Jump to content


Maybe removing invisifire will shake up high tier gameplay.


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

Destroyer_Kiyoshimo #41 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:53 PM

    Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 12,036
  • Member since:
    05-25-2014

View PostTaichunger, on 20 March 2017 - 03:44 PM, said:

 

Naw, lack of CVs is good. The presence of CVs helps feed the collapses that are common in high tiers. Without CVs there's actually a chance that a high tier match will go down to the wire. I had two like that yesterday, and neither had a CV. Good games are really rare in the high tiers, and I savor them. 

The real problem won't go away: all high tier ships are glass cannons and can murder each other in a minute. Anyone who pushes up is quickly annihilated by skilled players putting down huge volumes of fire. It has only gotten worse with the addition of the ridiculous Minotaur, whose smoke should be removed, and of course the upgrades to the Khab, which obviously needed to be more OP, since it was Russian. 

 

The solution to better high tier matches is to either (1) reduce the volume of fire -- remove the BB 26 second reload module and make them all minimally 30 seconds, for example, or (2) increase damage resistance -- for example, fire resistance needs an across the board buff, and the number of fires on BBs should be limited to 2, and all other ships, to 1.  WG won't do that because they would rather have dead ships than good matches.

 

That is just the way it is. 

 

You keep saying this but I witness plenty of collapses even in non-carrier games. Carriers are not some instrumental part in the GRAND WARGAMING CONSPIRACY you keep waving around as if "shortening games" actually mattered. What, do you think they pay by the megabyte or something?

 Kiyoshimo's aircraft carrier rework Kiyoshimo's Torpedo Campaign

I am the Hull of my Torpedo. Steel is my body and Oxygen is my blood. I have caused over one thousand hull breaches. Unknown to flames, nor known to penetrate. I have withstood pain to launch many torpedoes. Yet those guns will never shoot anything.
So, as I pray-- Unlimited Torpedo Works


The_Sparrow #42 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:11 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 246
  • Member since:
    05-24-2015

Listen I was in my Monty today and I was being invisifired by a Fletcher and I thought it was fine. Would you like to know why? It is because playing DDs is hard enough as it is and they should keep their stealth firing because they need all the help they can get.

From,

Battleship Main with a Brain


"Don't be an idiot, changed my life" -Dwight Schrute

USS Alabama will come all is right in the universe.

"The fighter consumable is just a poor-man's defensive fire, hydro, and radar"-Forumist


1nc0mp3t3nt_1 #43 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:17 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 5,915
  • Member since:
    01-29-2015

View PostThe_Sparrow, on 21 March 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

From,

Battleship Main with a Brain

That's an oxymoron if I ever saw one :trollface:



The_Sparrow #44 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:23 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 246
  • Member since:
    05-24-2015
^^ True but I used to be a DD main so I get both sides and the DDs are harder

"Don't be an idiot, changed my life" -Dwight Schrute

USS Alabama will come all is right in the universe.

"The fighter consumable is just a poor-man's defensive fire, hydro, and radar"-Forumist


Steelgunner4104 #45 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:37 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 76
  • Member since:
    02-15-2013

View PostThe_Sparrow, on 20 March 2017 - 11:11 PM, said:

Listen I was in my Monty today and I was being invisifired by a Fletcher and I thought it was fine. Would you like to know why? It is because playing DDs is hard enough as it is and they should keep their stealth firing because they need all the help they can get.

From,

Battleship Main with a Brain

 

<3

 

Sincerely,

A DD Main


Amidst the blue skies, a link from past to future,

The sheltering wings of the protector.

The flames of hatred scorch the skies,

Igniting Gaia's funeral pyre...


The_Sparrow #46 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:47 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 246
  • Member since:
    05-24-2015
^^^LOL you made me laugh and yeah np m8 I for one know and care about all classes <3 back at ya

"Don't be an idiot, changed my life" -Dwight Schrute

USS Alabama will come all is right in the universe.

"The fighter consumable is just a poor-man's defensive fire, hydro, and radar"-Forumist


1nc0mp3t3nt_1 #47 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:48 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 5,915
  • Member since:
    01-29-2015
I started off BB, and moving to commit to DDs in... The Germans. Yup, I like a challenge, no I'm not a masochist

Kuckoo #48 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:50 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,682
  • Member since:
    08-07-2015

A lot of people make more out of invisifiring than it actually is.  It's never been a mechanic that can be consistently relied upon.  Opportunities to use it are few and far between, is fleeting when the opportunity does come, and when finally used is almost never decisively effective.

 

Except for Tier II and the two Tier Xs, I have every Russian DD in the tech tree and every captain is trained in AFT.  As often as I play those boats, invisifiring has never been one of those things that made any meaningful difference in my game.

 

That's just for Russian DDs with their excellent long range guns.  Invisifiring is an even more fickle experience with USN DDs.

 

When invisifiring goes away I won't miss it.  It will make no difference how I play the affected boats either way.  I'm still going to farm damage from range all match long, whether you can see me or not.  Some will still be salty over it, but then you're going to have to find something else to blame (something which your average BB plebeian will inevitably do - The_Sparrow excluded, of course =)).

 

 


 

"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm, but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves." - T.S. Eliot, The Cocktail Party


HazeGrayUnderway #49 Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:03 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Members

  • 7,108
  • Member since:
    03-13-2015

View PostKuckoo, on 20 March 2017 - 07:50 PM, said:

A lot of people make more out of invisifiring than it actually is.  It's never been a mechanic that can be consistently relied upon.  Opportunities to use it are few and far between, is fleeting when the opportunity does come, and when finally used is almost never decisively effective.

 

Except for Tier II and the two Tier Xs, I have every Russian DD in the tech tree and every captain is trained in AFT.  As often as I play those boats, invisifiring has never been one of those things that made any meaningful difference in my game.

 

That's just for Russian DDs with their excellent long range guns.  Invisifiring is an even more fickle experience with USN DDs.

 

When invisifiring goes away I won't miss it.  It will make no difference how I play the affected boats either way.  I'm still going to farm damage from range all match long, whether you can see me or not.  Some will still be salty over it, but then you're going to have to find something else to blame (something which your average BB plebeian will inevitably do - The_Sparrow excluded, of course =)).

 

 

 

It still is essentially going to be the same.

 

Zao is still going to pick your BB off at range.  Only this time you can see her do that while your shells miss at long range.

 

Gremyaschy is still going to annoy the f--k out of your BB as she dances at range.  Only this time you get to see her do that and futilely try to shoot at her.

 

And as I recall from another thread, range increases are among the adjustments to compensate for the loss of invisifiring.  So... Akizuki for instance is getting more range.

 

Etc, etc.


Edited by HazeGrayUnderway, 21 March 2017 - 04:04 AM.


Steelgunner4104 #50 Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:10 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 76
  • Member since:
    02-15-2013

View PostThe_Sparrow, on 20 March 2017 - 11:47 PM, said:

^^^LOL you made me laugh and yeah np m8 I for one know and care about all classes <3 back at ya

 

^-^


Amidst the blue skies, a link from past to future,

The sheltering wings of the protector.

The flames of hatred scorch the skies,

Igniting Gaia's funeral pyre...


Reymu #51 Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:15 AM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,123
  • Member since:
    10-16-2015

That annoyance needed to go anyway.

 

Now if WG would start curtailing the sheer offense scaling or buffing the defense scaling, would that improve high tiers? Doubtful. Though it'll be interesting to see what the whiners decide to hate on next.

 

Hopefully WG will start nerfing the whiners' main ships instead. A BaBBy crying about OP DD torps needs 4 seconds added to his rudder shift time, for example. When he's gone a month without whining, the nerf can be undone.


Always down for helping anyone learn. Hands-on guy, so I'll division with ya and observe how you're handling your ship. Click orange contacts button, use search bar for player's name, and right-click to add.


Shadow_NA #52 Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:23 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 746
  • Member since:
    09-03-2015
It will be on test server before it goes live. I would suggest that people get on test when it comes up and test it before making any calls on how it will affect the game. I see way too many people freak out in the forums over something in a test patch and they never even log on the test server to see if it is true or not on how it affects the game. Last few test servers i was lucky if i saw more than 1-2k people on at a time and the test server is up for all servers. Remember people freaking out over the RDF and it turned out to be just an a annoyance not a real threat.

Edited by Shadow_NA, 21 March 2017 - 04:27 AM.


dngrcnnn #53 Posted 21 March 2017 - 05:58 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,594
  • Member since:
    07-27-2015

View PostShadow_NA, on 20 March 2017 - 09:23 PM, said:

It will be on test server before it goes live. I would suggest that people get on test when it comes up and test it before making any calls on how it will affect the game. I see way too many people freak out in the forums over something in a test patch and they never even log on the test server to see if it is true or not on how it affects the game. Last few test servers i was lucky if i saw more than 1-2k people on at a time and the test server is up for all servers. Remember people freaking out over the RDF and it turned out to be just an a annoyance not a real threat.

 

That's because many people are bad at this game and didn't understand how and why RPF is actually useful. And it most assuredly is.



Taichunger #54 Posted 21 March 2017 - 07:03 AM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,434
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

View PostDestroyer_Kiyoshimo, on 21 March 2017 - 07:53 AM, said:

 

You keep saying this but I witness plenty of collapses even in non-carrier games. Carriers are not some instrumental part in the GRAND WARGAMING CONSPIRACY you keep waving around as if "shortening games" actually mattered. What, do you think they pay by the megabyte or something?

 

....and the award for completely missing the point goes to Destroyer_Kiyoshimo. Yes, of course collapses occur in all game formats, they games are set up to induce collapses, from damage output of ships to map construction. But they are MORE LIKELY to occur with CVs in the game because CVs damage and kill ships arbitrarily, without relation to game action, and because CV skill levels are never perfectly matched. All CV damage is by definition pure cancer. Matches without CVs have a higher chance of going down to the wire because all damage is incurred actually performing game actions -- capping, defending caps, holding flanks, killing ships....

Yes, they do pay by the megabyte. Server space is finite and there are only 24 hours in a day. WG reduces the marginal costs of hosting games if it hosts more of them by shortening the match and reduces queue times. 

Remember that WOWs is really an attempt to port WOT onto ships, with CVs as artillery and the maps designed to break up player groups into smaller units that quickly collapse as small differences in RNG accumulate.

It works in some ways, but the underlying assumption of the WOT model is that the tank will respawn. Yet ships don't. 

Edited by Taichunger, 21 March 2017 - 07:05 AM.

----------

Still needed: (1) a NO CV button for the MM (2) Remove Shatter (3) a button for demounting all flags (4) the icon in the status bar to signal someone wants to div/chat with you


Taichunger #55 Posted 21 March 2017 - 07:06 AM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,434
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

View PostShadow_NA, on 21 March 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

It will be on test server before it goes live. I would suggest that people get on test when it comes up and test it before making any calls on how it will affect the game. I see way too many people freak out in the forums over something in a test patch and they never even log on the test server to see if it is true or not on how it affects the game. Last few test servers i was lucky if i saw more than 1-2k people on at a time and the test server is up for all servers. Remember people freaking out over the RDF and it turned out to be just an a annoyance not a real threat.

 

RPF is a terrible threat. Fortunately it is a skill that helps teams, not individuals, so it is not often taken. But it shouldn't be in the game... do you recall anyone asking for a skill with infinite distance, always on, and detects the nearest ship? Because I don't. Why did WG provide it? It hates stealthed DDs, because they slow down matches. 

----------

Still needed: (1) a NO CV button for the MM (2) Remove Shatter (3) a button for demounting all flags (4) the icon in the status bar to signal someone wants to div/chat with you


Raptor_alcor #56 Posted 21 March 2017 - 09:11 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 5,932
  • Member since:
    12-23-2012

View Postckupf, on 20 March 2017 - 02:57 PM, said:

 

Change for the sake of change is idiotic, more likely to make it worse than better.

 

Make some changes, but make sure they are good changes.

 

Only idiots assume how a change will work out before it is implimented. 

The happy blue fox. 


Canadatron #57 Posted 21 March 2017 - 09:55 AM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,080
  • Member since:
    12-31-2015

View PostRaptor_alcor, on 21 March 2017 - 04:11 AM, said:

 

Only idiots assume how a change will work out before it is implimented. 

And what exactly do you think Wargaming is doing? They cannot know all the ways that this change will effect game play. There might be a solid 80% of what they believe will happen but there will undoubtedly be unintended consequences to this change, just like every one that happened before it. That's why there are always "if something is up we will patch it" disclaimers. Some ships won't be played anymore as a result, the numbers will show up and Wargaming will act to move in a direction they see fit. 

Considering BB numbers haven't diminished at all and that has specifically been raised as an issue by WG, I'd be surprised if there isn't a change in the works for the class in the near future to address the population discrepancy. The reason you rarely see "BBtears" is simply because they have had little to cry about so far. As a class it's enjoyed it's time in game relatively unchanged in comparison to the others. It would be foolish to think they won't get their turn, especially with its plays drawing attention to the class. I'd imagine the next release of BB won't happen  until after they figure out what needs to change in order to fulfill their "vision" for the class moving forward.


-={FOG}=- Community Member

khaenn35 #58 Posted 21 March 2017 - 10:03 AM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Members

  • 19,083
  • Member since:
    06-23-2013

View Postslak__, on 21 March 2017 - 05:16 AM, said:

Yes and no.

 

I haven't been playing enough to feel comfortable at high tiers, that's my reason.

 

But maybe high tiers should be less "fun", the higher the tier the more skilled you should be in theory. The more stressful it will be for the less skilled and likely less fun. 

 

T10 should be for serious play imo, it should be where high skilled players go to shoot at each other...

Oh, ranked does that for us, doesn't it?

Waiiit.

Nevermind.


Official Forum Elite Admiral Potato/[edited]  <o 

Good luck, Captains! May the winds blow in your favour, and may your shells fly straight and true!

I try my best, don't judge me q.q

I am in no way the most reliable source of information nor any expert in the game, but I will try my best and you are free to correct/rebutt me!


chewonit #59 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:13 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,109
  • Member since:
    06-16-2015
It won't change the camping in any tier since the timid play style is due to the overly deadly main guns from the big ships.

People will just go back to complain about torpedoes again since nobody is willing to admit it's the big guns. And WG will have the excuse to nerf them again. Which I suspect is the plan all along.

BB's camping is a disease. And Type 93's are the cure.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users