Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Swamp_Thing666

A simple fix for BB camping

48 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
15 posts
1,250 battles

I just had this bulb light up over my head. What if, there were NPC controlled submarines patrolling the spawns and borders? That should get those BB campers moving, wouldn´t you say? The sub doesn´t need to be too fast, or even powerfull. The simple knowledge that there is something lurking in the deeps, waiting to catch a spawn camper unaware and slam a couple torps up his tail pipe, would be enough incentive to get them moving away from those areas. And as a side benefit, the sub would deal with AFK ships! It´s a win win scenario. I´m getting this image in my head of a humongous Yamato running from a tiny little periscope that slowly but surely gains up on it, like that scene from Aracnophobia, when the spider general moves to attack the lead actor. That sense of impending doom... A Kaiten, perhaps?  :Smile_teethhappy:

 

Spoiler

 

 

  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TCG]
Players
1,226 posts
11,891 battles
16 dakika önce, Swamp_Thing666 dedi:

I just had this bulb light up over my head. What if, there were NPC controlled submarines patrolling the spawns and borders? That should get those BB campers moving, wouldn´t you say? The sub doesn´t need to be too fast, or even powerfull. The simple knowledge that there is something lurking in the deeps, waiting to catch a spawn camper unaware and slam a couple torps up his tail pipe, would be enough incentive to get them moving away from those areas. And as a side benefit, the sub would deal with AFK ships! It´s a win win scenario. I´m getting this image in my head of a humongous Yamato running from a tiny little periscope that slowly but surely gains up on it, like that scene from Aracnophobia, when the spider general moves to attack the lead actor. That sense of impending doom... A Kaiten, perhaps?  :Smile_teethhappy:

 

  Gizli içeriği aç

 

 


Seems like someone forget the CV's :cap_haloween:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RNG4]
Beta Tester
1,568 posts

Was suggested before but I am not aware of any official statement by WG.

 

As much as I'd like this idea to get the lazy people going, I see some problems.

First off, how do you want to set them up, i.e. by which parameters do they seek their target? Do they attack the player closest to the map border? Or the one who is the furthest from every enemy ship? Or will they attack ships in a certain area which grows from the map border inwards the further the battle goes? Either way, you will also catch more active players who e.g. were pushed to the borders by the advancing enemies or DDs who are trying to flank, especially at caps which are near the border (And I just don't see why you should exclude certain ship classes from this).

Will they start pursuing players right from the start or after, say, five minutes? Players might be able to log in, even though it is a bit later, because they had connection problems. Not to mention that killing AFK ships with NPCs is NOT a win-win situation because it is denying the enemy team rewards, starting at exp and credits for damage and ending with the missing kill for a Kraken or other achievement/mission requirements.

 

There are a lot of things to be considered and I just don't see how you can make a good enough compromise so that this mechanic does its job while not harming players who don't (willingly) hang back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester
1,120 posts
11,289 battles

Just make a favor of the month game mode, where the map gets smaller every 2 minutes like in PUBG or Fortnite.

 

/irony

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
15 posts
1,250 battles

How about it targets the BB with least amount of travel, or going slow? A combination of parameters, that would dictate the sub to spawn near him, and start giving chase. Or the 2 subs could just have a patrol pattern in the trouble spots, one for each side of the map. With a bit of imagination and ingenuity, WG could easily cook up something awesome. An NPC air strike from outside the map could achieve the same result, but i feel a submarine would fit the theme of the game better. Maps that have land masses in the rear could even have enemy gun emplacements, that shoot any ship that goes near it.  Stuff like that. If they put their thinking caps on, they can work up something a lot more enticing than Asashio... :Smile-_tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L4GG]
Players
1,379 posts
5,529 battles

How about bbs got spawned at the front in the first line?

Cls at the second line and dds in a third line.

that way , when the dd reached the front he could have a battle line ready to support him.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
3,563 posts
6,392 battles
59 minutes ago, Swamp_Thing666 said:

The simple knowledge

And this is the problem with your plan. It relies on knowledge - but it's a well known fact that the average BB has less intelligence (and thus - knowledge) than a potato (I mean vegetable not a noob) :Smile_trollface:

 

14 minutes ago, Butterdoll said:

How about bbs got spawned at the front in the first line?

Cls at the second line and dds in a third line.

that way , when the dd reached the front he could have a battle line ready to support him.

DaH72Mj.png

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TRAV]
[TRAV]
Players
2,403 posts

I am always astonished when someone presents a "simple fix" without actually thinking it through or considering the development work that might be necessary.

 

As others have pointed out, the concept has several flaws. Some small, some as large as the atlantic ocean.

Why should only BBs be targeted? Other ships camp too. Camping is a player problem not a shipclass one. BBs are just the most noticable ones.

How should the areas be defined where those subs strike? Affected players can simply move to other spots like large islands.

What if during the battle the teams switched sides on the map? This can be often witnessed on Two Brothers.

What if it would be tactically necessary to move into the strike area? The enemy might push you into it or it is simply the best attack vector.

How would it work with different game modes or even the various different maptypes? A different map or different cap zone layouts can completly change how ships move.

Will those subs be physically present and can they be evaded or destroyed, or are they just presented by phantom torpedos out of nowhere?

What if someone uses those subs to deny the enemy kills?

What if someone uses those subs to troll the own team? You just gave everyone an option to kill themself.

How do you deal with the fact that with such an idea you reduce the ability of the players to come up with concepts for new strategies?

 

@Swamp_Thing666

If you come up with such a "simple fix" you'll need to have answers ready for such cases. You can't just say: That's Wargamings problem.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HEROZ]
Players
600 posts
5,869 battles

I am reading this and cant believe what i am seeing. So many bad ideas in one place.

 

One guy wants to spawn ships in exactly wrong battle formation.

 

Other wants to punish slowest ships based on their speed.

 

Another wants to force them to move from place jut for the sake of moving.

 

You guys want to know what makes battleshisp stop camping? Good teamwork. Dds spoting targets and torps, utility cruisers using hydro aa and radar to show targets to hard hitters. If your bbs are camping that means team is not supporting them.

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
Players
2,037 posts
32 minutes ago, Oderisson said:

You guys want to know what makes battleshisp stop camping? Good teamwork. Dds spoting targets and torps, utility cruisers using hydro aa and radar to show targets to hard hitters. If your bbs are camping that means team is not supporting them.

 

What a pile of absolute horsedroppings. I agree the "ideas" in this thread are silly and unworkable, but your statement is blatant bollards.

 

BB's camp because they CAN, they have the range and big guns to farm damage safely, they should be the ones SUPPORTING they have the HP, heals and armour to do so, but most BB drivers flat out refuse to push or actively support the DD's and Cruisers in case they get their camouflage paintjobs scratched.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,708 posts
13,150 battles
49 minutes ago, Oderisson said:

If your bbs are camping that means team is not supporting them.

 

271.gif

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
15 posts
1,250 battles
36 minutes ago, Oderisson said:

 

You guys want to know what makes battleshisp stop camping? Good teamwork. Dds spoting targets and torps, utility cruisers using hydro aa and radar to show targets to hard hitters. If your bbs are camping that means team is not supporting them.

Teamwork? In random battles?? Give me the number of your dealer, i want some of that too. :Smile_teethhappy:

There will never be an end to camping as long as the game permits shooting from +20k and be effective at it. No one wants to get focused fired, no one wants to get blasted back to lobby after 3 minutes. The fact of the matter is that EVERYONE camps. Cruisers camp behind islands, DDs camp in choke points and wait for anyone passing.  There is no incentive to play the game as it should, because the most XP goes to who manages to stay alive the longest and keeps his guns working. The maps are designed for campers. This status quo has been going on for years, and everytime someone suggests something, you nay sayers seem to pop out of the woodwork to pick flaws at it. And because no one rallies behind any one idea, nothing gets done. EVER! So yeah, excuse me all over for trying to put some ideas out there.  You lot seem to just want to nit pick for the sake of being negative! Bah... i´m too old for this...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HR]
Beta Tester
782 posts
7,735 battles
2 hours ago, Swamp_Thing666 said:

I just had this bulb light up over my head. What if, there were NPC controlled submarines patrolling the spawns and borders? That should get those BB campers moving, wouldn´t you say? The sub doesn´t need to be too fast, or even powerfull. The simple knowledge that there is something lurking in the deeps, waiting to catch a spawn camper unaware and slam a couple torps up his tail pipe, would be enough incentive to get them moving away from those areas. And as a side benefit, the sub would deal with AFK ships! It´s a win win scenario. I´m getting this image in my head of a humongous Yamato running from a tiny little periscope that slowly but surely gains up on it, like that scene from Aracnophobia, when the spider general moves to attack the lead actor. That sense of impending doom... A Kaiten, perhaps?  :Smile_teethhappy:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

What if there were NPC controlled submarines who shot cruisers hiding behind island lobbing HE and can't be seen? You know who you are. What if there were NPC who shot DD who ran all game, never shooting their guns, torping, missing and being useless for their team? It could be very interesting. Also the game should take the server average damage on the high end and detonate anyone who does not exceed this number within a given timeframe. I believe this will fix the current nonsense for ALL CLASS. You want to hide and be useless? Get detonated.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,695 posts
10,594 battles
27 minutes ago, Swamp_Thing666 said:

Teamwork? In random battles?? Give me the number of your dealer, i want some of that too. :Smile_teethhappy:

There will never be an end to camping as long as the game permits shooting from +20k and be effective at it. No one wants to get focused fired, no one wants to get blasted back to lobby after 3 minutes. The fact of the matter is that EVERYONE camps. Cruisers camp behind islands, DDs camp in choke points and wait for anyone passing.  There is no incentive to play the game as it should, because the most XP goes to who manages to stay alive the longest and keeps his guns working. The maps are designed for campers. This status quo has been going on for years, and everytime someone suggests something, you nay sayers seem to pop out of the woodwork to pick flaws at it. And because no one rallies behind any one idea, nothing gets done. EVER! So yeah, excuse me all over for trying to put some ideas out there.  You lot seem to just want to nit pick for the sake of being negative! Bah... i´m too old for this...

I thought this thread was more of a joke, but you seem to be getting terribly worked up for that - so I must assume that this proposition was completely serious... but then there's a small problem with it: it was a bit silly. And had a lot of problems that people pointed out.

In fact, you might want to think long and hard about something you yourself wrote:

 

everytime someone suggests something, you nay sayers seem to pop out of the woodwork to pick flaws at it. And because no one rallies behind any one idea, nothing gets done. EVER!

 

Believe it or not, flaws in ideas exist even if nobody points them out. And I don't know about you, but as for me, the King Julian's approach of Hurry up, before we all come to our senses! doesn't exactly strike me as a very sound approach to continuous development of a big game... If there are flaws in a proposal then OF COURSE they are going to be pointed out by people who notice them - AND THAT'S EXACTLY HOW IT SHOULD BE. How the hell did you even come to a conclusion that it's a bad thing!? Do you seriously believe that it would be better if people just overlooked these glaring flaws for the sake of not being negative? :Smile_facepalm:

Also, well, if nobody really rallies behind any single idea - have you considered that, perhaps, none of these ideas had really been any good in the first place?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
15 posts
1,250 battles
1 hour ago, Egoleter said:

I am always astonished when someone presents a "simple fix" without actually thinking it through or considering the development work that might be necessary.

 

As others have pointed out, the concept has several flaws. Some small, some as large as the atlantic ocean.

Why should only BBs be targeted? Other ships camp too. Camping is a player problem not a shipclass one. BBs are just the most noticable ones.

How should the areas be defined where those subs strike? Affected players can simply move to other spots like large islands.

What if during the battle the teams switched sides on the map? This can be often witnessed on Two Brothers.

What if it would be tactically necessary to move into the strike area? The enemy might push you into it or it is simply the best attack vector.

How would it work with different game modes or even the various different maptypes? A different map or different cap zone layouts can completly change how ships move.

Will those subs be physically present and can they be evaded or destroyed, or are they just presented by phantom torpedos out of nowhere?

What if someone uses those subs to deny the enemy kills?

What if someone uses those subs to troll the own team? You just gave everyone an option to kill themself.

How do you deal with the fact that with such an idea you reduce the ability of the players to come up with concepts for new strategies?

 

@Swamp_Thing666

If you come up with such a "simple fix" you'll need to have answers ready for such cases. You can't just say: That's Wargamings problem.

Lets see: 

-Which areas? Simple, the back of each base, which is where most campers stay. 

-Teams switch sides? Great! Nothing would happen. The subs belong to each team, if the teams switch sides, the subs have nothing to lock on to. They don´t roam the sea, only the back areas of each base.

-Necessary to move to the strike area? I fail to understand any single strategy where going back to spawn is the "best attack vector". But assuming there is, nothing would happen. Again, the AI would need to be set, some parameters need to happen before a sub goes into hunting mode. Like distance traveled. If after 5 minutes, you have moved a whopping 2 or 3 kms from your spawn point, don´t you think that is a valid way to spot a camper?  

-Physical destroyable subs or not? I would hope they would not be targetable, otherwise campers just shoot it out and resume camping. As for the manner in which they present themselves, that would be up to the devs. But i would love a Kaiten.

-Using them to troll own team? Come on, you can do better than that. If some one wants to troll the team, do you think they need any help??

And finally, are you defending ANY scenario where camping at the back is subject material to "new strategies"? You´re not advocating bot behaviour, i hope.

 

I actually regret writing this thread, because i should know better. Over the years i saw this happening time and time again. Great ideas were put forth by members, only to be dashed to pieces by nitpicking of petty details. The truth is nothing ever gets done because gaming companies use naysayers like you to justify why nothing was ever done. It´s the same story over and over again, from one title to the next.  

Hmmm, yeah... Note to self: "Don´t bother, not worth the aggravation."  :Smile_sceptic: 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
15 posts
1,250 battles
15 minutes ago, eliastion said:

I How the hell did you even come to a conclusion that it's a bad thing!? Do you seriously believe that it would be better if people just overlooked these glaring flaws for the sake of not being negative? :Smile_facepalm:

Also, well, if nobody really rallies behind any single idea - have you considered that, perhaps, none of these ideas had really been any good in the first place?

I´ve seen some great ideas shot out of the water over petty things. Everytime something is proposed you guys come out and go "But...But.... And what of this, or that?? And that thingy?? What about the watchamacallit??" So obviously people get disheartened. Instead of pointing out peety flaws, perhaps you should try bouncing ideas around to get to a consensus that pleases all sides. But that will never happen if all you have to say is negative, and how foolish or idiotic any given idea seems to you. You killed the debate right off the bat, and that´s the reason why we are still here years later still fumbling about the same old issues. The devs come over, glance at this, and say "hey, they can´t agree even on the color of the sky, we are safe for a few more years!", and off they go to make more payed DLC and micro transactions. Hey, we might not get a fix to camping, but we will get ASASHIO!!! Hurrrah, right? :Smile_sceptic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,695 posts
10,594 battles
1 minute ago, Swamp_Thing666 said:

I´ve seen some great ideas shot out of the water over petty things.

Maybe the ideas weren't that great and the things not as petty as you believe. Great ideas have a tendency to find their supporters and complaints that truly refer to petty, unimportant and/or easily fixable details usually don't convince people to drop the idea. So, perhaps you should give some actual examples of "great ideas" and "petty things" that were apparently enough to drive people away from them?

 

5 minutes ago, Swamp_Thing666 said:

But that will never happen if all you have to say is negative, and how foolish or idiotic any given idea seems to you.

If an idea seems foolish and idiotic to me THEN WHY THE HELL WOULD I WANT IT IN THE GAME!? If my complaints are enough to drown an idea that seems foolish and idiotic, then complaining is a borderline moral duty of mine - precisely to keep that foolish and idiotic brainfart out of the game!

You're literally complaining that people don't support ideas they don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,663 posts
10,389 battles
6 hours ago, Swamp_Thing666 said:

I just had this bulb light up over my head. What if, there were NPC controlled submarines patrolling the spawns and borders? That should get those BB campers moving, wouldn´t you say? The sub doesn´t need to be too fast, or even powerfull. The simple knowledge that there is something lurking in the deeps, waiting to catch a spawn camper unaware and slam a couple torps up his tail pipe, would be enough incentive to get them moving away from those areas. And as a side benefit, the sub would deal with AFK ships! It´s a win win scenario. I´m getting this image in my head of a humongous Yamato running from a tiny little periscope that slowly but surely gains up on it, like that scene from Aracnophobia, when the spider general moves to attack the lead actor. That sense of impending doom... A Kaiten, perhaps?  :Smile_teethhappy:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

That will fix nothing. You could just make the maps smaller....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
181 posts
245 battles

You could make the map increasingly smaller as time goes on like those battle royale games that every person seems to fling their behind in the general direction.

 

i guess cyclones do that but you could have it as a seperate game mode.

 

i mean they are doing it on wort of danks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
433 posts
4,806 battles

There is much easier solution for this - just make f potential damage is important for xp/credit at the end instead of just raw AP damage 

 

ATM it is the same if you tank 2-2.5 milion pot.dam and if you have 1 lucky cit hit from 25km sniper --- it's the same   - that is retarded and new players will never learn this way what to do, it's not new players / potato's fault it's only WG/game fault players just play easiest way they can for max xp/cred. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEGIO]
[LEGIO]
Players
580 posts
7,407 battles

Why not make so that Battleships have to move a certain distance before they start to earn xp and credits? Like move 10km. Before that thay get little or none xp/hp. Force them to move closer to the fight. 

Don´t know. Tough problem to solve. But something have to be done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WTFNO]
Players
149 posts
3,801 battles

Noob here, but among everything that was suggested, the simpler seems to decrease long range accuracy and damage for all ships

(uniformly, in the futile hope to try to limit the complaints about nerfs. The change can be progressive over several months to allow players to adjust).

Higher rewards for tanking damage seems good too.

No new mechanism, 'only' (yeah, big ' ' here) parameters tweaking.

 

What would be the possible abuse of these two points, or risk of unbalance towards other classes ?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RNG4]
Beta Tester
1,568 posts
8 hours ago, Oderisson said:

I am reading this and cant believe what i am seeing. So many bad ideas in one place.

 

One guy wants to spawn ships in exactly wrong battle formation.

 

Other wants to punish slowest ships based on their speed.

 

Another wants to force them to move from place jut for the sake of moving.

 

You guys want to know what makes battleshisp stop camping? Good teamwork. Dds spoting targets and torps, utility cruisers using hydro aa and radar to show targets to hard hitters. If your bbs are camping that means team is not supporting them.

You are only half right. Yes, BBs need support but only if they want to go in anyway. Those who stay at 20 km to snipe are of close to no use to the team, whether they get radar and AA support or not. And that was (part of) the point of this thread

 

6 hours ago, Swamp_Thing666 said:

I´ve seen some great ideas shot out of the water over petty things. Everytime something is proposed you guys come out and go "But...But.... And what of this, or that?? And that thingy?? What about the watchamacallit??" So obviously people get disheartened. Instead of pointing out peety flaws, perhaps you should try bouncing ideas around to get to a consensus that pleases all sides. But that will never happen if all you have to say is negative, and how foolish or idiotic any given idea seems to you. You killed the debate right off the bat, and that´s the reason why we are still here years later still fumbling about the same old issues. The devs come over, glance at this, and say "hey, they can´t agree even on the color of the sky, we are safe for a few more years!", and off they go to make more payed DLC and micro transactions. Hey, we might not get a fix to camping, but we will get ASASHIO!!! Hurrrah, right? :Smile_sceptic:

How about something else: WG gives every BB cruise missiles so camping BBs can fight each other with the following properties:

- no range limit to make sure the campers can shoot at each other all the time

- can be locked on and automatically follow a target to make sure they can't be evaded by a bit of maneuvring

- stay on target even if it gets concealed again, just in case the campers are not spotted anymore

- can evade land masses in case campers try to hide behind islands

- are not interceptable, so active players in the middle can't save the campers by shooting down the missiles

- do around (30k + [tier] * 3k) damage with a reload time of 30 seconds, so it really hurts the campers

 

How WG should balance it?

 

5ad05fad24f28_notmyproblem.jpg.bcfa11a471ce5116b0bd3d5913cef5e7.jpg

 

And before you point out flaws like, I don't know, that these missiles can be used to easily sink non-camping BBs, cruisers and DDs everywhere on the map, keep in mind that this will prevent WG from implementing a perfectly valid idea against camping. You don't want to be part of the naysayers and give the devs a reason to not do something against it, do you? :Smile_smile:

 

Spoiler

/sarcasm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HEROZ]
Players
600 posts
5,869 battles

Fortunately most ideas in this thread are so incredibly stupid that they have no chance of implementation.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×