Jump to content
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

Players
1,010 posts
6,188 battles

With less battleships, cruisers could move from islands without the permanent fear of the BB crossfire.

The only thing needed to discourage this camping meta is reducing the number of BB per game.

How to do this, I don't know. WG is aware of this problem (see above), and they still didn't modify the MM algorithm, because of queue times. We will see in several months if DW toprs, AP bombs and other additions can lead the meta in the right direction. But I still do think that cruisers need love. asap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester, Players
365 posts
On 16/02/2018 at 10:01 AM, PzychoPanzer said:

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

Yes, I am hoping they don't nerf this ship, as it seems a sure way to counter the whole spawn camping meta.  The whole radar situation isn't helping either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BS4]
Players
1,130 posts
6,314 battles

At some point in this game Devs went island mad, placing them everywhere. :fish_nerv:Now you cant get a torp to hit because usually there's and island in the way....you've just spotted a target swung guns round and ....no wait too late ..there's an island in the way etc. Remove half of the Islands on these maps (way too many IMO anyway) = less islands for idiots to hide behind = hopefully better and more engaging game play.

 

But who am I kidding they will probably just move to the edge of the maps and border hug all day long Instead.:Smile_sceptic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[D_R_M]
Players
905 posts
17,341 battles
On 16.2.2018 at 2:40 PM, genai said:

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.

But how will you make CA stronger compared to BB, without making it to easy for CAs to firespam BBs to death?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
2,427 posts
11,034 battles
2 hours ago, steviln said:

But how will you make CA stronger compared to BB, without making it to easy for CAs to firespam BBs to death?

Some type of spotting mechanic based on cumulative actions: the more you fire, the easier it becomes to spot you and the longer the duration of the location ID becomes. You really want Cruisers to have to time their fire well, rather than be able to spam, and flat mechanics aren't good at preventing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KVOR]
Alpha Tester
1,102 posts
2,632 battles
On 16.2.2018 at 4:14 PM, 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?

I am totally serious. Because i thought about this idea over an over again.

 

First, long story short: simply take a look at the statistics of the tier 4 IJN cruiser Yubari. It has basically laserlike accuracy, exactly what i am demanding for BBs. You will quickly find out, that the Yubari, despite it´s accuracy, does not overperform with its guns, despite being accurate, having fast reloading guns and being a short ranged cruiser. Now make it a 30 second BB reload, double the range and add BB turret traverse speed aswell. At range, almost all BB-patatoes will fail miserably in "sniping" fast moving targets, like cruisers or even BBs, not to mention DDs. However, they will hit camping/stationary BBs with ease. This alone will shift the anti-cruiser-BB-behaviour towards BB-vs.-BB again. In addition, just as Turin7 pointed out, it will become much easier to dodge BB salvos at range. If we don´t test this method, we will never find out. It can be reverted with any patch any time again. Fact is: everything else, WG tried for the last 12 or 24 months, didn´t help the situation anyways.

 

Just to provide some backround, why i support the accuracy idea:

 

You see, it´s always aswell a question from where you are coming from when you suggest a change, because your suggestion is based on the overall of your experience. I play this game since the days of closed Alpha test. Some in here are playing this game since the closed beta, some since open beta, maybe the majority since official release. Its an undeniable fact, that the longer you stuck with the game, the more different builds/metas you have experienced. I was told, that alpha test had a meta, where BBs even had properly working secondary guns. Not sure, what that means, but it must have been quite devastating to lighter vessels, so they changed it.

However, when i once joined the closed alpha, the game wasn´t nearly as elaborate as these days, but the meta was different. BBs were clumsy, but precise. DDs were agile and stealthy, torpedoes deadly. Cruisers were the perfect allrounders, and carriers a thread to everyone, even worse than today. Besides all that, the game never was as campy and static, as we know it today. For several reasons: BBs could hit stuff at long range reliably, especially other BBs. BBs were a real counter to their class. Not what we have today. In addition, BBs were way more sluggish. If you decided to stop, it took forever to get moving again. And they were by far more slowly to maneuver, so dogging torpedoes was a pain, which made IJN DDs extremly powerfull.

Each class had elaborate strenghts and weaknesses, but those made maneuvering a must. Of course, since besides the cruisers, no class was a jack of all trades, people complained. WG reacted. The first step was another huge nerfbat to BBs. Accuracy went down horribly, even worse than today. Therefor they received some maneuverability. This was one of the last major changes in alpha test. With the inability to hit reliably on any range, BBs removed themselves more and more from brawling. With them retreating from the frontlines, cruisers and DDs had to fill the gaps.

 

When beta players flocked in, they found an enviroment with powerfull DDs, well balanced cruisers, strong CVs and the freshly nerfed BBs. Since they were new to the game, they took BB maneuverability and bad accuracy as a given.

Since BBs have a major attraction ever since to (new) players, it did not take long, until the majority of new beta players in their iconic BBs met alpha veterans or fresh but dedicated DD and CV players. Due to the latest changes to the BBs, which the fresh beta players were not aware of, those beta-BB-fans suffered horribly by CV and DD attacks. The forums were full of threads about complains regarding DDs, CVs, how OP they were and how devastating torpedoes and their wall of skills were (and compared to today, they were even more powerfull!).

It took a while, but WG eventually listended and implemented plenty of changes and gimmicks. Those changes and gimmicks basically were nerfs to DDs, CVs, torpedoes and the addition of stuff like hydroaccustic search.

Those changes went on till well after the release, and still continue. Meanwhile, WG appears to have completly lost track of what they are doing. Gimmicks fail, changes failed, the meta is more screwed than ever.

 

Thats what i am talking about, when refering to the origins. A Beta or release player usually can only see, what happened to the game since he/she joined in.

Depending on that, he/she might only be aware of specific nerfs or buffs to specific classes or mechanics since then. So, on his point of view, everything must have been fine or better before the changes. To make it worse, you will always find players who got used to strenghts and weaknesses of specific classes or ships, and rely on them to experience, what they consider fun and success. Those players will always try to prevent changes to the game and hinder any developement, that might have an impact on their personal playstyle. Something, that will always have a negative influence on the developement of this game, or games in general.

 

Thats why i pledge after all for high BB accuracy. I like all classes similar (although i have no clue of CVs). I have experienced many different builds, and from all i were priviledged to experience, was the alpha meta the best. It was not perfect by any means, but it had a certain balance, that enforced and supported teamplay, valued player skills and never was even close to that camper meta we have today.

I know a bunch of veterans from alpha/beta, who left for good long ago. Every single one of them would return immediatly, would we get back a meta like we had it in alpha.

So, if we just hypothetically go back to alpha, where things were more or less okay, but BBs appeared to be "too powerfull" with their guns (which must have been the case, otherwise the accuracy nerf made no sense at all), we have to take that BB-accuracy-nerf as the big point that changed it all, that set the stage for the camper developement for today. Since the nerf did make everything since then worse, the logical consequence must be: revert everything back to before (especially that nerf), or take a new approach, and make BBs more accurate. The nerf did not work, since it broke the game. Maybe the buff will achieve, what must have been the intentional goal, whatever it might have been.

However, such a change would basically end up in a complete overhaul of the game, which is pretty unlikely to happen. So maybe, just maybe, Yubari accuracy on BBs it all it takes to kill the camper meta.

If BBs are barely capable of hitting anything at range, besides stationary targets maybe, unless you are a super unicum in terms of aiming and you find yourself an unaware target, BBs will loose most of their damage potential and thread at range, but will become more respected in a brawl.

 

In the end, it could be reduced to the question, what do you prefer: camping BBs with shotgun-rng-accuracy, which are afraid of closing in but can shotgun anything with lucky hits across the map, which can make even the biggest patatoe annoying and a thread, or BBs with laserlike accuracy, which immediatly turns BB in a completly skill based class, challanging, if not even hard to play at range, but potentially dangerous at mid to close range, if the player knows how to position his ship. And, lets not forget: the more skill demanding a class, the less popular. BBs are the patatoes choice because they are forgiving and provide moderate success, thanks to RNG lol-citas. Remove that success and make them completly unfogiving to precise BB-counterfire, and the overpopulation will correct itsself, removing the players to more fogiving classes, which, in this case, might become the cruisers once more.

I personally would prefer the later. First, it would BBs generally make more predictable for me. I could take its movement and turret position into considerations and plan my approach. I would know, that dodging could be of use but yolo runs also could be of risk. And on the other hand, when playing a BB, i would knew, that if i plan carefully and move smart, it would be my skills (or the lack of them) that make the difference between complete missed salvos or success.

Of course, this would only work, if implemented properly and with all consequence. Just slightly adjusting accuracy, or even worse, turning all BBs in Giulio Cesares, would definitly break the game completly.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
1,941 posts
21,478 battles
21 hours ago, Vaderan said:

I am totally serious. Because i thought about this idea over an over again.

 

First, long story short: simply take a look at the statistics of the tier 4 IJN cruiser Yubari. It has basically laserlike accuracy, exactly what i am demanding for BBs. You will quickly find out, that the Yubari, despite it´s accuracy, does not overperform with its guns, despite being accurate, having fast reloading guns and being a short ranged cruiser. Now make it a 30 second BB reload, double the range and add BB turret traverse speed aswell. At range, almost all BB-patatoes will fail miserably in "sniping" fast moving targets, like cruisers or even BBs, not to mention DDs. However, they will hit camping/stationary BBs with ease. This alone will shift the anti-cruiser-BB-behaviour towards BB-vs.-BB again. In addition, just as Turin7 pointed out, it will become much easier to dodge BB salvos at range. If we don´t test this method, we will never find out. It can be reverted with any patch any time again. Fact is: everything else, WG tried for the last 12 or 24 months, didn´t help the situation anyways.

 

While Yubary guns are quite precise and relatively fast shooting it only have four of them in two double turrets. Yubary is a very squishy cruiser which all central section of the ship, from deck to waterline is a one giant citadel. Bringing all four guns usually means showing a lot of broadside a quick death. And it's a T4 cruiser. That's why it stats are not great. Sorry but I don't see any way to compare BBs with Yubary. Taking just gun performance into account while totally ignoring all other differences like numbers of guns or survivability. Imagine 16 guns Lyon with Yubary precision. I don't see how any cruiser or dd captain would like that. Even other BBs would rather try to stay outside its range which would just mean more sniping.   

 

Also we kind off have a precise bb in the first iteration of GC. It had cruiser-like dispersion and bad sigma which didn't do impact it much. It deleted cruisers left and right no matter which distance and was quite good against BBs and DDs like. Why would you need BB that is precise on range. Again sorry I don't see how more precise BBs will discourage the sniping and make game more balanced. Cruisers are trying to stay as far from BBs as possible simple because you have more chance to survive. If you get closer there is more chance to be deleted by BBs. More precise BBs will just increase this chance on long range and basically lead to one shoot dead and middle and close range. What you are proposing is increasing BB damage output which is already great while on the other hand other class only gets as compensation getting only better maneuverability. For DDs this will mean even harder time hitting cruisers which are now not easy to hit but if they become more maneuverable this will become very very hard. So wil you them decrease torpedo detection range? But that will mean more problems for BBs as now they will have harder time avoiding torps, exactly the reason why CCs don't like new Asashio torps.

 

IMHO BBs are already to strong, Giving even more advantage will just make more people abandoning other class and creating the World of Battleships. Peoples complaining that don't like BBs that shooting from behind afraid to get closer and help team. Do you really believe that making BBs more accurate at range will make them stop sniping? What they will suddenly stop being afraid of DD torps of being burned by cruisers from behind islands. Instead they will now just try to stay even further because of fear of more precise BBs on the other side. If you proposed that BBs dispersion is exponentially growing with distance as your argument that I would understand, that will force you to get closer for better results. But this straight buff to BBs ... I'm personally against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,939 posts
17,689 battles

A simple solution eh @clocky? Hmm, a 7 point plan perhaps then?

 

1) Re-design all Maps so that island cover is always available and only to be found near the center of the map thus negating some on the range-advantage of high tier big gun ships and making sure campers have no cover.

2) Remove Concealment System Modification 1  from the game all together and re-do the CE skill so that the smaller ships have the advantage (as they should have) thus making the "Stealth BB" concept as impossible, as it really should be. For example: DD =-10%, CL = -9%, CA = -8%, CV -7% and BB = 6%.

3) Re-do the ship base Concealment Values so that each ship class will be clearly within their own base concealment range, when compared to others (DD = 5-7km, CL & DD Leaders = 7-9. CA&CV = 10-12km, BB > 13km+).

4) Adjust the Gun "Bloom" effect so that it is either 20sec OR equal to the MINIMUM of the re-load time of each ship's main guns, whichever is longer.

5) Rework Rewards system to also reward movement during the game, based on kilometers driven during each match. Perhaps this can be relative to potential max travel distance possible for the particular ship so that slower ships will not be unfairly penalized.

6) Rework Detonation and Dispersion mechanics so moving ships are progressively harder to hit (normal dispersion), but slowly moving or stationary ships will become easier to hit (relative, proportionately reduced dispersion - so 3/4 speed = -5% dispersion, 1/2 speed =  -10%, 1/4 speed = -15% and stationary = -20% dispersion) and give stationary ships increased detonation chance (so instead of 2%, it could be 4%, for example).

7) Change the Armor Penetration and Citadelling mechanics from the "Tanks"-model to "Ships"-model so the the Citadels would be easier to get from ´where the ship armor is actually thinnest (bow and stern) and harder to accomplish from where it is thickest (from the side), this would allow BB's to employ full broadsides more often while staying mobile behind the immediate front lines and by that virtue encourage more mobile gameplay = No more bow-camping. AND while we are it, it might also be a good idea to give the Spotter Plane a -10% dispersion bonus for distances over 15km only, just to make sure that camping snipers can be counter-sniped that much more effectively.:cap_haloween:

 

PROBLEM SOLVED! :Smile_Default:

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MASLO]
Beta Tester
663 posts
1,238 battles
On 2/18/2018 at 9:38 AM, steviln said:

But how will you make CA stronger compared to BB, without making it to easy for CAs to firespam BBs to death?

 

Well, it worked before, no reason why it wouldnt work now.

You see, this current state of CAs was a band-aid after they nerfed CAs against BBs. Before that CAs had both lower ranges and their HE was weaker. Zao for example used AP 90% of time. You fought at 8-12km ranges and used just AP. Most games went by without ever shooting a single HE shell.

Once they nerfed CAs, they died out and almost completely vanished from the game, and then they increased their range and made them all HE spammers, so they can dodge to stay alive and do something at those ranges.

 

It was WG way of making CAs "useful" after they made them unable to survive and battle at lower ranges. You can imagine how that resulted in more campy gameplay and DD infestation that followed after BB numbers went through the roof.

 

So yeah, let them fight closer again by reverting that nerf in 0.3.1.4 update, lower their ranges and make their HE weaker. By extension, should also remove another crappy "feature", radar, and profit from more balanced and teamplay oriented gameplay, where CAs sit in the "middle" of the team, behind DDs, able to screen torps, support DDs and contest caps and all in all discourage blob gameplay (well, that is already extremely bad way of playing, but for some reason people think its good... but with CA vs BB balance reverted, they will need to spread or they would be very ineffective shooting everyone at the bow and bouncing). More balanced MM, easier to find games, more players, more fun.

Win-win-win-win-win-...-win situation. Well, except maybe for BBabies. But back then BBs were still the best performers, so good ones wouldnt suffer at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
100 posts
On 2/16/2018 at 2:22 PM, PzychoPanzer said:

against 3 bismarcks and a north cal, and wants me to go "one on one in the open like a man"...?

Dude, its a Nürnberg. It's not going to blow up because a BB or three are in firing range...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,298 posts
7,605 battles

I propose to introduce the same mechanics as in the Bomberman games, when there are a few minutes left the map should shrink to a fraction in the center, anyone caught in the borders in the process of the shrinking would be automatically sunk.

atomic_bomberman___super_bomberman_3_rem

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,939 posts
17,689 battles
On 2/16/2018 at 1:22 PM, PzychoPanzer said:

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"...?

Aww @PzychoPanzer, don't be like that Nurnberg can totally take them all...:Smile-_tongue: It's just getting undetected to that 6km torp range that is the tricky bit. :Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KVOR]
Alpha Tester
1,102 posts
2,632 battles
1 hour ago, fumtu said:

 

While Yubary guns are quite precise and relatively fast shooting it only have four of them in two double turrets. Yubary is a very squishy cruiser which all central section of the ship, from deck to waterline is a one giant citadel. Bringing all four guns usually means showing a lot of broadside a quick death. And it's a T4 cruiser. That's why it stats are not great. Sorry but I don't see any way to compare BBs with Yubary. Taking just gun performance into account while totally ignoring all other differences like numbers of guns or survivability. Imagine 16 guns Lyon with Yubary precision. I don't see how any cruiser or dd captain would like that. Even other BBs would rather try to stay outside its range which would just mean more sniping.   

 

Also we kind off have a precise bb in the first iteration of GC. It had cruiser-like dispersion and bad sigma which didn't do impact it much. It deleted cruisers left and right no matter which distance and was quite good against BBs and DDs like. Why would you need BB that is precise on range. Again sorry I don't see how more precise BBs will discourage the sniping and make game more balanced. Cruisers are trying to stay as far from BBs as possible simple because you have more chance to survive. If you get closer there is more chance to be deleted by BBs. More precise BBs will just increase this chance on long range and basically lead to one shoot dead and middle and close range. What you are proposing is increasing BB damage output which is already great while on the other hand other class only gets as compensation getting only better maneuverability. For DDs this will mean even harder time hitting cruisers which are now not easy to hit but if they become more maneuverable this will become very very hard. So wil you them decrease torpedo detection range? But that will mean more problems for BBs as now they will have harder time avoiding torps, exactly the reason why CCs don't like new Asashio torps.

 

IMHO BBs are already to strong, Giving even more advantage will just make more people abandoning other class and creating the World of Battleships. Peoples complaining that don't like BBs that shooting from behind afraid to get closer and help team. Do you really believe that making BBs more accurate at range will make them stop sniping? What they will suddenly stop being afraid of DD torps of being burned by cruisers from behind islands. Instead they will now just try to stay even further because of fear of more precise BBs on the other side. If you proposed that BBs dispersion is exponentially growing with distance as your argument that I would understand, that will force you to get closer for better results. But this straight buff to BBs ... I'm personally against it.

 

1.) I own the Yubari since preorder. I consider myself a very skilled player when it comes to aiming/leading my shots. I still struggle massively to score consecutive hits, even at (Yubari) medium range, which is around 6-8km range. Yubari shellgrouping is that tight, that it leaves no space for miscalculations. You hit, or you miss. As a result, even the slightest change of direction by the target results in a successfull dodge of the shells. Applied to BBs, this mechanic would require a drastical change to how they play and require to be played. Because you alredy pointed out: Yubari has fast firing guns, so you have at least a chance to get your aiming within a few salvos. This will not work with 30 seconds reload. Now add the turret traverse and size of a BB, and it will cost BBs a lot of defense capability in close combat. BB shots at close range will be "all or nothing" business. Now add overpens and bounces, aswell as the maneuverability of ships that are especially nimble and dangerous at close range, and in the end, nothing will have change, except for one thing. These days, close combat from the perspective of the BB and its attacker are decided by RNG. The BB simply needs to point into the targets direction and RNG decides, wether the shells are misses or result in a devastating strike/detonation. Neither the aiming skills of the BB, nor the dodging skills of the target are of considerable weight.

With Yubari gun accuracy, the BB now can take aim. It basically gets on shot. All or nothing. The attacker will/can/should be aware of this and has a predictable risk he can work with. Dodging skills become valuable. Aiming skills become valuable. Stupid/ignorant behaviour like broadside-tanking can be punished.

When refering to Yubari accuracy for BBs, only one factor really matters: hit ratio. Does the Yubari, with its fast firing guns, have a significantly better hit ratio than other tier 4 ships. No, wait, thats the wrong question. Tier 4 is compromised by inexperienced players a lot. The Yubari is a rare veteran premium. Does it perform significantly better than other veteran ships in terms of hit ratio?

 

In PvP, i have a 37% hitratio with my Iwaki Alpha, 35% with my Yubari, 33% with my Königsberg, Omaha and Murmansk. 39% with my Leander.

So, at least from my personal statistics, the super accurate Yubari compeltly lies within the range of all other cruisers, with the difference, that 35% of Yubari shells connecting means 1-2 shells, while 33% of the 9 Königsberg guns mean ~3 shells connecting on average per salvo.

 

I don´t see, where this will or could be a significant buff to BBs. The difference, if at all, will be, that average BBs won´t hit a barn from the insde when camping at range, but will score more hits at close range, where they are still dealing with bounces, shatters and overpenetrations.

 

I take any bet: if these mechanics would be implemented with all consequence (and i will repeat myself again: for god´s sake, no half-hearted OP change to Giulio Cesare accuracy, that would break the game indeed!), the dramatic reduction in "lolcitas" and the increasing ammounts of misses by all the below average BB players out there will result in countless posts in the forums, how WG could nerf BBs to death. Camping relies in great parts on BB "spray and pray" mechanics. Exchange this against a totally skill based mechanics, and camping effectiveness will degenerate drastically...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
166 posts
810 battles

Historically, BBs were the long range naval guns. They're not built to brawl at close range, same with cruisers. Those type of ships would fight at long to medium range with the DDs being the brawlers. People complain about BBs camping at distance, that's how they fought historically at ranges of 15-20 km

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,329 posts
11,315 battles
1 minute ago, Blood_Rave_1984 said:

People complain about BBs camping at distance, that's how they fought historically at ranges of 15-20 km

Yes, they do it because they want to be truthful to history. Good to know.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-T-O-]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,185 posts
6,367 battles
4 minutes ago, Blood_Rave_1984 said:

Historically, BBs were the long range naval guns. They're not built to brawl at close range, same with cruisers. Those type of ships would fight at long to medium range with the DDs being the brawlers. People complain about BBs camping at distance, that's how they fought historically at ranges of 15-20 km

 

I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and sh1t out a smarter statement than that.

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
166 posts
810 battles

If a DD gets close to a BB, that BB skipper has messed up. I study naval history and BBs fought at long range for the most part, close range brawls between BBs were exceptions rather than a rule. Not worth risking your ship in a close quarters fight if you can blow the buggers out of the water at 15 km

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-T-O-]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,185 posts
6,367 battles

@Blood_Rave_1984 keep playing coop. As long as you think like that don't even think of playing pvp. Already enough of those.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-T-O-]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,185 posts
6,367 battles

As long as you prefer it in coop all is good.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
166 posts
810 battles
1 minute ago, _DeathWing_ said:

As long as you prefer it in coop all is good.

I'm only bringing up a point that the ship types should be historically accurate, same with how they are played. The USS Washington vs Krishima at Guadalcanal is a rare example of two BBs brawling at close range

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-T-O-]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,185 posts
6,367 battles

Yeah, this game is all about being realistic. Especially "historically accurate". WG is all about that. 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
166 posts
810 battles
2 minutes ago, _DeathWing_ said:

Yeah, this game is all about being realistic. Especially "historically accurate". WG is all about that. 

I see nothing wrong with hanging back and shelling from distance but things like going AFK is unacceptable (I've rage quit just before being sunk in the past, something I'm not proud of). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
11,922 battles
9 minutes ago, Blood_Rave_1984 said:

I see nothing wrong with hanging back and shelling from distance [...]. 

 

And there's the problem.

 

The game is NOT realistic. It is NOT designed to be realistic. The fact that matches last for an absolute maximum of twenty minutes should've been enough of a clue that the gameplay isn't realistic, but apparently that's not enough. World of Warships is an arcade shooter, not a naval warfare simulator.

 

If you absolutely MUST play historically accurate, find a simulator that's actually designed to reflect that. Don't do it in a game where it plainly isn't. Also please do something about that absurd willfull ignorance, because with that attitude you're nothing but a dead weight for every team that's unlucky enough to have you on their roster.

 

Or let me rephrase that in a fashion that you're more likely to understand: does the name USS William D. Porter, DD-579 ring a bell? That's you. And your teams are the USS Iowa, BB-61, carrying the objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×