constructive Bring back Stealth Firing

[MacFergus]

And why not with the overpopulation of BBs in the game at the moment what better time than to bring this sorely missed mechanic back to the game and stop the gimmicks that are killing the game.

 

What is Stealth Firing?.

 

Stealth firing for newer players was where certain ships like DDs and CAs could open fire without being spotted or in effect have a cushion of so many km in which they could safely fire and not be seen.

 

Why was is good for the Game?.

 

BBs were reliant on there teams to spot for them which meant that any sensible BB captain would keep pace with his CAs so as not to be rendered blind a lone BB was basically a sunk BB.

 

CA and DDs were more attractive to play and fulfilled the important role of spotting ships so there BBs could inflict damage.

 

Encourage better team play and more aggression , simply being passive gave you no rewards and games lasted longer due to CAs and DDs not getting annihilated by WG gimmicks and overpopulated BBs.

 

Why did WG remove it?.

 

In my view removing SF was down to 2 reasons .

 

1/ WG wanted to introduce gimmicks like radar and smoke.

2/ The constant whining by BB players that it was unfair they could be shot at but couldn't shoot back ( Mainly by campers and snipers it didn't worry BBs who kept up with there team).

 

Why should we have it back in the game?.

 

Well I'm sure people have noticed the huge amount of BBs in the queues to some capping BBs is a good idea and I can understand that theory but what you don't want to do is alienate the most popular class in the game , Instead you want people to play other classes because its fun and by re introducing SF in the game would guarantee more people would play CAs and DDs thus bring the balance of game back naturally without buffs or nerfs or capping ships.

 

As the game stands at the moment its far to passive and with good reasons the amount of BBs make both DDs and more importantly CA/CL hell to play hence the unbalance of ship classes the higher skill cap it takes to play a CA/CL is causing this huge divide between BBs and lighter classes , Why on earth would an average player like myself play a CA or DD for fun? What fun I don't have the skill level to play either of those and getting deleted in one shot is not my idea of fun hence I play BBs.

 

It would be good to see what the community thinks on this topic and if you feel the game was far better balanced before SF was removed imho it was and by removing it WG opened the floodgates to the huge BB baby boom we have now.

 

WG do the right thing.

 

Thx for reading.

 

MacFergus

[ColonelPete]

Will not happen.

[bushwacker001]

Nothing to see here...player who mostly plays BB's is moaning about BB's 

[Cpt_Nero_]

So you want Conqueror to stealth-fire you to death too? that's a big NO.

[MacFergus]

8 minutes ago, Wieprzu said:

So you want Conqueror to stealth-fire you to death too? that's a big NO.

I did a topic on removing stealth from BBs or reducing it but fair comment obviously no BBs should not be able to stealth fire or have limited capacity to do so. 

12 minutes ago, bushwacker001 said:

Nothing to see here...player who mostly plays BB's is moaning about BB's 

Not sure what you mean by this are you saying your happy with the balance of the game atm or I'm daft because I play BBs therefore I should not be negative about them but thx for the comment

[bushwacker001]

3 minutes ago, MacFergus said:

Not sure what you mean by this are you saying your happy with the balance of the game atm or I'm daft because I play BBs therefore I should not be negative about them but thx for the comment

 

I am not sure what you wrote here either. Maybe try some punctuation so it makes sense.

[ghostbuster_]

Nope. SF is not gonna be back

[SV_Kompresor]

Um....no

[philjd]

um, no.

 

The only time I had a real problem with stealth firing was in a CL being shot by a stealth DD.

 

But the concept of invisible firing is ludicrous to start with (other than terrain use and radar blind fire, 3rd party spotting is a tried and tested actuality).

[daki]

57 minutes ago, MacFergus said:

 

Why was is good for the Game?.

 

BBs were reliant on there teams to spot for them which meant that any sensible BB captain would keep pace with his CAs so as not to be rendered blind a lone BB was basically a sunk BB.

 

CA and DDs were more attractive to play and fulfilled the important role of spotting ships so there BBs could inflict damage.

 

Encourage better team play and more aggression , simply being passive gave you no rewards and games lasted longer due to CAs and DDs not getting annihilated by WG gimmicks and overpopulated BBs.

 

 

 

A majority of players in ships capable of stealth fire tended to stay at max range in order to (ab)use the benefit of SF - i.e. passive play including very little spotting or capping for the team.

Only a few good players would play those ships in a predominantly aggressive manner, i.e. not relying heavily on SF during the match.

 

Thus, I would rather see some new mechanics which would promote closer range fighting than getting back the old ones which promote max range fighting...

[Egoleter]

Nope. The removal was a good thing.

 

While I was able to deal with and to abuse it myself, I certainly do not want it to come back.

• It advocates passive, long distance sniping, kind of gameplay.
• While we had it, it did not cause any more teamplay then what we have right now. That is wishfull thinking.
• Stealthfire did also not reduce the BB population. We had the same overpopulation problem back then.

 

So there is no good reason to bring it back in my humble opinion.

[philjd]

I'm not sure anything would reduce the BB overpopulation, unless you nerf them into almost unplayable as it is the 'big' names that draws people to the game itself. The vast majority do not start the game thinking 'I'd love to drive a Fubuki, wtf is that again?' but 'woh yeah, Bismarck!' etc.

[Cyclops_]

Bring back stealth fire and you might as well bring in long range Guided Missiles , just imagine playing a guided missile destroyer, you would not even have to start your engines 

[Culiacan_Mexico]

1 hour ago, ColonelPete said:

Will not happen.

[Jethro_Grey]

Thx, but no thx.

 

This idiotic relic of olden times past should never ever resurface and keep rotting in the special part of hell named "stupid design choices". 

 

As a cruiser and DD main, i'm strongly opposing any suggestion to bring this game mechanic back.

It was bad for the game back then, and it will make things even worse should it ever come back.

 

Players who want to be 'invisible' while firing can buy Kutuzov, grind a DD line or do what most players do anyway and drive their BBs behind Islands or as far away from the actual combat as possible to A1 or J10.

[mrk421]

Do not take this as me agreeing to the return of stealth fire. Now that that's out of the way...

56 minutes ago, daki said:

Thus, I would rather see some new mechanics which would promote closer range fighting than getting back the old ones which promote max range fighting...

... do you have any suggestions you'd like to put forward? I get the impression a lot of players are unhappy with the current meta and state of the game. Yet whenever someone comes forth with their suggestion of how it could be changed, they get shot down immediately with no mercy.

Looks as if people have actually accepted the status quo, or even that the situation is going to get worse over time, and they only keep voicing their concern because they want to be part of the crowd.

[Jethro_Grey]

1 minute ago, mrk421 said:

Do not take this as me agreeing to the return of stealth fire. Now that that's out of the way...

... do you have any suggestions you'd like to put forward? I get the impression a lot of players are unhappy with the current meta and state of the game. Yet whenever someones come forth with their suggestion of how it could be changed, they get shot down immediately with no mercy.

Looks as if people have actually accepted the status quo, or even that the situation is going to get worse over time, and they only keep voicing their concern because they want to be part of the crowd.

 

Most suggestions get shot down so quickly because they:

• favor one class at the expense of another
• are impractical
• are conflicting with WGs policy of catering the casual cash cows...window lickers...potatoes...gamers
• are heavily based on l2p issues
• are simply stupid
• are violating the cardinal rule of: "you do not extinguish a fire by pouring gasoline into it"
• a mix of all the above

Most issues we currently have are a direct result of players, i.e. BB overpopulation ( i suck in DDs and CAs, therefore i play BBs and then i'm gonna whine on the forums). 

[MacFergus]

1 hour ago, daki said:

 

A majority of players in ships capable of stealth fire tended to stay at max range in order to (ab)use the benefit of SF - i.e. passive play including very little spotting or capping for the team.

Only a few good players would play those ships in a predominantly aggressive manner, i.e. not relying heavily on SF during the match.

 

Thus, I would rather see some new mechanics which would promote closer range fighting than getting back the old ones which promote max range fighting...

Not sure that's true , there was many a time I would cap in a DD and hold off inc CAs and BBs while my team caught up , I also used to see CAs/CL actively hunting BBs , I actually think the game is more passive now than it has ever been.

49 minutes ago, Egoleter said:

Nope. The removal was a good thing.

 

While I was able to deal with and to abuse it myself, I certainly do not want it to come back.

• It advocates passive, long distance sniping, kind of gameplay.
• While we had it, it did not cause any more teamplay then what we have right now. That is wishfull thinking.
• Stealthfire did also not reduce the BB population. We had the same overpopulation problem back then.

 

So there is no good reason to bring it back in my humble opinion.

We certainly has an influx of BBs after the KM line was introduced but nothing like when SF was removed what we saw then was an exodus of players simply stopped playing DDs (torp nerf didn't help) and CAs and played BBs as nearly all the disadvantages of playing a BB were removed.

[mrk421]

13 minutes ago, Jethro_Grey said:

 

Most suggestions get shot down so quickly because they:

• favor one class at the expense of another
• are impractical
• are conflicting with WGs policy of catering the casual cash cows...window lickers...potatoes...gamers
• are heavily based on l2p issues
• are simply stupid
• are violating the cardinal rule of: "you do not extinguish a fire by pouring gasoline into it"
• a mix of all the above

Most issues we currently have are a direct result of players, i.e. BB overpopulation ( i suck in DDs and CAs, therefore i play BBs and then i'm gonna whine on the forums). 

That's quite a tight list you made there. In fact, I think that list excludes ANY potential solution, as they'd contradict with at least with one of those points. You could probably even drop one or two of those points and the situation would be the same. Hence -> Status quo

 

BTW, capping BB numbers per team goes against your point #3...

 

Edit: point #4 (l2p) is pure elitism, which is far too rampant on the forums IMO. And I find it quite sickening tbh.

[MacFergus]

On 10/4/2017 at 6:19 PM, Jethro_Grey said:

 

Most suggestions get shot down so quickly because they:

• favor one class at the expense of another
• are impractical
• are conflicting with WGs policy of catering the casual cash cows...window lickers...potatoes...gamers
• are heavily based on l2p issues
• are simply stupid
• are violating the cardinal rule of: "you do not extinguish a fire by pouring gasoline into it"
• a mix of all the above

Most issues we currently have are a direct result of players, i.e. BB overpopulation ( i suck in DDs and CAs, therefore i play BBs and then i'm gonna whine on the forums). 

 

*Edited the game is meant to be fun for everyone not just the self elitists this isn't just your game it belongs to everyone, personally I played CA and DDs when SF was about and it was fun nowadays I don't have the skill level to do that anymore and I'm a liability to my team so I play BBs I'm not proud to say so but I suspect a lot of other players did exactly the same thing.

 

Your so called funny comment about window lickers , cash cows , potatoes goes to prove *Edited how little understanding you have for the balance and health of the game.

[BeauNidl3]

I think it's extremely unlikely that your request will happen. That said I would like to see the gun bloom mechanics altered so that the duration of detection is tied to ship type and gun size. 20s for BB guns, OK with that, perhaps it's a bit low, but the same for firing a DD's popguns makes no sense and punishes the lighter ships, something like 20/15/12/10.

Oh and please don't use there when you mean their or they're it makes you otherwise good posts painful to read. Thanks.

[Egoleter]

34 minutes ago, MacFergus said:

We certainly has an influx of BBs after the KM line was introduced but nothing like when SF was removed what we saw then was an exodus of players simply stopped playing DDs (torp nerf didn't help) and CAs and played BBs as nearly all the disadvantages of playing a BB were removed.

 

We had an influx after the KM BBs. Indeed, that is correct. But before that we had about the same percentage of IJN and USN BBs filling their population then we do now. The number of nations changed. The number of ships did not. The heightened numbers shortly after release of a new line are absolutly normal, temporary, and happen for other ship types too. For the other lines they are just not as noticable, as they don't reinforce an already bad situation.

 

If you look at threads from those times when we still has stealthfire, you'll notice that the numbers of about 35 to 40 % BB population were the same back then.

 

We need other ideas then to bring back bad game mechanisms from old times.

[MacFergus]

2 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

I think it's extremely unlikely that your request will happen. That said I would like to see the gun bloom mechanics altered so that the duration of detection is tied to ship type and gun size. 20s for BB guns, OK with that, perhaps it's a bit low, but the same for firing a DD's popguns makes no sense and punishes the lighter ships, something like 20/15/12/10.

Oh and please don't use there when you mean their or they're it makes you otherwise good posts painful to read. Thanks.

 

My apologies sir I left school at 14 as Glasgow primary's were not renowned for there exemplary education

[daki]

1 minute ago, MacFergus said:

Not sure that's true , there was many a time I would cap in a DD and hold off inc CAs and BBs while my team caught up , I also used to see CAs/CL actively hunting BBs , I actually think the game is more passive now than it has ever been.

We certainly has an influx of BBs after the KM line was introduced but nothing like when SF was removed what we saw then was an exodus of players simply stopped playing DDs (torp nerf didn't help) and CAs and played BBs as nearly all the disadvantages of playing a BB were removed.

 

You should avoid assuming that most players did not abuse SF only because you did not do it. 

Having played quite regularly since beta, I am quite confident in the accuracy of my statement

The BB overpopulation existed well before the SF removal. 

 

16 minutes ago, mrk421 said:

Do not take this as me agreeing to the return of stealth fire. Now that that's out of the way...

... do you have any suggestions you'd like to put forward? I get the impression a lot of players are unhappy with the current meta and state of the game. Yet whenever someone comes forth with their suggestion of how it could be changed, they get shot down immediately with no mercy.

Looks as if people have actually accepted the status quo, or even that the situation is going to get worse over time, and they only keep voicing their concern because they want to be part of the crowd.

 

As I wrote several times in the past, the easiest solutions imho would be:

- Introduce non-linear increase in dispersion depending on range, i.e. to make BBs for example much less accurate than now at 18+km and more accurate at close ranges (e.g. 10km or less)

- Reduce the size of the team to say 9v9 while introducing a cap of say max 3 BBs which should avoid any queue issues thanks to larger number of matches created by MM.

Also, less "BB friendly" maps in the rotation would be welcome.

 

Speaking of status-quo, I for one always "accepted" it, if anything by still playing the game. Of course, I do not agree with some changes/mechanics/WG decisions, however the minute I find the status quo "unfun" or "unacceptable" I will just stop playing the game.

 

What people tend to forget is that the game evolution is neither linear nor solely dependent on the dev decisions. What I want to say is that we will always have a few steps forward and a few steps backward.

Objectively speaking, imho the mechanics & balance are much better now than during beta, so for me the improvement is clear despite some bad decisions by WG.   

If we could somehow have that beta population being the majority of playerbase now, I am quite confident that the matches would be much more fun and of greater quality than now. In other words, I am sure that the game would feel quite different if we had a different player population than it is the case now.

All in all, lets see where this title will sail 

[Jethro_Grey]

On 10/4/2017 at 6:31 PM, mrk421 said:

That's quite a tight list you made there. In fact, I think that list excludes ANY potential solution, as they'd contradict with at least with one of those points. You could probably even drop one or two of those points and the situation would be the same. Hence -> Status quo  

And that's where you are wrong. It does not exlude any potential solution, only those like "bring back SF" and similar proposed 'solutions' or ideas.

If you read the threads here carefully, you'll note that most of us are not interrested in keeping the status quo, we wanna break it as the current situation will be detrimental for the game in the long run. What a lot of us do not want though, is use WGs approach of balancing "apply sledge hammer here and see what happens...didn't work, than apply sledge hammer there...".

 

BTW, capping BB numbers per team goes against your point #3...

Yes, it does, but reading through my post, i can't seem to find where i stated exactly that. Maybe you can point me to that part?

 

Edit: point #4 (l2p) is pure elitism, which is far too rampant on the forums IMO. And I find it quite sickening tbh.

Elitism? Really? How is stating facts elitism? Most ideas that get thrown around and shot down here are exactly that: l2p issues by players who can't or simply won't adjust and / or learn and make threads about ideas which will only improve their gameplay or prefered class at the expense of another.

 

 

On 10/4/2017 at 6:44 PM, MacFergus said:

 

*Edited the game is meant to be fun for everyone not just the self elitists this isn't just your game it belongs to everyone, personally I played CA and DDs when SF was about and it was fun nowadays I don't have the skill level to do that anymore and I'm a liability to my team so I play BBs I'm not proud to say so but I suspect a lot of other players did exactly the same thing.

*Edited

So, you admit you do not have the skill level...newsflash: most players here didn't and some of them adjusted. You do not seem to want or simply can't, which is another way of saying: l2p issue. Since when and on which plane of existance is stating facts arrogant?

Yes, many players play their BBs for whatever reason, so do i occasionally. Personally, i don't care whether you play BBs or not as long you play as a team player.

 

The BB population is a complex topic and not part of this discussion, i merely used it as an example to point to the underlying issue itself.

 

Your so called funny comment about window lickers , cash cows , potatoes goes to prove *Edited how little understanding you have for the balance and health of the game. Lol. Seriously, just lol. It's actually the complete opposite, as i do quite well understand, that's why i'm strongly opposing the idea of stealth firing, but that's something you do not seem to understand.