Battle objectives

[Warhawk1984]

It is becoming painfully clear that in the vast majority of games teams don't/won't or can't play the objective. be it from lack of brain power, lack of numbers or lack of communication. We all see games that end in 4 mins with team X holding A,B,C and D while team Z is off sailing the longest route possible hugging the map edges, and to be honest, in a lot of cases i can see why they are doing it. If your in a team that loses its dd's early the bb's are apprehensive to push in as they have no hard counter to a dd sitting just outside detection range spamming torps at them anyway i digress.....I have a idea.

 

first things first what i will need to achieve my idea.

 

• Basic premises of my idea.....scrap the capture point A,B,C,D  (they wont be needed in my idea though they could be kept in map rotation with the option of opting out bit like encounter mode in WOT)
• Extend battle time from 20 mins to 30 mins (20 is just not long enough)
• new game mechanic called scuttling (something that was done a lot to avoid ships falling in to hostile hands (scarper flow is a prime example)

 

so here we go this is quite simple two teams team X and team Z fight it out in a 30 min battle with a new objective: sink the enemy team, team that loses all there ships first loses.

 

but what about when i kill there dd but the dd's torpedoes kill me and both teams have a afk ship i hear you ask. well thats where the new scuttling mechanic comes in if a ship has not received any commands after 15 minutes (that should be plenty of time so close and relaunch the game if required) they are considered scuttled by the crew and the magazine is detonated. (the detonation award is not applied to ships sunk in this manner)

 

If after 30 mins there is no winner, the winner is decided by which team has most ships left is declared the winner, if equal amount of ships are left the team with higher hp remaining % for example Team X overall hp is 1,200,000 Team Z has 1,155,000  after 30 mins team X has 2 ships remaining with a total hp of 97,000 team Z has 2 ships with a total hp remaining 81,000. team X overall hp remaining is about 12.3% Team Z is about 14.2% remaining so team Z would win ( sorry if my math is wrong here)

 

when the last ship on one team is sunk the battle ends providing the last ship had no shell's in flight/torpedoes in the water, if they do the battle continues until those shells/torpedoes hand be it with a hit or a miss thus giving the chance of a draw.

 

personally i think the vast majority of players would prefer this as they can play the battle they way they want to play it.

 

What do you think of this idea, feel free to add your ideas, discuss the idea wholesale reject the idea (though i would like a counter argument if you don't like it.)

 

Reply with a if you like the idea

 

 

[Wildf1re]

I like the idea of detonating afk players . As for the rest I like something that requires a bit more than "sink ships", I'm afraid I would be really bored playing the kind of battle you suggest...

[CleverViking]

The first thing I though of while reading this is that taking away the one reason for people not to play defensively and border hump will likely not improve the game, especially at T10 with 20+km ranges.

 

With capture points you at least have a couple of locations on the map where even the most "gifted" players will eventually understand that something important is happening, without anything to direct gameflow you'll just have people scattering all over and doing stupid s*** and you will end up with even less teamplay.

 

It will either turn into lemming trains smashing into each other or sniping from max range. 

 

I'd welcome new game modes but personally I don't think this would be fun in practice

[Warhawk1984]

you maybe right about needing a clear objective asides from just nuking everything though this seams to be what the current meta is.

 

if anybody has any ideas of a good decent objective feel free to make your idea known.

[Exocet6951]

17 minutes ago, Warhawk1984 said:

 

if anybody has any ideas of a good decent objective feel free to make your idea known.

 

 

How about a series of zones spread out on the map, which you can capture for your team?
 

[Warhawk1984]

4 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

 

How about a series of zones spread out on the map, which you can capture for your team?
 

hum that might work, but i would spread them out more put 1 on each side right by the edge at least edge of the map huggers could be still be useful :P 

[Exocet6951]

9 minutes ago, Warhawk1984 said:

hum that might work, but i would spread them out more put 1 on each side right by the edge at least edge of the map huggers could be still be useful :P 

 

This is purely conceptual, but bear with me...

How about something like that?

[Tungstonid]

22 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

This is purely conceptual, but bear with me...

How about something like that?
 

Spoiler

 

I see what you did there. Not sure about OP, though.

 

1 hour ago, Warhawk1984 said:

It is becoming painfully clear that in the vast majority of games teams don't/won't or can't play the objective. be it from lack of brain power, lack of numbers or lack of communication. We all see games that end in 4 mins with team X holding A,B,C and D while team Z is off sailing the longest route possible hugging the map edges, and to be honest, in a lot of cases i can see why they are doing it. If your in a team that loses its dd's early the bb's are apprehensive to push in as they have no hard counter to a dd sitting just outside detection range spamming torps at them anyway i digress.....I have a idea.

 

first things first what i will need to achieve my idea.

 

• Basic premises of my idea.....scrap the capture point A,B,C,D  (they wont be needed in my idea though they could be kept in map rotation with the option of opting out bit like encounter mode in WOT)
• Extend battle time from 20 mins to 30 mins (20 is just not long enough)
• new game mechanic called scuttling (something that was done a lot to avoid ships falling in to hostile hands (scarper flow is a prime example)

There is a reason for 20 minutes as time limit as well as for objectives. Objectives provide a better visual of (more or less) strategic areas which - as @CleverViking put it - help even not so bright players to find their way into battle. The time limit provided by the 20 minute mark and/or the points on the other hand prevent players from dragging the game longer than it needs to be. What about a DD player who stays out of detection range for 15 minutes after 15 minutes already passed, although he has no chance of winning against his enemies. Doesn't sound very appealing to have this either as ally or enemy.

[Culiacan_Mexico]

2 hours ago, Warhawk1984 said:

...Extend battle time from 20 mins to 30 mins (20 is just not long enough)....

Twenty minutes is plenty of time, if players would actually commit to battle, instead of...

[Butterdoll]

3 hours ago, Wildf1re said:

I like the idea of detonating afk players . As for the rest I like something that requires a bit more than "sink ships", I'm afraid I would be really bored playing the kind of battle you suggest...

Why?

and what?

capping? Give me a break.

3 hours ago, Warhawk1984 said:

It is becoming painfully clear that in the vast majority of games teams don't/won't or can't play the objective. be it from lack of brain power, lack of numbers or lack of communication. We all see games that end in 4 mins with team X holding A,B,C and D while team Z is off sailing the longest route possible hugging the map edges, and to be honest, in a lot of cases i can see why they are doing it. If your in a team that loses its dd's early the bb's are apprehensive to push in as they have no hard counter to a dd sitting just outside detection range spamming torps at them anyway i digress.....I have a idea.

 

first things first what i will need to achieve my idea.

 

• Basic premises of my idea.....scrap the capture point A,B,C,D  (they wont be needed in my idea though they could be kept in map rotation with the option of opting out bit like encounter mode in WOT)
• Extend battle time from 20 mins to 30 mins (20 is just not long enough)
• new game mechanic called scuttling (something that was done a lot to avoid ships falling in to hostile hands (scarper flow is a prime example)

 

so here we go this is quite simple two teams team X and team Z fight it out in a 30 min battle with a new objective: sink the enemy team, team that loses all there ships first loses.

 

but what about when i kill there dd but the dd's torpedoes kill me and both teams have a afk ship i hear you ask. well thats where the new scuttling mechanic comes in if a ship has not received any commands after 15 minutes (that should be plenty of time so close and relaunch the game if required) they are considered scuttled by the crew and the magazine is detonated. (the detonation award is not applied to ships sunk in this manner)

 

If after 30 mins there is no winner, the winner is decided by which team has most ships left is declared the winner, if equal amount of ships are left the team with higher hp remaining % for example Team X overall hp is 1,200,000 Team Z has 1,155,000  after 30 mins team X has 2 ships remaining with a total hp of 97,000 team Z has 2 ships with a total hp remaining 81,000. team X overall hp remaining is about 12.3% Team Z is about 14.2% remaining so team Z would win ( sorry if my math is wrong here)

 

when the last ship on one team is sunk the battle ends providing the last ship had no shell's in flight/torpedoes in the water, if they do the battle continues until those shells/torpedoes hand be it with a hit or a miss thus giving the chance of a draw.

 

personally i think the vast majority of players would prefer this as they can play the battle they way they want to play it.

 

What do you think of this idea, feel free to add your ideas, discuss the idea wholesale reject the idea (though i would like a counter argument if you don't like it.)

 

Reply with a if you like the idea

 

 

 

I actually like your idea.

- no capping stuff

- more time

And I add

- remove the points system

- last man standing

2 hours ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

 

How about a series of zones spread out on the map, which you can capture for your team?
 

 

No, that's lame.

 

What about.

for 30 k players.

set a number of 12 vs 12 teams in one endless battle from server restart to server restart.

Now if you got sunk you go to the port, press the battle button and you spawn in the starting point in a battle already happening, the sunk players are replaced by new players and on and on and on.

All stays the same reward wise.

And if you manage to endure for an hour the rewards would be the same as if you did 5 battles in that hour. according to your performance

And if you are 15 or 20 minutes in that battle and go to port and so on you will be rewarded in the same way and according to your performance.

 

 

[Wildf1re]

18 minutes ago, Butterdoll said:

Why?

and what?

capping? Give me a break.

 

I actually like your idea.

- no capping stuff

- more time

And I add

- remove the points system

- last man standing

 

No, that's lame.

 

What about.

for 30 k players.

set a number of 12 vs 12 teams in one endless battle from server restart to server restart.

Now if you got sunk you go to the port, press the battle button and you spawn in the starting point in a battle already happening, the sunk players are replaced by new players and on and on and on.

All stays the same reward wise.

And if you manage to endure for an hour the rewards would be the same as if you did 5 battles in that hour. according to your performance

And if you are 15 or 20 minutes in that battle and go to port and so on you will be rewarded in the same way and according to your performance.

 

 

So you just want death match for wows ships, yawn. Play Quake... Hey so you have another opinion, fine. No reason to be hostile. I like playing the modes that are there, would not mind some other different modes, just don't like suggestion in this thread.

[Butterdoll]

24 minutes ago, Wildf1re said:

So you just want death match for wows ships, yawn. Play Quake... Hey so you have another opinion, fine. No reason to be hostile. I like playing the modes that are there, would not mind some other different modes, just don't like suggestion in this thread.

I'm not being hostile. Just curious

what other reason do you possibly have for playing this game, that it's not to sink ships?

and what's wrong with death matches? Boring? WTF?

 

I like operations also.

I used to play Wolfenstein  and Doom.

 

 

[Profilus]

5 hours ago, Warhawk1984 said:

It is becoming ...Reply with a if you like the idea

 

 

Absolutely fkn brilliant as long as these battles consist 12v12 BB teams who choose to play max range sniping mode.

[Wildf1re]

15 minutes ago, Butterdoll said:

I'm not being hostile. Just curious

what other reason do you possibly have for playing this game, that it's not to sink ships?

and what's wrong with death matches? Boring? WTF?

 

I like operations also.

I used to play Wolfenstein  and Doom.

 

 

Okay. So "WTF," I'll bite.

 

I like the combination of having objectives like capping, epicenter or capture the flag style combat in combination with sinking ships to reach said objectives.

And I have also played Doom, Quake e.t.c. and I find them boring while e.g. CS combining the shooting of hostiles and arming/disarmin boms e.t.c. gives more challange, I think, than just deatmatch style games which (yes) I do find boring. Kill-respawn-kill again ad nauseum, but that's me.

 

OP asked what we think and I answered.

[Naesil]

Naah, would result in more camp heavy gameplay.

 

12 hours ago, Butterdoll said:

What about.

for 30 k players.

set a number of 12 vs 12 teams in one endless battle from server restart to server restart.

Now if you got sunk you go to the port, press the battle button and you spawn in the starting point in a battle already happening, the sunk players are replaced by new players and on and on and on.

All stays the same reward wise.

And if you manage to endure for an hour the rewards would be the same as if you did 5 battles in that hour. according to your performance

And if you are 15 or 20 minutes in that battle and go to port and so on you will be rewarded in the same way and according to your performance.

 

 

 

This could be with some tweaks, amazing servers clash type of event. For example:

During appointed day for 12 hours (or 24h so everyone has change to join regardless of the time zones, but might be problematic to get enough players during night time) there will be non-stop team deathmatch going on let say NA vs EU. 12 vs 12 when ship sinks next player from the queue takes its place, winner is the region which sunk more ships in the given time period.

Maybe one clash per tier would allow enough players to participate, so 10 on going battles going on for the whole time period.

 

 

Edit:

I understand that because of the possible spawn camp situation they would have to alter the spawn locations to be pretty random, but I think they could manage that.

[philjd]

The problem with extending the battle time and removing all counters/objectives or a last man standing is....

 

situation, both sides reduced to 1 ship, a 50hp remaining Konigsberg and a full HP Colorado... the Konigsberg avoids the BB like the plague, staying out of visibility, the Colorado spends eternity trying to chase down a faster better concealed ship which he doesn't know where on the map it is, both players get extremely bored and/or frustrated, all the other 22 players who are waiting for their ships to be released for the next battle, get really pissed off annoyed that the battle hasn't ended and come to complain on the forums and to WG about the battle type.

 

Now RPF would be very handy in that situation, but it should be a choice not a necessity.

[Butterdoll]

20 hours ago, Wildf1re said:

Okay. So "WTF," I'll bite.

 

I like the combination of having objectives like capping, epicenter or capture the flag style combat in combination with sinking ships to reach said objectives.

And I have also played Doom, Quake e.t.c. and I find them boring while e.g. CS combining the shooting of hostiles and arming/disarmin boms e.t.c. gives more challange, I think, than just deatmatch style games which (yes) I do find boring. Kill-respawn-kill again ad nauseum, but that's me.

 

OP asked what we think and I answered.

I didn't say you couldn't express your opinion.

I only found it strange what you said, that's all.

but you already have that one or two bases, are enough to play capture the flag.

And it isn't killed, respawned, etc.

you go to port when you've been sunk like the usual, then when you press battle you go to the exact same battle where you were sunk.

8 hours ago, philjd said:

The problem with extending the battle time and removing all counters/objectives or a last man standing is....

 

situation, both sides reduced to 1 ship, a 50hp remaining Konigsberg and a full HP Colorado... the Konigsberg avoids the BB like the plague, staying out of visibility, the Colorado spends eternity trying to chase down a faster better concealed ship which he doesn't know where on the map it is, both players get extremely bored and/or frustrated, all the other 22 players who are waiting for their ships to be released for the next battle, get really pissed off annoyed that the battle hasn't ended and come to complain on the forums and to WG about the battle type.

 

Now RPF would be very handy in that situation, but it should be a choice not a necessity.

I think this way that will never happen because both team will be always with 12 players.

But talking only of last standing mode...

well it was an idea, a concept, not perfect.

the refinement of a concept it's what make it work or not.

 

9 hours ago, Naesil said:

Naah, would result in more camp heavy gameplay.

 

 

This could be with some tweaks, amazing servers clash type of event. For example:

During appointed day for 12 hours (or 24h so everyone has change to join regardless of the time zones, but might be problematic to get enough players during night time) there will be non-stop team deathmatch going on let say NA vs EU. 12 vs 12 when ship sinks next player from the queue takes its place, winner is the region which sunk more ships in the given time period.

Maybe one clash per tier would allow enough players to participate, so 10 on going battles going on for the whole time period.

 

 

Edit:

I understand that because of the possible spawn camp situation they would have to alter the spawn locations to be pretty random, but I think they could manage that.

 

Maybe server vs server will cause some technical issues like delays and whatnot.

I don't know.

 

[eliastion]

On 3/7/2018 at 6:31 PM, Warhawk1984 said:

(...)

 

 

Ok. Quick question.

How can you seriously both

1. See (and consider it a problem) that people are unwilling to push objectives and prefer to camp

and

2. Propose a "solution" that's basically getting rid of any incentive to actually push rather than camp

 

I can tell you one thing: if WG was stupid enough to implement your proposition, I'd drop the game in a hartbeat. And I'm pretty sure a good portion of the playerbase - ESPECIALLY the people who have some idea how to handle their ships - would do the same. It's bad enough that we keep seeing Standard Battle mode so much - we REALLY don't have a need for a mode that would be an enforced 30-minute long campfest (because pushing is just a wrong tactical decision when the only objective is to sink enemy ships without dying). And making that inane game mode into the default one? Now that's just insane.

[YukiEiriKun]

Are you really suggesting that this game should be dumbed down even mor from the current state by removing caps?

 

Please god no!

 

I just snatched an Solo Warrior against 7 enemies by capping. :D

 

Then again, I also loved to force draw back in the day when enemy team was unable to play to the very clear and simple objectives "cap or sink all".

 

I hope that braindead damagefarmimg droolers won't fet their way this time. But looking back, unfortunately WG has been catering for them..

 

[RUSSIANBlAS]

WG are slowly correcting some of the map issues.

 

North sometimes has a new cap system with the Idiot cap (that's D to sensible people) removed although it doesn't always come up corrected.

 

Game time could even be reduced slightly but 20mins is likely the best balance.

 

 

Scuttling is fail, there are suicides in WoT.

 

Playing for who is left will only encourage the low skilled to camp even harder if that's at all possible.

 

If a game ends in minutes it's a good thing in my eyes as it obviously didn't deserve to go on.

 

Some maps do need re works so people are encouraged to do the right thing...

 

[BeauNidl3]

I've no desire to see a "deathmatch" mode and certainly wouldn't like to see the time limit extended, neither would add anything to the game.

 

Yes some of the maps could use a rework and the game would benefit by a reduction in the number of BB's a side (that said had a great game yesterday with 11 BB and 1 DD each side) that use cruisers as XP pinata's, but the basic game mode formats work pretty well.