Jump to content
Server Maintenance - January 18, 6:00 CET (5:00 UTC) Read more... ×
Server Maintenance - January 18, 6:00 CET (5:00 UTC) Read more... ×
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
clocky

Any plans for discouraging camping through gameplay/meta changes?

70 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[DSPA]
Beta Tester
256 posts

To be honest I'm rarely playing  BB or Cruisers at tier 8-9-10 because the style of play is pretty much involving camping behind islands and HE the crap of whoever managed to not do the same. To me this is extremely boring play and as such I go full DD  at those tiers. I rarely play my cruisers or BBs. (rip Missouri , Baltimore,  etc) 

Are there any plans in WG's agenda  on combating camping directly or indirectly ? Are you guys aware of this? Working on it? I'm really losing touch with this game because of that. There is reason games like PUBG have that death field because fighting against campers is not fun  @Tuccy

 

The current gameplay at high tiers is extremely campy for cruisers and BB. It if full of players that point their BB nose to the direction the fire is coming from and press "S"

 

A day in the life of a BB captain at high tier :

1. Game starts

2. Press W for 1  minute.

3. Press S until the game will end with small deviations of A and D.

 

A day in the life of a cruiser captain at high tier :

1. Game starts

2.  W to the nearest island.

3.Left mouse click until the end of the game.

 

 

Coming to the amusement of the situation this leads to extremely shitty gameplay where the one doing the first step is punished drastically meaning people are just going to play a passive and static game.  Aggressiveness rarely pays off.  So we are stuck behind islands or sailing backwards into oblivion and pisses me off. Looooong and boring to death gameplay.

 

In the end you are left with a feeling of "I really want this to end... " and i had enough times I simply exited the game because it turned into a slow and boring experience. Just like cutting your veins into a pool of warm water and waiting to die slowly. Jesus  can this gen even more boring? 

 

There are ton of things you can do to make the gameplay more dynamic.  But It is seems you are more concerned about the premium ships and how to milk your audience.

 

 

  • Cool 7
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,657 posts
9,070 battles
34 minutes ago, clocky said:

2. Press W for 1  minute.

Not with 20km dw torps they won't anymore :Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEGIO]
Players
585 posts
7,549 battles
41 minutes ago, clocky said:

To be honest I'm rarely playing  BB or Cruisers at tier 8-9-10 because the style of play is pretty much involving camping behind islands and HE the crap of whoever managed to not do the same. To me this is extremely boring play and as such I go full DD  at those tiers. I rarely play my cruisers or BBs. (rip Missouri , Baltimore,  etc) 

Are there any plans in WG's agenda  on combating camping directly or indirectly ? Are you guys aware of this? Working on it? I'm really losing touch with this game because of that. There is reason games like PUBG have that death field because fighting against campers is not fun  @Tuccy

 

The current gameplay at high tiers is extremely campy for cruisers and BB. It if full of players that point their BB nose to the direction the fire is coming from and press "S"

 

A day in the life of a BB captain at high tier :

1. Game starts

2. Press W for 1  minute.

3. Press S until the game will end with small deviations of A and D.

 

A day in the life of a cruiser captain at high tier :

1. Game starts

2.  W to the nearest island.

3.Left mouse click until the end of the game.

 

 

Coming to the amusement of the situation this leads to extremely shitty gameplay where the one doing the first step is punished drastically meaning people are just going to play a passive and static game.  Aggressiveness rarely pays off.  So we are stuck behind islands or sailing backwards into oblivion and pisses me off. Looooong and boring to death gameplay.

 

In the end you are left with a feeling of "I really want this to end... " and i had enough times I simply exited the game because it turned into a slow and boring experience. Just like cutting your veins into a pool of warm water and waiting to die slowly. Jesus  can this gen even more boring? 

 

There are ton of things you can do to make the gameplay more dynamic.  But It is seems you are more concerned about the premium ships and how to milk your audience.

 

 

I can´t agree more. So many damned campers. Pisses the hell out of me. Great skill in going backwards for a whole game PFFFT. Something must be done. :fish_viking::Smile_izmena:

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,409 posts
12,968 battles
33 minutes ago, darkstar73 said:

I can´t agree more. So many damned campers. Pisses the hell out of me. Great skill in going backwards for a whole game PFFFT. Something must be done. :fish_viking::Smile_izmena:

 That is why their game influence is so small. You can easily counter it with blapping any cruiser support the reversing idiot have, then rushing him down to get hes broadside and congratulate urself on the devastating strike reward. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,102 posts
2,442 battles

Don´t you recognize the efforts by WG to work against this camper-meta? Full anti BB-carrier layouts, deepwater torpedoes, changes to the smoke meta, new premium BBs with strange gun behaviour. If you ask WG, they will tell you, that they are working hard and every day, to make the game more enjoyable and rewarding, and that they released and changed tons of stuff to improve the situation.

After all, we cannot disagree. WG Implemented and changed a lot. They simply failed utterly from the perspective of the playerbase, of course, but hey, thats WG. It took them over 6 years to rework WoT, and the clickers still ruin the gaming experience, despite players telling them since 2010, what to do.

 

The solution to eliminate camping could be, at least from my point of view, so easy. It almost lays at hand, it´s obvious, but...yeah, it would not be profitable in terms of making money.

Simply rework the current rng/target system. Dispersion on targets is the same for all classes. You have a min-max value of dispersion, and rng decides for the rest. The more distance shells or torpedoes have to cross (excluding single fire torpedoes), the bigger the rng influence, the wider the spread and dispersion.

This mechanic ignores the status of the target (speed, moving at all, stopped, reversing). To RNG, a moving target at 15km range is the same as an immobile target at 15km range. The difference (and balance) is made by the players skill, his ability to aim and lead shots, to perform correct calculations.

And this is basically all the skill influence, the player gets. This is, in my opinion, a major source of frustration, a skill-limitation and supports camping maybe more than anything else.

The solution?

A speed depending dispersion mechanic, in combination with the introduction of real plunging fire. Just for easy understanding: any gun in the game, starting from low caliber secondary guns, up to the main batteries of the Yamato battleships, get a base dispersion of 0, and a max dispersion, depending on gun calibre or whatever appears to be fitting (a 1935 designed 38cm gun, supported by 1940 targeting systems might have less max dispersion than a 1916 design of 38cm gun, for example).

This means, the gun hits, where it is aimed at. With laserlike precision.

Now to the influence of speed: To make camping less attractive and movement more rewarding, two factors influence target accuracy. Speed of the target, and speed of the gunner.

All ships have a potential forward max speed, and a potential maximal angle for rudder shift. Those two factors would allow for a mechanic like this:

Regarding the actual speed compared to the max speed of the targets ship, increases the dispersion of guns, aimed on the target. We can call this a "defensive bonus", just for better understanding. A ship at its specific top speed will gain a maximum defensive bonus, which results in increased dispersion for all guns, aiming at the target.

A simple version could be: full speed = 100% maxspeed = 100% defensive bonus = 100% dispersion rng for a ship firing at the target = any shell fired at the target can have a dispersion between 0 and maximum (based on current rng mechanics regarding range etc.) = Maximum RNG, just as we know it.

 

This would reduce the attraction of being a stationary, camping target, since being active would provide a great bonus to survivability, while remaining stationary or moving very slowly would turn you in a very easy to hit shooting practice.

 

But this would not affect the stationary, unspotted camper, right? Now add an offensive bonus aswell. Ships moving and maneuvering receive a bonus to accuracy, depending on their speed. Yes, i know, this is somewhat unrealistic, but we have so many unrealistic aspects in this game for balancing reasons, why not add another one, which actually helps the situation?

 

This "offensive bonus" gives an accuracy bonus/dispersion reduction to gun batteries of 0,5% for any 1% of maximum speed. In other words: 50% dispersion reduction at full speed. This way, a moving target with 100% maxspeed will only have a 50% bonus to defense, yes, but this way, camping fire will be less rewarding than firing on the move.

 

Of course, this mechanic could be influenced by rudder shifting aswell, since 100% topspeed are impossible to achieve, while constantly maneuvering. So, the mechanic could be adjusted in a way, that speed in combination with actual rudder position summ up to a total defense/offense bonus. However, this should be speed depending, do prevent campers sitting stationary with rudders at full angle and gaining a bonus this way.

 

The result of this mechanic would be, that stationary ships receive a massive "debuff" in terms of survivability, while active, moving players receive massive bonuses to survivability and combat efficiency. The positive side effect will be, that skill becomes more valuable, while RNG still remains a compensating factor.

 

Last but not least, implement working plunging fire, and BBs will learn the hard way, that sitting stationary at max range can quickly end their existence.

 

But what about torpedoes? Well, torpedoes are less influenced by RNG. I suggest two approaches: reduce the maximum spread of a torpedo volley, or reduce the torpedo detection, depending on speed. A stationary target should receive a massive reduction of torpedo accquisition, like down to 5 or maybe 10%, targets at full action should have the regular detection range or could even receive a small bonus to detection range.

 

I think, this could be a good approach to deal with this very sad and stationary meta...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DSPA]
Beta Tester
256 posts

^Good points.

 

Here is my 2 cents on making the game more dynamic:

 

1)  Max 2 or 3 DDs per side. (I would vote for 1 DD per side  , they are too good to be too many and they promote bb and cruiser camp) Perhaps a nerf on torp damage?  Filling a map with  torpedoes is not fun (and Yes , I'm a dd captain). We want people to get out and fight not pissing their pants behind islands.

2. Hard nerf on the firing distances of all ships (BB's should remain superior but at least would drag them out of their holes fighting) .  

3) Removal of the retarded and unrealistic fire behind islands strategy or at least remove the invisifire  just because you are behind an island. Funny how radar can spot a cruiser behind an island but the logic does not apply when they guy is  2-3 km of you and invisifiring behing an it. Limited game engine? I would give the cruisers a armor buff to balance. 

4. HE Fire damage should GTFO. It's retarded.  Get something else in here or balance the hell out of it. It's broken as hell. It's meant to be a  balancing (?!) factor  for cruisers against BBs but in reality it is more OP than ever.  Or probably though to be a major selling point of  flags and premium consumables. IDK.

 

But what I do know is that I'm having less and less fun with this game as it  gets  more static each year. Make the game more dynamic WG!

  • Bad 3
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MASLO]
Beta Tester
663 posts
1,238 battles
21 minutes ago, clocky said:

^Good points.

 

Here is my 2 cents on making the game more dynamic:

 

1)  Max 2 or 3 DDs per side. (I would vote for 1 DD per side  , they are too good to be too many and they promote bb and cruiser camp) Perhaps a nerf on torp damage?  Filling a map with  torpedoes is not fun (and Yes , I'm a dd captain). We want people to get out and fight not pissing their pants behind islands.

2. Hard nerf on the firing distances of all ships (BB's should remain superior but at least would drag them out of their holes fighting) .  

3) Removal of the retarded and unrealistic fire behind islands strategy or at least remove the invisifire  just because you are behind an island. Funny how radar can spot a cruiser behind an island but the logic does not apply when they guy is  2-3 km of you and invisifiring behing an it. Limited game engine? I would give the cruisers a armor buff to balance. 

4. HE Fire damage should GTFO. It's retarded.  Get something else in here or balance the hell out of it. It's broken as hell. It's meant to be a  balancing (?!) factor  for cruisers against BBs but in reality it is more OP than ever.  Or probably though to be a major selling point of  flags and premium consumables. IDK.

 

But what I do know is that I'm having less and less fun with this game as it  gets  more static each year. Make the game more dynamic WG!

 

That has to be the most ridiculous thing ive seen.

 

1) Wouldnt fix a thing, would just make it worse. There is a reason why there are so many DDs, and its not because they are OP. Its because BBs are OP and CAs are trash (gameplay wise trash, and other than radar ones, everything else is trash tho). Would just help BBs, no one else.

2) That would also help BBs only. Especially paired with other points, like HE and fire nerf and inability to shoot behind islands.

3) Wouldnt change much, except again help BBs. Armor buff wouldnt help much.

4) HE Fire damage is not even close to OP, its probably barely useful enough to make non-BBs even able to do anything. Again, would help only BBs. Coupled with point 3, armor buff to CAs wouldnt mean a thing when they have no way of hurting BBs back without fires, and in more cases would just mean less overpens and more damage taken.

 

So all you want is to make BBs even stronger and have even easier time with everything? All your points combined would bring back the time just after the CA vs BB nerf when CAs had lower ranges and HE+fire were worse, and having 12vs12 BB games werent even remotely rare. 18-24 out of 24 were BBs quite often, like 5-6 out of 10 games. And CAs were pretty much unplayable.

All you are suggesting to change are the things WG changed in the game to make CAs at least capable of doing anything, after they ruined CA vs BB balance. Before those things CAs were nowhere to be found.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,657 posts
9,070 battles
48 minutes ago, clocky said:

^Good points.

 

Here is my 2 cents on making the game more dynamic:

 

1)  Max 2 or 3 DDs per side. (I would vote for 1 DD per side  , they are too good to be too many and they promote bb and cruiser camp) Perhaps a nerf on torp damage?  Filling a map with  torpedoes is not fun (and Yes , I'm a dd captain). We want people to get out and fight not pissing their pants behind islands.

2. Hard nerf on the firing distances of all ships (BB's should remain superior but at least would drag them out of their holes fighting) .  

3) Removal of the retarded and unrealistic fire behind islands strategy or at least remove the invisifire  just because you are behind an island. Funny how radar can spot a cruiser behind an island but the logic does not apply when they guy is  2-3 km of you and invisifiring behing an it. Limited game engine? I would give the cruisers a armor buff to balance. 

4. HE Fire damage should GTFO. It's retarded.  Get something else in here or balance the hell out of it. It's broken as hell. It's meant to be a  balancing (?!) factor  for cruisers against BBs but in reality it is more OP than ever.  Or probably though to be a major selling point of  flags and premium consumables. IDK.

 

But what I do know is that I'm having less and less fun with this game as it  gets  more static each year. Make the game more dynamic WG!

You have some things backwards

 

The only reason for the static campy meta is too many bloody battleships, which means

 

 

- a lot of players who don't want to play bb themselves, and don't want to play bb-food (aka cruisers) are going dd, hence the "overpopulation" of dd you referred to in 1

 

(which is still less dds than bbs)

 

 

- a lot of cruiser players that persist in this bb meta will take advantage of tactics such as island use, as you referred to in 3

 

- a lot of bbs see their max range, and sit at that range (referred to in 2). Often bow on or reasonably angled. That is why cruisers, even the ones with decent ap, spam HE (referred to in 4), and a lot of bbs too

 

---

 

No offense, but are you one of the players that says I'm a coward when I'm spamming HE from my nurnberg behind an island against 3 bismarcks and a north cal, and wants me to go "one on one in the open like a man"...?

 

I don't understand your proposal. You want cruisers to go fight in the open, shooting their useless AP on bbs, with a buff to their armor so besides the random citadel we can get less overpens as well??

 

 

Let's not...

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,233 posts
14,314 battles
50 minutes ago, clocky said:

 

1)  Max 2 or 3 DDs per side. (I would vote for 1 DD per side  , they are too good to be too many and they promote bb and cruiser camp) Perhaps a nerf on torp damage?  Filling a map with  torpedoes is not fun (and Yes , I'm a dd captain). We want people to get out and fight not pissing their pants behind islands.

Please explain how this equals too good.

 

Last two weeks.

Nicholas       Win Rate      Damage
                        48.49%          17,976

 

 

 

At higher tier people aren't hiding behind islands because of torpedoes, but because of artillery shells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,102 posts
2,442 battles
13 minutes ago, genai said:

 

That has to be the most ridiculous thing ive seen.

 

[stuff]

 

Spoken like a true anti-BB DD or cruiser fanboy. Whenever i read "BBs are OP", that person usually disqualifies for any further discussion. Now, don´t get me wrong, although you might have personal motivations, i don´t consider your intention wrong. We already got a balance problem between the classes, and at some point, the whole game suffers from a BB or DD overpopulation (though the BB-overpopulation appears to be the bigger issue).

 

Clocky comes up with some valid points, but they are only valid to a certain degree, and while any of those points might remove one or several annoying aspects from the game, it/they would just exchange the annoying aspects for other annoying aspects (like even more BBs, maybe).

None of them, and thats where i agree with you, would probably remove the camper meta.

 

However, adressing (once more) the camper meta, is what we are here for, and in my opinion, that step requires some drastical measures, not just a little tinkering around. Because thats what we have for almost two years by now. Tinkering around, introducing new gimmicks, hitting specifec classes or ships with the nerf-bat or buff-bat, but never adressing the real issue of the actual meta: the stupid, camping enforcing, rng-dominated mechanics.

 

As long as any patatoe can sit at 20km range, save from most smaller guns shells, protected by armor that allows for bounces when camping bow forward, and occasionally scoring the RNG-presented, ever annoying "lol-cita" for the feeling of personal satisfaction, nothing will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWTP]
Players
377 posts
6,408 battles

Reduce the BBs number to 2-3 max per battle. To minimise waiting time for BB drivers give them an option of 12vs12 games where they will be able to snipe each other from the A line without any torps, caps or whatever distractions.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,586 posts
7,303 battles
2 minutes ago, DariusJacek said:

Reduce the BBs number to 2-3 max per battle. To minimise waiting time for BB drivers give them an option of 12vs12 games where they will be able to snipe each other from the A line without any torps, caps or whatever distractions.

 

Reduce BB number by making them less easy to play and less rewarding.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,233 posts
14,314 battles
6 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

Reduce BB number by making them less easy to play and less rewarding.

Heresy

Just to note:  I like BBs, but I do wish there were more in each game, as a minimum of eight per side would be very nice... for me personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MASLO]
Beta Tester
663 posts
1,238 battles
1 hour ago, Vaderan said:

 

Spoken like a true anti-BB DD or cruiser fanboy. Whenever i read "BBs are OP", that person usually disqualifies for any further discussion. Now, don´t get me wrong, although you might have personal motivations, i don´t consider your intention wrong. We already got a balance problem between the classes, and at some point, the whole game suffers from a BB or DD overpopulation (though the BB-overpopulation appears to be the bigger issue).

 

Clocky comes up with some valid points, but they are only valid to a certain degree, and while any of those points might remove one or several annoying aspects from the game, it/they would just exchange the annoying aspects for other annoying aspects (like even more BBs, maybe).

None of them, and thats where i agree with you, would probably remove the camper meta.

 

However, adressing (once more) the camper meta, is what we are here for, and in my opinion, that step requires some drastical measures, not just a little tinkering around. Because thats what we have for almost two years by now. Tinkering around, introducing new gimmicks, hitting specifec classes or ships with the nerf-bat or buff-bat, but never adressing the real issue of the actual meta: the stupid, camping enforcing, rng-dominated mechanics.

 

As long as any patatoe can sit at 20km range, save from most smaller guns shells, protected by armor that allows for bounces when camping bow forward, and occasionally scoring the RNG-presented, ever annoying "lol-cita" for the feeling of personal satisfaction, nothing will change.

 

Cute, but wrong. And by wrong i mean your first paragraph. I am not a fanboy of anything, and i am not anti anything. BBs are OP and that is a fact. Most, if not all, issues are caused by that. Lots of BBs because they are OP and easy and lots of DDs, because what else can you play when BBs are OP?  If BBs werent OP, CAs would be much better to play and would keep DDs in check and whole thing would fix itself. But as it is, BBs are OP against CAs and are actually, in many cases, better against DDs than CAs are. Hell, i play DDs just cause there are the only fun thing left to play. So, when i see CAs, im not that worried. But BBs are a big issue. CA are more accurate, and when they shoot at you, you dodge and they miss, but BBs may still hit you anyway and take 25-50% of your HP. Hell, out of 10 deaths in my soviet DDs, at least 8-9 are to BBs AP pens.

 

So yes, BBs counter CAs way too hard and that forces them into bad play (camping and long range spam, as their only way of not dying instantly) and they are not countered hard enough by DDs to be discouraged by them. WASD hacks and half DDs are marginalized and then if they get spotted, who better to kill them than BBs(sadly) with AP?

 

Anyone who thinks they are not OP disqualifies for any further discussion, as that is OP by definition. And that has nothing to do with my "personal motivations". Dont assume crap you know nothing about. When CVs were OP, i was against them, when CVs were UP i was for them, because every class that is OP or UP ruins the game in some way. UP CAs  means more DDs, OP BBs mean less CAs etc. And in the end you have imbalanced game where "universal" class that should make bulk of the team is the least represented and gameplay turns to crap.

 

If DDs were OP, i would be saying against them, simple as that. I play them just cause BBs are OP, so... you either play BB or DD, and i prefer more active gameplay. But hey, whatever floats your boat... for me thats buoyancy. For you clearly some made up subjective crap.

 

 

And camper meta has quite simple roots and is caused by well known things and changes, so i have no idea why are people trying to solve the "mystery". All the "attempts" by WG to remedy the issue are just beating around the bush as they are trying to not man up for their mistakes. 0.3.1.4 patch, root of all bad that happened since. The day BB vs CA balance was demolished and made BBs OP(with some other ones, but that was the big one).

So yes, i agree with you about gimmicks and other crap to certain extent, as i have very often criticized stuff like radars and such things in the past saying that it wont fix anything, and in fact will most likely make it even worse, and it did.

Everything that has happened up till now and this current gameplay and meta for past 2 years has been predicted and is clear logical outcome of things WG did back then. Anyone who didnt see it coming is clearly lacking common sense and logical thinking.

I had same arguments about this back then(right after update), but i was called again CA lover etc. I said it will turn into camping, i said it would push CAs back so they wont be able to support BBs against planes and screen torps and DDs for capping and battling enemy DDs and contest caps and i said it will just spawn more DDs and torps and turn into BB vs DD gameplay with occasional CA long range HE spammer relying only on fires to do anything. But all the logic and common sense was lost because "you are CA lover, so you just want to ruin BBs"... well, here we go then.

 

edit: funnily enough, i was called BB lover when i said CVs were too weak back when AA was overbuffed. And then in the same breath they call me CA lover if i say BBs are OP when they are OP.

Point is: balanced classes = balanced gameplay = play what you enjoy = win win. So yea, dont want CAs or DDs OP either.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
205 posts
961 battles

What also needs to be addressed IMO, is that most BB players don't seem to realise that they are a very effective counter against other BBs. When I'm in the Roma for example, I can't wipe the grin from my face when I see 5 BBs on the enemy side, since due to the nature of Roma's guns, BBs are a much more reliable source of dmg.

 

Now, I'm not saying that I won't take a pot shot at a broadside cruiser or an OverconfidentTM DD, but with the high penetration values and bad dispersion a BB would be a much more tempting target. 

 

Should go without saying that sniping at eachother from orbit doesn't constitute "countering".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,233 posts
14,314 battles
50 minutes ago, Vaderan said:

 

... Whenever i read "BBs are OP", that person usually disqualifies for any further discussion...

Sub_Octavian
13th September 2016

"BB population increase is the real problem now... they live too long..."

 

 

BB are OP at survival in the current meta; and it is this area of being "OP' that draws a certain type of player to them.  The low risk individual that would flock to Shima if it had effective 20Km torpedoes that the could fire from the 3rd line.  WG is attempting to address this "OP-ness" with gimmicks like AP bombs and deep water torpedoes, will this work... I couldn't say.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,102 posts
2,442 battles

Sorry, Genai, i did not expect to demand too much of understanding. You took it personal, my fault. I should have stuck with rule number one: "Never argue with a person about WoWs, who claims BBs are OP."

 

@Turin7: indeed, BBs are a good BB counter (and they should be the primary counter for BBs, imho). The reason, why players appear to forget about that, is the fact, that BB players, just as all other simple minded players, work like this: what can i damage the most with lowest effort? The answer within this target-priority range is simple: cruisers are much easier to damage than BBs. If rng screws your shell-dispersion, you still can have that lol cita/devastating strike. On a BB, armor might be hit and shells bounce, which results in less damage done. The nice side effect is, that much damage on a cruiser usually results in its removal from the battlefield, which is nice aswell. Thats why i, besides my suggestion within this thread, preach for brutally increased accuracy on BB guns. Not this forgiving Yamato or Guilio Cesare accuracy, but really, really accurate guns. Like that of the Yubari. With a spread/dispersion that tight, it would become increasingly difficult for BBs, to shotgun cruisers or DDs at range, while BBs could be much easier hit at range. But non-understanding or just selfish players never see the advantage of a mechanic like this, because they always fear for the one accurate salvo that might hit them, be it luck or skill. Players like them demand for rng and low BB accuracy, because they hope for their personal advantage out of this, the avoidance of damage, based on a BBs ability to hit them. They simply fail to see, that exactly this (rng-based) meta causes those unpredictable "lol-citas", allows for area covering shotgun-fire at range and drives BBs away from brawls, where they cannot hit a barn from the inside reliably, but live in the fear and danger of eating torpedoes.

 

@Culiacan_Mexico i am aware of that citation. And if you read my previous postings carefully and without preoccupation, you will recognize that i basically don´t disagree. However, this citation should not suffer from misinterpretation. BBs don´t live "too long", because they are OP. They live too long, because all the camping players simply somehow manage to avoid to take damage, until most of their company (cruisers and DDs) are gone.

The BB as a single ship itsself, in the wrong position, goes down just as quickly as all other classes. However, if you are not in a torpedo armed vessel or controlling some torpedo or AP-bomber squadrons, it is for sure much more difficult to bring a BB down with shells. But, on the other hand, thats one of their design features. A single BB is not op. It is no problem either. I dare to claim, that 8 out of 10 players, if asked, which ship they would prefer to face in a one vs. one, would ask for a BB. Slow, predictable in movement, and usually easier to spott than most other ships. But masses of them are op. But that goes for anything. In the end, i think BBs are not better in surviving, than DDs. The difference between them is, that the DD might survive through stealth, while the BB survives through tankiness. But how would you like to adress that? Nothing that WG tried so far, worked out. AP-Bombs and DW-torpedoes won´t remove camping BBs aswell.

In alpha, we never had that proble, because BBs were capable of reliably going on each other. They were less maneuverable but hat way more accurate guns. It was fun to slugg it out that way. But the crybabies demanded nerfs, and with the nerfs came the tanking. A fact and a sad truth, but no truth the anti-BB movement wants to hear...

 

This thread has already take too much of my lifetime. All i wanted, was to propose and discuss a solution, but it just turned out into another "lets talk about (op) BBs" thingy, the exact same stuff that brought the game down to where it is now... no point to go on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,233 posts
14,314 battles
2 minutes ago, Vaderan said:

1. ...i think BBs are not better in surviving, than DDs...

2.  But the crybabies demanded nerfs, and with the nerfs came the tanking. A fact and a sad truth, but no truth the anti-BB movement wants to hear...

1. I believe server statistic in all regions show otherwise.

2. I am not sure if I am one of the crybabies you are referring to, but... I love BBs.  The more per game is better for me; and I believe I speak for many DD mains who say the perfect game is 23 BB and one DD.  From a personal stand point, but I don't believe that is a healthy position for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
1,143 posts
16,353 battles
11 minutes ago, Vaderan said:

Thats why i, besides my suggestion within this thread, preach for brutally increased accuracy on BB guns. Not this forgiving Yamato or Guilio Cesare accuracy, but really, really accurate guns. Like that of the Yubari. With a spread/dispersion that tight, it would become increasingly difficult for BBs, to shotgun cruisers or DDs at range, while BBs could be much easier hit at range.

 

Are you serious? Are you really saying that If BBs were more precise then now than it would be very difficult for them to hit Cruisers and DDs? What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
205 posts
961 battles
4 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

Are you serious? Are you really saying that If BBs were more precise then now than it would be very difficult for them to hit Cruisers and DDs? What?

Honestly, @Vaderan 's suggestion, though unorthodox, is interesting. Think about it, a tighter shot spread would theoretically make it easier to hit targets, but it would also be much more vulnerable to evasive action from the target.

 

Not saying that's the solution, but if implemented correctly it could work, reducing the influence RNG has on BB ballistics as a whole. Maybe if coupled with a manoeuvrability buff to CA/DD's?

 

I know we're throwing realism out of the window, but the game is already arcade-y as it is.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
1,143 posts
16,353 battles
18 minutes ago, Turin7 said:

Honestly, @Vaderan 's suggestion, though unorthodox, is interesting. Think about it, a tighter shot spread would theoretically make it easier to hit targets, but it would also be much more vulnerable to evasive action from the target.

 

Not saying that's the solution, but if implemented correctly it could work, reducing the influence RNG has on BB ballistics as a whole. Maybe if coupled with a manoeuvrability buff to CA/DD's?

 

I know we're throwing realism out of the window, but the game is already arcade-y as it is.

 

You know that WG tried that on GC, bad sigma but quite small dispersion aka quite precise guns, right? You know how that ended?

 

Bad dispersion and accuracy are one of the BB balancing features. When you target enemy ship in your BB you are not shooting somewhere in his general direction without aiming and hope that one or more shells will hit something, no you are targeting him with intention to hit. Yes you are quite depend on RNG but imagine if you don't. Avoiding cruiser shells is not easy, imagine problems you'll have to evade BB shells if they are quite accurate. Do you really believe that will make BB harder to hit cruisers or dds? Now that you can land five to six shells on cruisers instead one or two that will somehow make cruiser life better! What the ...

 

So what would you then give cruisers and dds for balance? You can't unreasonably buff one class while others stays the same? In that case WG can I have Kildin class with Nuclear Anti-Ship Missiles. I mean why not game is already arcade-y as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,284 posts
7,514 battles
27 minutes ago, Turin7 said:

Honestly, @Vaderan 's suggestion, though unorthodox, is interesting. Think about it, a tighter shot spread would theoretically make it easier to hit targets, but it would also be much more vulnerable to evasive action from the target.

 

Not saying that's the solution, but if implemented correctly it could work, reducing the influence RNG has on BB ballistics as a whole. Maybe if coupled with a manoeuvrability buff to CA/DD's?

 

I know we're throwing realism out of the window, but the game is already arcade-y as it is.

The problem is this would only help against those rare lucky citas some players get through dispersion even though they aimed badly. True it is happening quiet a lot but is it worth it to give players that actualy know how to aim even more broken BBs? If they would do this they would have to nerf damage and shell flighttime for BBs and buff agility of the other classes a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
205 posts
961 battles
14 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

You know that WG tried that on GC, bad sigma but quite small dispersion aka quite precise guns, right? You know how that ended?

 

Bad dispersion and accuracy are one of the BB balancing features. When you target enemy ship in your BB you are not shooting somewhere in his general direction without aiming and hope that one or more shells will hit something, no you are targeting him with intention to hit. Yes you are quite depend on RNG but imagine if you don't. Avoiding cruiser shells is not easy, imagine problems you'll have to evade BB shells if they are quite accurate. Do you really believe that will make BB harder to hit cruisers or dds? Now that you can land five to six shells on cruisers instead one or two that will somehow make cruiser life better! What the ...

 

So what would you then give cruisers and dds for balance? You can't unreasonably buff one class while others stays the same? In that case WG can I have Kildin class with Nuclear Anti-Ship Missiles. I mean why not game is already arcade-y as it is.

I specifically stated that if you decide to buff BB accuracy, it should be coupled with a buff to DDs/CAs, didn't I? So were do the nukes come from?

 

Yes, you wont be able to evade salvo's from 10-12km but guess what? You can't do that now either. However tighter spreads would be much easier to avoid at longer ranges, cause your WASD hacks would actually mean something. They could also throw in a nerf to BB shell velocity and we might be going somewhere.

 

Edit: Seems we were thinking the same thing @Miessa3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,894 posts
13,807 battles
On 16.2.2018 at 10:26 AM, clocky said:

A day in the life of a BB captain at high tier :

...

A day in the life of a cruiser captain at high tier :

 

Not my experiece of T10 battles...

Probably due to the fact, that I experience T10 battles from the "T8 DD/Cruiser/BB" standpoint, meaning my battles either are

 

  1. very short due to getting rekt
  2. very much filled with action due to trying to dodge shells to not get rekt
  3. sneaking around trying to find something to get rekt

The fun part of T10 battles as a T8 is ending up in the #1 to #3 spots right in front of all those T10 ships in the result screen. :cap_haloween:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
665 posts
5,454 battles
On 2/16/2018 at 11:58 AM, Vaderan said:

Don´t you recognize the efforts by WG to work against this camper-meta? Full anti BB-carrier layouts, deepwater torpedoes, changes to the smoke meta, new premium BBs with strange gun behaviour. If you ask WG, they will tell you, that they are working hard and every day, to make the game more enjoyable and rewarding, and that they released and changed tons of stuff to improve the situation.

After all, we cannot disagree. WG Implemented and changed a lot. They simply failed utterly from the perspective of the playerbase, of course, but hey, thats WG. It took them over 6 years to rework WoT, and the clickers still ruin the gaming experience, despite players telling them since 2010, what to do.

 

The solution to eliminate camping could be, at least from my point of view, so easy. It almost lays at hand, it´s obvious, but...yeah, it would not be profitable in terms of making money.

Simply rework the current rng/target system. Dispersion on targets is the same for all classes. You have a min-max value of dispersion, and rng decides for the rest. The more distance shells or torpedoes have to cross (excluding single fire torpedoes), the bigger the rng influence, the wider the spread and dispersion.

This mechanic ignores the status of the target (speed, moving at all, stopped, reversing). To RNG, a moving target at 15km range is the same as an immobile target at 15km range. The difference (and balance) is made by the players skill, his ability to aim and lead shots, to perform correct calculations.

And this is basically all the skill influence, the player gets. This is, in my opinion, a major source of frustration, a skill-limitation and supports camping maybe more than anything else.

The solution?

A speed depending dispersion mechanic, in combination with the introduction of real plunging fire. Just for easy understanding: any gun in the game, starting from low caliber secondary guns, up to the main batteries of the Yamato battleships, get a base dispersion of 0, and a max dispersion, depending on gun calibre or whatever appears to be fitting (a 1935 designed 38cm gun, supported by 1940 targeting systems might have less max dispersion than a 1916 design of 38cm gun, for example).

This means, the gun hits, where it is aimed at. With laserlike precision.

Now to the influence of speed: To make camping less attractive and movement more rewarding, two factors influence target accuracy. Speed of the target, and speed of the gunner.

All ships have a potential forward max speed, and a potential maximal angle for rudder shift. Those two factors would allow for a mechanic like this:

Regarding the actual speed compared to the max speed of the targets ship, increases the dispersion of guns, aimed on the target. We can call this a "defensive bonus", just for better understanding. A ship at its specific top speed will gain a maximum defensive bonus, which results in increased dispersion for all guns, aiming at the target.

A simple version could be: full speed = 100% maxspeed = 100% defensive bonus = 100% dispersion rng for a ship firing at the target = any shell fired at the target can have a dispersion between 0 and maximum (based on current rng mechanics regarding range etc.) = Maximum RNG, just as we know it.

 

This would reduce the attraction of being a stationary, camping target, since being active would provide a great bonus to survivability, while remaining stationary or moving very slowly would turn you in a very easy to hit shooting practice.

 

But this would not affect the stationary, unspotted camper, right? Now add an offensive bonus aswell. Ships moving and maneuvering receive a bonus to accuracy, depending on their speed. Yes, i know, this is somewhat unrealistic, but we have so many unrealistic aspects in this game for balancing reasons, why not add another one, which actually helps the situation?

 

This "offensive bonus" gives an accuracy bonus/dispersion reduction to gun batteries of 0,5% for any 1% of maximum speed. In other words: 50% dispersion reduction at full speed. This way, a moving target with 100% maxspeed will only have a 50% bonus to defense, yes, but this way, camping fire will be less rewarding than firing on the move.

 

Of course, this mechanic could be influenced by rudder shifting aswell, since 100% topspeed are impossible to achieve, while constantly maneuvering. So, the mechanic could be adjusted in a way, that speed in combination with actual rudder position summ up to a total defense/offense bonus. However, this should be speed depending, do prevent campers sitting stationary with rudders at full angle and gaining a bonus this way.

 

The result of this mechanic would be, that stationary ships receive a massive "debuff" in terms of survivability, while active, moving players receive massive bonuses to survivability and combat efficiency. The positive side effect will be, that skill becomes more valuable, while RNG still remains a compensating factor.

 

Last but not least, implement working plunging fire, and BBs will learn the hard way, that sitting stationary at max range can quickly end their existence.

 

But what about torpedoes? Well, torpedoes are less influenced by RNG. I suggest two approaches: reduce the maximum spread of a torpedo volley, or reduce the torpedo detection, depending on speed. A stationary target should receive a massive reduction of torpedo accquisition, like down to 5 or maybe 10%, targets at full action should have the regular detection range or could even receive a small bonus to detection range.

 

I think, this could be a good approach to deal with this very sad and stationary meta...

 

They should not have let it come to this in the first place!

 

There was plenty of people warning about this even before the release on the German BBs. Back when WG first started with their idiotic nerfing spree. It didn't take a damn genius to figure out that if they keep nerfing everything that is a threat to BBs, that BBs would eventually end up dominating the game.

 

Now that the whole house is on fire, WG is giving us squirt guns hoping to put it out. Well, gimmicks are not going to be nearly enough to put this fire out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×