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

Suggestion for improving passive game play in WoWS.

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
60 posts
7,246 battles

These ideas are based on my observations, completely speculative, please give me your opinion on the matter and any ideas you may have.

 

I main BB's in WoWS and i have noticed, as many of you might have also noticed that BB player's tend to sit at the maximum range of their guns (or the Blue line in some situations) and prey to RNGesus for hits and then complain that BB accuracy is utter garbage in chat. (I have no problems with BB accuracy at range and this is not intended to be a whine thread).

 

after playing a few games a couple days ago in both my Nagato and my Aoba i realized that part of the reason for passive game play might be that the BB players all sit at the maximum range of their guns and cruisers can't afford to go to far ahead of their teams BB's as they need the BB's to be massive meat shields, the BB's also want to sit close to the Cruisers for the AA, this creates a vicious cycle of no one going anywhere until the 10 or 5 min mark.

 

so to counter this problem i have come up with 2 main suggestions and maybe a few minor alterations to the game to make going close more common among BB players and as an extension CA and CL players. (These suggestions are based off my experience as a Japanese BB player and in particular the Kongou)

 

     1. (Alot of people are gonna hate this but i can see it working) either reduce the range of a BB to their in game effective range (being about 14-18km for the Kongou) or drastically reducing their accuracy at extreme ranges and increasing accuracy at medium ranges, (below the average extreme range of the CA or CL at the tier so they can have a chance in a gunnery duel). 

I feel that the reduced accuracy would more or less pull the BB players forward which would encourage the CA and CL players to approach the battle as well.

For this to work either the likeliness, DMG or timer for fire on a BB would need to be reduced as many BB players dread burning from bow to stern after attempting to dodge a spread of torpedoes and using the Damage control ability (i have no problem with torpedoes and i cant think of ways to change them without making DD more redundant than it already is), the reduction of fires could be compensated by a higher chance to damage modules or higher base damage of HE shells from cruisers.

 

2.(I prefer this system and it could be implemented in different ways for the different classes {Numbers used are only an example, different numbers would be used for game balance but maths isn't my strong point}) Give each ship type different bonuses to either EXP or credits received, for firing in short or medium ranges and extreme ranges, E.G.

hitting a target at extreme ranges, -10% exp earned

hitting a target between Medium and extreme ranges, base exp reward

hitting a target in medium ranges, +10%exp earned

hitting a target between medium and short ranges, +15% exp earned

hitting a target in short ranges, +20% exp earned (Maybe only for DD players who need to get close)

I believe that this system would be positively received among the player base and this would encourage all players to get closer to get more exp.

 

Those were my suggestions, I might post more on the thread if i think of any, please give me any feedback you might have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Already in Alpha Testers
300 posts
938 battles

Your ideas do have a lot of merit but I think there is an easier solution - just make the maps smaller so that the fighting starts just shortly after the battle starts so that the game becomes more about kill or be killed, rather than hide and wait for someone to play aggressive and jump all over them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
771 posts
1,374 battles

Your ideas do have a lot of merit but I think there is an easier solution - just make the maps smaller so that the fighting starts just shortly after the battle starts so that the game becomes more about kill or be killed, rather than hide and wait for someone to play aggressive and jump all over them.

 

This, imo the maps are just wayyy too big. the map size is also half way responsible for a lot of draws, notice how in low tier battles on the tiny maps the games never draw? 

i wonder why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LBAS]
Super Tester
1,283 posts

I'm afraid that not all BB players play like that.

 

I like moving forward to within a medium to short range to maximise damage potential (especially in the Warspite), but I like to also hit targets out at extreme range before I get to proper attack range.

 

Taking away xp for engaging targets at extreme range would penalise the players who ARE NOT hanging back or straddling the blue line like a bunch of muppets.

 

I'm sorry, but I do not agree with your suggestion.

 

 

Edited by EvacuateBowel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
506 posts
1,386 battles

I too disagree. Why should we encourage more aggresive gameplay when there's already a reward in place? Being passive especially in domination map can make you lose a round and all the benefits of the reward of winning the round.

 

I'll give you an example:

 

  1. First one, high tier matches where we were facing Yamato and T9 IJN Carrier. We were outmatched in the capital ship category with the only solace of having two Zao cruisers on our side. Our high tiered players were demoralized early in the match, and decided to bundle up together in order to face the enemy capital ships. But this is a domination map, and our team fleet, instead of capping flags, tried to maintain as much distance as possible from the Yamato. I, along with a Mogami, was the only one who went capping the other two flags.
  2. The second example, T7 matches. The enemy had more carrier than us, and also had more destroyer (Thank you MM!!). The enemy had Fubuki, Hatsuharu, and two Mutsuki. Our team only had me in the clunky weak Sims, and another Mutsuki. To my astonishment, the whole fleet bundled up together and went to cap the enemy base, our fleet clashed head on with a smaller enemy fleet and managed to push them back all the way to their base and gave way for me and the Mutsuki to cap the enemy base. While our smaller fleet defending our base managed to delay the enemy from capping our flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,566 posts
12,917 battles

well, lets just wait and see what happens with the new patch since MM is suppose  to be better.

it would be nice if MM was 2 tier difference only and not the 3-4 tiers it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

The problem with 'lack of aggression' is not a simple one.

 

In part it's caused by rational evaluation of your ship's strengths and weaknesses. If I can shoot you and you can't shoot me, why would I want to move to where you can shoot me? No, I'll leave that to you and continue shooting you.

 

A problem, as you've pointed out, is a lot of other players don't have the patience. You can say "We have a BB advantage; CAs stick with our BBs and defend against planes and DDs please" and it will make no difference. The CAs will charge off towards the enemy, get spotted, then get wrecked by the BBs. Meanwhile your own BBs are sitting back watching them die. That's an advantage to the enemy. For all of that, that same enemy can still LOSE if they then advance on the remaining ships one or two at a time, as they suffer the same fate as the initial YOLO clowns.

 

Which leaves the survivors on both sides. Which is why there are so many draws, as those survivors probably won't kill each other, and might not even be fast enough to get to the cap circle should they try that route (especially the USN BBs).

 

Coordinated play between classes is the best situation. Trouble is how to do that WHILE advancing when map design in fact breaks up lines of sight etc.

 

Before doing anything that encourages people to play their ships in ways that are in fact not ideal (close range bonuses favour those ships that would do best to do that anyway), perhaps an idea worth exploring might be to play around with the placement of the 'normal' cap zones instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

i see where you guys are coming from, and i agree with your points, i didn't consider the things you had brought up. 

thanks, will keep it in mind

 

It's still good stuff to toss around in the forum.

 

These things were discussed even back in Alpha, usually as a result of observing how many draws there were compared with WoT.

 

Never hurts to bring them up, however, as you might introduce things others haven't thought of, and their replies might get you to think about a few different things, too.

 

A good use of the forum IMO.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,083 posts
5,169 battles

yup, most of the maps at higher tier are way too big for slow USN BB. like island of ice

 

still sometimes i saw FastBB like kongou and amagi moving at half speed and hiding at the back of USN BB instead of using their great speed to position themselves, or follow their CA to provide heavy fire support. $%^&*% campers everywhere.

Edited by yansuki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
802 posts

I guess one possible solution if you want to reduce draws to games that actually are close is introduce a team with the most kills at the end of the match wins, much like how in domination the most cap points can win after the game time has elapsed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,677 posts

I guess one possible solution if you want to reduce draws to games that actually are close is introduce a team with the most kills at the end of the match wins, much like how in domination the most cap points can win after the game time has elapsed.

 

although the prospect of ranked matchups may very well promote aggression. one aspect I'm really ticked off in domination though is that the flippin capital ships die really early that it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
420 posts
20 battles

Actually the current system, that dealing more damage earns more exp and money sounds good enough system wise.

If you ask a map being too small, CV would die too fast. There's one or two maps for good example already. As if 50km is not too small for CV already. The plane itself can go 250km to engage target and return or even more irl.

 

About the differential exp earning that proposed by 98shintaro, i do not see the merit of it.

Since the accuracy of BB is lowered at long range, then it should net lower damage that leads to lower income.

Even with the current system do we have, i prefer close ranged combat over long range no matter what ship i do ride. Except with CV in which situational, but usually not at the beginning of battle. At many maps, we could take islands as cover to close in. That CA that think it is dangerous to approach BB with longer range is the person's problem. Zigzagging CA is difficult to hit at long range. BB love to stick with CA, well....as a USN BB player, i see it for better DD anticipation more than the said AA cover. And seriously, there's no sane BB player that think that his ship is a good meatshield. During concentrated team fire, it will go down less than a minute, as WG said at NA forum Q&A corner.

 

I would say that why ppl are random is the very source of your frustration. Sometimes they just loitering at base, sometimes charge of the light brigade, etc. No cure, the random map with random people, matched using capricious matchmaker.

Share this post


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

×