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

How to (realistically) fix camping meta

65 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
980 posts
12,617 battles

I think this is worth a discussion. 

 

I propose we increase chance of detonation by 300% for all sheeps travelling at 1/2 speed or slower at tier 9 and tier 10.

 

(I lack good ideas, you guys feel free and discuss) 

Edited by LordTyphoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
683 posts
7,367 battles

Might change the mechanics a bit extensive, but for reality sake, a target moving faster will be harder to be hit, wouldn't they? :P

 

Or make the projectile of shells have steeper angle when landing on distanced target, with high chance of causing citadel/heavy damage (this is actually true for German BB)

 

Or random AI scout plane with short sights fly over the edge of the map /near spawn point to spot those camping ships, and won't be around once one of the team gain upper hand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
980 posts
12,617 battles

low speed can be used to confuse enemy aim, it's also a tactic

 

 

and i know this post is troll post, imma tell the moderator

 

So you acknowledge my suggestion is somewhat valid, but I will still be reported for trolling... 

 

Nice logic. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
268 posts
6,381 battles

Problem is plunging fire doesn't work realistically in the game. I fired at a Hood (which has pretty shitty deck armour IIRC) at 18km in my Colorado, which should have been plunging quite steeply.

 

Overpen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
458 posts
7,194 battles

Problem is plunging fire doesn't work realistically in the game. I fired at a Hood (which has pretty shitty deck armour IIRC) at 18km in my Colorado, which should have been plunging quite steeply.

 

Overpen.

 

No, at 18km the shells would definitely either bounce off deck, overmatch bow, pen superstructure, or overpen superstructure.

18 degrees angle of fall at 18km is not enough to overcome autobounce.  You have to be at like 25km to have any chance of deck pen in Colorado (depends on the actual shells the game used).  Plus Hood deck armour doesn't get overmatched by 16 inch shells.  Plunging fire works in this game, just not at the ranges you expect them to.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
268 posts
6,381 battles

 

No, at 18km the shells would definitely either bounce off deck, overmatch bow, pen superstructure, or overpen superstructure.

18 degrees angle of fall at 18km is not enough to overcome autobounce.  You have to be at like 25km to have any chance of deck pen in Colorado (depends on the actual shells the game used).  Plus Hood deck armour doesn't get overmatched by 16 inch shells.  Plunging fire works in this game, just not at the ranges you expect them to.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.php

Thanks for clarifying this.  Interestingly, this page (which is for the mk5 16" gun used by the Colorado), shows that the deck pen at 20,000 yards is from 51mm to 90mm according to the numbers.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk5.php

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
455 posts
8,038 battles

The only reason there's no camping in low tiers is because bb guns are crap at those tiers so you can get away with showing a little broadside when turning. You try that playstyle in t10 and you will be brutally reminded how akkurat and devastating a t10 bb is, and how slow your turn is. As it is now, it isn't safe for a t10 bb (except Gk) to get near a Cap without smoke cover. Also because of ranges and gun accuracy in high tiers, most fights turn out to be 1v3 to 1v6 while low tiers are mostly limited to 1v1 to 1v3 simply because most of the enemy team cannot put effective fire on you. So taking the initiative and tanking without an island to protect your flank is suicidal. Turning during a fight is suicidal. I don't even know how to fix all this except for playing low tiers to escape from camping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
520 posts
11,127 battles

How about a credits multiplier that increases over shorter engagements? The closer you are to the enemies, the more credits you'll earn.

 

This is good!

 

Another option, would be to have a Credit/XP multiplier based on TIME:

 

The faster you finish the battle, the greater chances of HIGHER credit earnings for the winner.  This will give an incentive to players to be proactive in engaging the enemy.  Waiting takes time, and if you wait too long.... you dont get anything out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LYNMF]
Member
463 posts
10,438 battles

Make all map Ocean map :P oh and Epicenter to boot

 

Damn exile, that's what I was gonna suggest

but there'll be no one play cruisers anymore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MEGA]
Member
4,564 posts
17,569 battles

 

Damn exile, that's what I was gonna suggest

but there'll be no one play cruisers anymore

 

  moskow, H-IV and zao: laughs in HE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIF]
Super Tester
3,842 posts
4,140 battles

1000x bonus for XP and commander XP for ramming.. As illogical as that might sound.. Kill your crew get more xp. :)

 

Not good for team play because the idea isto kill the enemy and not yourself.   I like the idea of a credit multiplier that reduces the longer the game lasts.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
2,222 posts
13,737 battles

Best I can come up with is some sort of credit modifier for target distance based mainly on your range. So for example you might get 100% earning for a shell that scores at less than 50% of your range, but as the distance gets closer to your max range you earn less from that shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
65 posts
3,473 battles

How about a credits multiplier that increases over shorter engagements? The closer you are to the enemies, the more credits you'll earn.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they done it already with the improved economy patch adding potential damage and spotting damage and such in order to "encourage" aggressive gameplay? I don't see how it has made any difference.

 

To be honest, I think camping is already "punishable" by lower winning chance, and knowing WG, any attempt to address this meta would no doubt bring out other less-than-desirable side-effects.

 

Also, what about those Soviet CL/CAs that rely on long distance sniping to survive and excel? Do they deserve "punishment" as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LNA]
Member
1,666 posts
10,492 battles

Best I can come up with is some sort of credit modifier for target distance based mainly on your range. So for example you might get 100% earning for a shell that scores at less than 50% of your range, but as the distance gets closer to your max range you earn less from that shot.

This will ruin support fire cruisers like henri or moskva u know. Many cruisers depend on long range skirmishes to not get rekt, point is we do not want bb to camp at 18km + or turn tail and run the moment they got shot in the face.Bb camping at 12 to 15 km should be encouraged as this is their optimum engagement distance and they are anchoring the flank at that distance.

Hard capping the max firing range to 20 or 22km even with spotter plane will fix this problem i perceive and encourage Yamato fanboi to move their arse up to the front. Also dispersion can be make not to be linear compare to distance, that way at unnecessarily long range bb hitting stuffs will be the same as winning lottery tickets.

It is funny that in this game the most durable and well armoured class in game is the most afraid of damage and most likely to run b4 anyone else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54
[1NATN]
Member
287 posts
5,263 battles

This will ruin support fire cruisers like henri or moskva u know. 

 

It can simply be adjusted on a ship by ship or class by class basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
2,222 posts
13,737 battles

This will ruin support fire cruisers like henri or moskva u know. Many cruisers depend on long range skirmishes to not get rekt, point is we do not want bb to camp at 18km + or turn tail and run the moment they got shot in the face.Bb camping at 12 to 15 km should be encouraged as this is their optimum engagement distance and they are anchoring the flank at that distance.

Hard capping the max firing range to 20 or 22km even with spotter plane will fix this problem i perceive and encourage Yamato fanboi to move their arse up to the front. Also dispersion can be make not to be linear compare to distance, that way at unnecessarily long range bb hitting stuffs will be the same as winning lottery tickets.

It is funny that in this game the most durable and well armoured class in game is the most afraid of damage and most likely to run b4 anyone else

 

Why should cruisers be allowed to camp but not BB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
2,222 posts
13,737 battles

 

It can simply be adjusted on a ship by ship or class by class basis.

 

It would need a lot of that. It quickly gets complicated when you start considering shell velocity etc. Just on range alone would penalize slow shell velocities. So were we to investigate it further I think it would require some combination of range vs potential range vs time to distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Video Contributor
860 posts
10,965 battles

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they done it already with the improved economy patch adding potential damage and spotting damage and such in order to "encourage" aggressive gameplay? I don't see how it has made any difference.

 

They did, but yeah, the reward for doing it is so pathetically low you may as well forget the idea about being aggressive and just play safe. I'm pretty sure the majority didn't know or doesn't care about potential/spotting damage in the first place. Hell, most can't even explain why they kept losing money even though their ship is not damaged. Knowledge about how the economy works is too advanced for the average players, apparently.

WG still haven't work out the kinks of in game economy and the players are too incompetent to read patchnotes, Double Strike

 

 To be honest, I think camping is already "punishable" by lower winning chance, and knowing WG, any attempt to address this meta would no doubt bring out other less-than-desirable side-effects.

 

Sorry but its actually the opposite. Look at other MMOs and you'll see that camping is everywhere. Its a dirty strat but it works and can contribute to victories.

Staying to my suggestion, one way to address this undesirable meta without prohibiting it is to put credits multiplier that changes according to the range of engagements.

Why just the credits? Because it rewards those that plays actively, willing to tank and sacrifice their ship if necessary with extra credits (even though they may not deal much damage for themselves), while keeping those that camps "happy" with their usual damage/exp farming at the cost of lower credits gain.

Give players choices, viable choices, and reward them accordingly. 

 

 Also, what about those Soviet CL/CAs that rely on long distance sniping to survive and excel? Do they deserve "punishment" as well?

 

They were build around the sniping meta and yes, they should.

But imo they're more dangerous if they play aggressive and managed to mow down enemy DDs instead of sniping in the back.

They are very versatile ship, and they're Russian. Why am I not surprised by this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
2,222 posts
13,737 battles

Best I can come up with is some sort of credit modifier for target distance based mainly on your range. So for example you might get 100% earning for a shell that scores at less than 50% of your range, but as the distance gets closer to your max range you earn less from that shot.

After reading previous posts it would seem I "stole" this idea from Eurobeat :hiding: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×