ships should be relatively weak, however could provide some bonus for the human team - might as well call it gimmick, WG loves it! What I am thinking about? Let's conduct a thought experiment.

 

Let's check out this model - this is possibly supposed to be seaplane-tender Kamoi:

kamoi.thumb.jpg.0820999efb04f4fd296af93bee7921b2.jpg

 

...or the USS Wright:

wright.thumb.jpg.c01f41e2f504730a7f970ad65f00dfd6.jpg

Imagine maybe needing to win 20-30 five-star operations so you are able to "buy" or otherwise get a seaplane tender. You might think either that this is too easy for a ship or the opposite, too much grind for almost nothing - the exact value and means is not quite the point: you now own a seaplane tender. What would be good for? Well, for starters, it would only be allowed to sortie in operations (or regular PvE as it is mirrored anyway, but then no "gimmicks", just an overtiered, weak XP-pinata), no pvp whatsoever. You could hide these special "operation vessels" like any other random stuff in the port:

 

filter.png.230aba7f118acf5655809ce0f108e3b6.png

 

As for gameplay, they would bring something to the table but also take something. Seaplane tenders could function like a weak carrier with say, two squadrons of squishy seaplane bombers, but while the AV is on the map, it gets rid of the fog of war altogether: basically, the minimap shows everything. Minelayers are still a bit "eeeuuugh...", but maybe they could appear on some operations, as on Newport for example:

mnlyr.png.61aec1f866970b7718f644a9e2fd2cf8.png

Same concept, really: a weaker ship in one slot, but some additional bonuses in return. Command vessels or flagships like the Ōyodo - apart from being a light cruiser - could even function as some sort of "off-map carriers" with limited consumable, being able to call in land-based aircrafts attacking the designated surface or ground targets. And if we can do so, it's only a step further to do it from your own deck, BBVs and CAVs confirmed.:Smile_trollface:  Again, in Newport: Your team is about to grab the victory, but suffering heavy losses, and the last specified target to sink is wandering around the other side of the map as opposed to the evacuation zone - maybe you see it because of your AV buddy, and you call in the air force to blap it without the need of getting yourself murdered by trying to get to it (or you would but you already used up all two of your possibility to do so). In some cases even transport vessels could be a silly thing, let's say that if it reaches from A to B during the operation and your team wins it with esentially one ship less, the team gets a +150% credits bonus. Suddenly, operations could be a viable way of generating some money, but to do so you or your buddy is required to own a transport vessel and take the risk.

Spoiler

While it would get too far-fetched even for my taste, theoretically even submarines would become feasible. A possible "endgame pve-content" could be a special operation available for 3-men divisions with midget submarines, for five stars you might need to infiltrate a port undetected, sink a specified amount of tonnage and get the hell out with all hands. However, while "linked operations" is something I considered in the past, as seen above, and still consider as a possibly good idea, I have serious doubts about the raison d'etre of operations that are this special. ...still - an idea nonetheless, not necessarily a good one. Plus, but not the least, unlike the above mentioned gimmicks, subs should require a fair amount of improvement in the gameplay and it would be wasteful to work on something so big only useful in barely one or two gamemodes.

 

m_sub.thumb.jpg.20552108b242576dd6007926e76b2e60.jpg

(Game: Battlestations: Pacific)

We might also implement a rule that these special vessels could only be utilized in divisions with at least five/full seven members, so the solo queuing randoms won't get shafted, their chances of winning won't be randomly lower by getting a specialized, but all in all weaker ship they never asked for. However, you could - apart other things? - start actually "farming" the operations and, for the joy of collectors, you could get interesting ships while not interfering with pvp balance at all. Now, I am "pve reward ships" might be maybe a sensitive topic, but I am still not too concerned as these ships are

  • Available for anyone, down to the last casual player
  • Have no use outside of PvE anyway and
  • ...their direct combat capability isn't the best even there either.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[R3B3L]
Players
893 posts
29,551 battles
On 26.11.2017 at 6:48 PM, AkosJaccik said:

Let's check out this model - this is possibly supposed to be seaplane-tender Kamoi:

While the CVs currently start at T4, the seaplane-tender could be a T3-carrier. The floatplanes would be a somewhat weak strikeforce, but good for scouting and occasionally dropping a bomb on a lonely target. The ship could be made a premium to give an incentive to play it more than once. And if every player gets it for finishing a campaign, more people would try out carriers.

 

And last but not least:

On 26.11.2017 at 6:48 PM, AkosJaccik said:

for the joy of collectors, you could get interesting ships

well... :cap_yes: i´d take it!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
13,905 posts
19,732 battles

Woah, how have I missed this thread? It's amazing!

*looks at creation date*

Oh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADML]
Beta Tester
75 posts
20,418 battles

These ideas are a blast and follow something Armored Warfare is trying to put into motion with their "campaign operations", i.e. you must finish one op scenario to begin another. With the attrition system on naval units (ammunitions and planes, fuel, not-perfect repairs), it's even better and exciting.
I know many players waiting in the shadows for a good PvE experience to register to the game. For them, operations at T. VI and VII are just not enough, too high to begin with, forcing them to grind through lower tiers. It would be great to have them balanced for all sort of Tiers beginning as early as T. III and as high at least of T. IX. 

But it would mean dedicating a whole big team to them, and is Wargaming willing to take the risk? Maybe they could launch a poll ?

Anyhow, good work Akkos :)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×