Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Trojan63

Encourage aggressive play style, new economy is not the answer

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
753 posts
8,965 battles

Allow me to preface this by stating that the new economy has not affected my earnings in game as I have always played aggressively.

Having played over 5000 games, recently tier 6 and 7, I have come to the conclusion that there are 4 contributing factors which all lead to non aggressive play which are all interlinked to each other.

 

1. Everybody wants to survive a match until the end.

This is an understandable factor yet I have died early and earned more than in games where I have lasted until the end and many times earned more than those that have lasted the entire match. It is what you do before you die that is important.

To try and stay alive and contribute greatly for at least 10 minutes is foremost in my games although it sometimes finishes earlier than that. :(

 

2. The current OP of AP and HE shells.

This is the reason why BB's hang back and CA/CL's rush to the nearest island for cover and stay there. The BB's to stay out of reach of HE spammers and to increase the dispersion of AP shells fired from a distance. The CA/CL's trying to avoid that one shot instant destruction or reduction of 90% of their HP in a single salvo. 

No matter how much you angle or WASD there will always be that one salvo that ruins your chances of long and contributing match.

By reducing the effect of AP/citadels and the chance of fire would increase players confidence and hence aggressiveness. 

 

3. Team balance at the start of the match.

The number of DD's per match per team should be equal as well as the distribution of torp and gunboat DD's. Numerous times I can predict the outcome of a battle, not from my standpoint but from what the rest of the team must be thinking, where one team has mostly gunboats compared to the other with mostly torp boats or one team has +1 DD in a domination match.

Then there is the factor, due to MM, where you have a +2 spread which is not evenly distributed per ship class. Yes you may have an even distribution of tiered ships but at times you'll get one team with 3 tier 8 BB's compared to the other teams one or 3 tier 8 gunboat DD's compared to the other teams 1 plus 2 tier 6 DD's. The same can be said for the CA/CL scenario.

 

4. The +2 MM from tier 5 on wards.

I know this subject has been raised countless times, myself included, but it seems that since the introduction of tier 4 and under with only +1 MM that the chances of being in a match with +2 ships has increased greatly.

This IMO also contributes greatly to the non aggressive play of most players as they are discouraged from the start of the match with a sort of "what's the point attitude".

 

Sorry for the long read but IMO the new economy has done little to improve aggressiveness and that these factors are the main reasons for such behaviour. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOWMY]
Member
347 posts
16,870 battles

I support point no 3.

 

Still I think the new economic changes is good/better, less BB camping compared to previous patch. But yeah if a little bit more reward than what we are getting now is always better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
753 posts
8,965 battles

If we reduce the chance of fires across the board can the RN ships then have HE please?

 

Well the introduction of RN cruiser's with their current ability of only AP but with smoke and repair only encourages non aggressive play with that line. DD killers they said, only if your game enough to detect them and get close enough with your fragility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,452 posts
2,950 battles

2. It would no longer reward player skill and would literally make the game a 'Best DPM' match like a certain cough tank game cough. This also discourages rash actions by punishing players who make mistakes mid-combat, and allows an otherwise combat-ineffective player be capable of fending off a similar ship through skillful aim.

 

3. Variety is the spice of life. If you truly want balance between teams, match all their ships perfectly. That includes modules, captain skills, upgrades, camouflage, consumables, etc. Oh, and make sure players have the exact same stats, playstyles and divisions. If you are already splitting destroyers by subcategories, then the same must be applied to the other classes. Eventually, they'd be split by nation because their respective lines have their own 'flavor'. This flavor extends outside the tech tree and into everyone's ports, where every player has their own unique playstyle.

 

4. +2 MM is viable for T5. Only a fool would give up. The importance of tactics increases in proportion to the difference between the player's tier and the top tier in the match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
203 posts
11,795 battles

Players play the game their own ways. That's why you'll meet some CV rush the frontline for whatever reason. 
Yes CAs don't want to be deleted by AP from BBs but so does BBs don't want to be deleted by torpedoes nor burn by HE shells.
But even game like WoT you still see people just play passively even with no SPG in play. Why do I mention WoT? :You can only 1 shot with Ammorack or some tanks with very high alpha damage. The damage consistancy is not the answer to this as well.

Matchmaker ? I have once get into COOP against AI. A perfectly mirrored ships up against each other yet I see some battleships snipe 20kms away from target. <-- Yes really.
You can't force players to play certain ways.

 

Edited by MikuChrome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,174 posts
10,495 battles

1. Well you can see even in t8 some players get one shotted or get torpedoed to death(still one shot). But yea we can see it in high tiers as well( meh this is off that point)

 

2. No Just No!! Nerfing HE and AP shells wont work. It is Just like Stein said It will depend mostly on who's got the fastest reload.


3. Talking about balance It really needs some work because Sometimes I see matches where DDs are really not balanced like 2 t7 DDs vs 2 T6 DDs and more worse scenario where enemy team gets full gunboats and our team gets torpedo boats which makes players to prefer passive style of play I mean really 3 Fubukis vs 3 Bensons it is really unfair. But sometimes It also comes down to who chose what type of built whether it is CE or something else But when you see Gunboats vs torpedo boats it is really not gonna end well
 

4. Well you know I'm neutral to this +2 MM because sometimes it is really unfair and sometimes it is fair. It mostly depends upon who is more experienced in High Tiered battles. Mediocre players like me sometimes do well and sometimes fail terribly( first blood to enemy team). And talking about not fair thing I'd say t5s which are WW1 ships and are not really meant to go up against WW2  ships. Gameplay is just like this Gneisenau vs Konig or Nagato vs Kongo I mean you don't really engage enemy of your level you will always target low tier ships. But I'm still Neutral to +2 MM. Yes it is unfair but at the sametime it gets you ready for next tier ships and what can you expect from them

Edited by Aaditya_AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
753 posts
8,965 battles

2. It would no longer reward player skill and would literally make the game a 'Best DPM' match like a certain cough tank game cough. This also discourages rash actions by punishing players who make mistakes mid-combat, and allows an otherwise combat-ineffective player be capable of fending off a similar ship through skillful aim.

 

3. Variety is the spice of life. If you truly want balance between teams, match all their ships perfectly. That includes modules, captain skills, upgrades, camouflage, consumables, etc. Oh, and make sure players have the exact same stats, playstyles and divisions. If you are already splitting destroyers by subcategories, then the same must be applied to the other classes. Eventually, they'd be split by nation because their respective lines have their own 'flavor'. This flavor extends outside the tech tree and into everyone's ports, where every player has their own unique playstyle.

 

4. +2 MM is viable for T5. Only a fool would give up. The importance of tactics increases in proportion to the difference between the player's tier and the top tier in the match.

 

I appreciate your reply but, for your statements.

2. At times there is no skill involved where a full salvo from any BB, skillful shot or not can delete any player instantly, it just takes 1 or 2 shells to hit. Rash actions win games many times and as for fending off an opponent with skillful aim is in part the point I was trying to make. ie. knowing the enemies speed/angle and not just firing a full salvo of AP or HE in their general direction knowing there is a good chance of score a citadel of fire which makes angling and WASD  obsolete when hit by something +2 tiers above you.

 

3. Modules, captain skills, upgrades, camouflage, consumables, etc. Oh, and make sure players have the exact same stats, play styles and divisions have nothing to do with the overall team balance in ship numbers, classes and types that I was trying to convey. It is the underlying factor of players mindset upon seeing ship tier/class/numbers that affect the play style of most from the beginning.

 

4.It is not viable for any tier. Taking out any ship, being detected by something and deleted by a 2+ BB in one lucky or well aimed salvo from an angle you cannot allow for is the crux of what I'm trying to point out.

 

I am no fantastic player and often make mistakes but the factors I mentioned in my OP are to me the main contributors to the non aggressive play style that I have witnessed from countless players almost every game where these factors are in place.

Adjusting the economy, which I care little about, has not achieved the desired effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Video Contributor
2,267 posts
10,789 battles

For me vote no.3

Sometimes mm drunk bring team 5dds or 5cas/cls or 5bbs too reclious and high tier 8-10 now many Atago/Takao so for CV is really easy kill Atago and Takao but in the same time Atago and Takao both have bad AA guns

No.1 already fix it about fixed cost and many camper don't want to push forward (yesterday made me crazy)

 

No.2 I have no idea to answer because Russian..

 

No.4 stick with team and carry together

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,452 posts
2,950 battles

 

I appreciate your reply but, for your statements.

2. At times there is no skill involved where a full salvo from any BB, skillful shot or not can delete any player instantly, it just takes 1 or 2 shells to hit. Rash actions win games many times and as for fending off an opponent with skillful aim is in part the point I was trying to make. ie. knowing the enemies speed/angle and not just firing a full salvo of AP or HE in their general direction knowing there is a good chance of score a citadel of fire which makes angling and WASD  obsolete when hit by something +2 tiers above you.

 

3. Modules, captain skills, upgrades, camouflage, consumables, etc. Oh, and make sure players have the exact same stats, play styles and divisions have nothing to do with the overall team balance in ship numbers, classes and types that I was trying to convey. It is the underlying factor of players mindset upon seeing ship tier/class/numbers that affect the play style of most from the beginning.

 

4.It is not viable for any tier. Taking out any ship, being detected by something and deleted by a 2+ BB in one lucky or well aimed salvo from an angle you cannot allow for is the crux of what I'm trying to point out.

 

I am no fantastic player and often make mistakes but the factors I mentioned in my OP are to me the main contributors to the non aggressive play style that I have witnessed from countless players almost every game where these factors are in place.

Adjusting the economy, which I care little about, has not achieved the desired effect.

 

2. Conversely, it can take as many as 10 full AP salvos to get rid of the same cruiser if he plays it right. The only time it takes 'no skill' for a battleship to kill a cruiser is if he broadsides at point-blank.

 

3. Underlying factor? Mindset? Balance is perceived, not attained. You can slap 4 of each ship class sans carriers in a match and mirror their tiers perfectly and people would still complain because x ship is only good at y or that x ship in our team is stock. For reference, try carrier loadouts. These always vary and have their own specific playstyle, although if you take the liberty of looking at the aircraft rating before the match begins, you can have an idea of what it is. The same could be observed when looking at a destroyer's torpedo rating. 

 

Unfortunately, the same could not be said for ships with specific builds because captain skills are not factored in during the pre-battle screen. How can you tell if your battleships went AA-spec other than observing/asking them? What if they went secondaries or neither of the two? How about cruisers? How can you tell if they picked radar? Sonar or Defensive AA? What of unicums and potatoes on either team? How would you know other than stat-checking?

 

Frankly speaking, rather than point at matchmaking as a reason behind passive play, you should appreciate it for giving you variety. Different ship compositions mean different possible approaches to the match. Whether or not those methods work is based on your own competence as a player.

 

4. Oh, but it is. +2MM is basically a challenge to make the least number of mistakes. Being a higher tier allows you to make mistakes and vice-versa. I certainly didn't change my playstyle when I once had to fight a Fletcher with my Hatsuharu inside a cap point, nor am I doing the same when my T8 ships have to fight T10 BBs. After all, not every ship on the enemy team is 2 tiers above you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,578 posts
8,005 battles

I would like to share my thoughts regarding the points OP made:

 

1. The longer you survive the battle the more exp you get. Since I play a lot of DDs, and often die early, you don't live long you don't get much. This is true regardless of what you do before you die. I tested with 3 solo caps, 2 dd kills, 2m potential damage on dds, no help man. (unless of course the team deprs so much). BBs sniping at the back is no help either, but without the supportive mentality of cruiser players, no one is willing to die to HE spam. Because when teams push, they keep randomly shooting at targets specially with a target to secure a kill and thus ignoring bigger threat nearby. Nothing can change player mentality. So the new Economy is helping the bottom feeders, it is practically a nerf to better players. So far I have no complain about credit scenario, but the base xp thing is rubbish right now.

 

2. Citadels are already hard to get, because most of the cruisers have trolly armor. You can never say whether you are going to get a bunch of overpens on a perfectly broadside cruiser, or they can just simply bounce your shells like zao and moskva does for some reason. AP shells should not have higher dispersion than HE shells because there is no practical explanation behind this. You can call this statistics shipclass-wise. For example battleships already have high dispersion range than cruisers who fires much faster than battleships. You don't want to nerf a class who waits 30 seconds for 1 salvo only to see 25% (for very good bb players) of the shells actually hits. Meanwhile, I find no reason for high HE alpha ships like IJN CAs need to have higher fire chance. They already do huge HE damage, and they get 2 fires per salvo in most cases (yes I get that too). This is too much. On ships hiding behind the rocks and stuffs, I have no problem with that, it is part of the process of enhancing your strength and hiding your weakness.

 

3. Yes, sometimes there are +/- 1 DD on teams. However, I often find that, when you have more DDs, you get Standard battle and when there are only 1/2 DDs you get domination. Also, there are still the fact that, national mixup of DDs have not been fixed yet. One team can have 2 fubuki, 1 kagero while the other team has a Fletcher and a kiev for some reason, while they could easily split the gun boats on both teams. And I have never seen teams with only torpedo boats win over teams having 2 gunboats (sure it happens, I just didnt find any) MM only balances the top tier for each class at this moment. BB and DD balance is much more important. CVs are mirror matched, no question there.

 

4. If you have +/-1 tier MM for up to some tiers, it will always be the same situation. However, due to armor and firepower I think +/-1 tier can be extended to T6. Because T7s can handle T9, but T6 arent usually suitable to handle T8s. Same goes for T5s, on a perfect world, T5 is food for T7. Or, we can also try out tiering based on class. For example +1/-1 for CVs (I mean no T6 CV to T8, or no T7 CV with T5 etc, because CVs are much stronger (OP) against other ship classes as may be, they are meant to counter 10 ships, not 1), +/-2 for DDs and BBs, +/-1 for CAs etc. Although this might raise the same issue present in WoT.

 

These are only my opinions, not like I'm going to change the game whatsoever, so dont get mad.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,578 posts
8,005 battles

 

I appreciate your reply but, for your statements.

2. At times there is no skill involved where a full salvo from any BB, skillful shot or not can delete any player instantly, it just takes 1 or 2 shells to hit. Rash actions win games many times and as for fending off an opponent with skillful aim is in part the point I was trying to make. ie. knowing the enemies speed/angle and not just firing a full salvo of AP or HE in their general direction knowing there is a good chance of score a citadel of fire which makes angling and WASD  obsolete when hit by something +2 tiers above you.

 

With all due respect, this statement is 100% invalid. If you get shot at 10+km, that it a skillful aim, or the CA is not skillful enough or tunnel visioned or stupid enough to drive broadside in a straight line. Also, 1 or 2 shell hits do not delete a cruiser, you actually have to play battleships to understand how they work. you have a lot of time to make your mind, find a target, take your shot, then you get screwed up by the dispersion of high calibers and over penetrations, bouncing off etc. Also you are forgetting that many players can aim based on the armor model of each ships, they know exactly where to hit a CA to get citadel, they can one shot CA because they are good and the CA is bad.

 

The last part, it has nothing to do with tiering, high tier battleships shells do not gain speed. Take North Carolina for instance, this is the Battleship version of Atlanta, shells go to moon before landing on ships. But WASD still works if you know where to take the hit (if you cant evade at all). If you know it doesnt work on a CA, may be you should not go against BBs with that.

 

Most of the time CAs get one shot because 1. BB player is skillful, 2. CA is out of position, 3. CA is not skillful. CAs are easy to get tunnel visioned due to high RoF pew pew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
66 posts
9,624 battles

3) I hope everyone realizes this is done on purpose and WG has spent years perfecting their MM coding to do just that. A number of years ago, game makers got it into their heads that very good players can "spoil" the experience of the majority of players just as much as the very bad's, and since then they have been working on ways to even out the game play, so "everyone can enjoy" playing their games. This is done to maximize the number of people playing their game and in turn, maximize the profit potential.

 

WG explain this as giving high skill, high win rate players a more "challenging" experience... play well, with a high efficiency and high win rate, then your going to get bad MM, bad RNG and bad teammates. You HAVE to loose so the other, majority of players, can win and enjoy playing the game. 

 

I get it, it makes sense from a business perspective, you want the most people possible playing the game to ensure you can generate the most profit possible. One of the ways they have chosen to do this, is "nerf" very good players so the average player doesn't get so salty and rage quit as often. It was well know in World of Tanks (in which the MM was first developed), that unicum platoons (divisions) caused problems for the MM and they worked for a long time to reduce the impact of them. They still haven't been able to totally do this and the proof is, that those guys with +60% WR, don't play WoT or WOWs solo unless they have to. They know to maintain such high WR they have to play in groups. They also have tricks to manipulate the MM, such as jumping out of a queue when a certain number or type of ship are queued with them (but that's a whole different story).

 

So what does this all mean? One sided battles with lopsided teams are a feature of WG games, and they have spent a lot of money ensuring it happens... it will never be changed. Everyone must have a chance at a 50% WR. Weather your a super unicum or total potato, your going to feel the effects of that system. It would be nice to simply have a MM that tried to evenly match teams, but it doesn't. Its designed to give everyone a enjoyable game experience by helping the average to below average players win games weather they have the skills or not. And that comes at the expense of the above average players who have to put up with the "Skill Leveling System" and the triple whammy of bad MM, bad RNG and bad teammates.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
2,477 battles

"oh, i lose again?"

Blame the MM

Blame the game

Blame other Player

Blame the Developer

Blame WG

Blame enemy player

Blame RNG

Blame the ship

Blame the Internet

Blame the Monitor

Blame the Mouse

Blame the Keyboard

Blame every single damn thing that known

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
316 posts
3,400 battles

i think the 5th option is the real issue: LACK OF COMMUNICATION AND TEAMWORK: you dont know when the guy behind you is gonna run away without warning or if they will actually cover you, or if they even care and even if they did, there is not much incentive to work as a team outside certain situations in most peoples eyes

Share this post


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

×