Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RevBC

How to fix passive meta

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

114 posts in this topic

Here's how we should fix the passive meta in tiers 8 through 10:

Buff the CVs (specifically USN ones) to make BBs scared of them again.

Give Midway her jets back

 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't fix camping before. Won't fix it now. Campers gonna camp. PERIOD.


8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also dumbing down the game did not help. Make it as steep of a learning curve as Dwarf Fortress (minus the ASCII)


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to buff CVs to get rid of passive play, you'd have to make them really, really, really overpowered.  Then you'd get a situation where whether you win or lose depends on 1 player.  That doesn't help the game whatsoever.  IMO Buffing a CV nerfs every other class in the game. 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I love CVs, balancing them is a tricky task. As Thunderstruck pointed out, too much of a buff to CVs means to much is placed on the skill of the CV captain. Part of the increasingly mythological rework should involved some way of decreasing influence that the skill gap between Joe Average and Unicum has on the match. A great CV player can bulldoze less skilled players and win the game for his team.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to forget that WG encouraged camping in the game design. They made high tier so prohibitively costly that you literally couldn't afford to be aggressive, no matter how much you wanted to. They trained the player base for the hide in the back meta...in the interest of money....

Short sighted money grab ruins long term prospects...film at 11. Another well documented fail on the part of WG....:Smile_teethhappy:


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'll make this short and sweet, you don't, theres no fixing the camping meta, there will ALWAYS be campers, and there little WG can do to stop that, they can pull off all these things that they hope will end camping, but camping will never go away, there will always be *those* players that hide in the back and refuse to push, then complain that their team is bad wen they're the only ones left, completely oblivious to the fact that THEY are the problem

Edited by tcbaker777

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, awiggin said:

People seem to forget that WG encouraged camping in the game design. They made high tier so prohibitively costly that you literally couldn't afford to be aggressive, no matter how much you wanted to. They trained the player base for the hide in the back meta...in the interest of money....

Short sighted money grab ruins long term prospects...film at 11. Another well documented fail on the part of WG....:Smile_teethhappy:

I think that this is a bad way to describe it.  I don't see it as a money grab.  I think that they just used the same model (i.e. repair costs) that they use in WoT, which caused people to fear the high cost of repairs, which in turn caused/trained players to be very cautious.  Changing the economic system to use a generic service cost, while a good idea, came too late.  The players were already conditioned to play a certain way.

On top of this, they introduced a line of cruisers which are hard core smoke campers, i.e. the RN cruiser line.  Plus you have offensive smoke, which further encourages people to play passively (hiding behind or in smoke).  

Another one is allowing ships to fight bow on because of the auto-bounce/overmatching mechanic.  They have set up a situation where ships would rather present their, arguably, weakest armor to the enemy rather than their strongest armor (their belt armor), all because of the way that the overmatching mechanic handles things.  This really needs to be changed.

If they really want to encourage more dynamic play, they need to eliminate the elements in the game that encourage passive play.  Offensive smoke, being able to hide behind islands and shoot enemy ships you cannot self-spot, and so on.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I think that this is a bad way to describe it.  I don't see it as a money grab.  I think that they just used the same model (i.e. repair costs) that they use in WoT, which caused people to fear the high cost of repairs, which in turn caused/trained players to be very cautious.  Changing the economic system to use a generic service cost, while a good idea, came too late.  The players were already conditioned to play a certain way.

On top of this, they introduced a line of cruisers which are hard core smoke campers, i.e. the RN cruiser line.  Plus you have offensive smoke, which further encourages people to play passively (hiding behind or in smoke).  

Another one is allowing ships to fight bow on because of the auto-bounce/overmatching mechanic.  They have set up a situation where ships would rather present their, arguably, weakest armor to the enemy rather than their strongest armor (their belt armor), all because of the way that the overmatching mechanic handles things.  This really needs to be changed.

If they really want to encourage more dynamic play, they need to eliminate the elements in the game that encourage passive play.  Offensive smoke, being able to hide behind islands and shoot enemy ships you cannot self-spot, and so on.

Smoke should be changed to where no one can see out of it. If you can't see in it, you shouldn't be able to see out of it. (unless you have radar or hydro). Also, radar and hydro needs to not work through islands (as much as I love my Moskva with the radar module)


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, awiggin said:

People seem to forget that WG encouraged camping in the game design. They made high tier so prohibitively costly that you literally couldn't afford to be aggressive, no matter how much you wanted to. They trained the player base for the hide in the back meta...in the interest of money....

Short sighted money grab ruins long term prospects...film at 11. Another well documented fail on the part of WG....:Smile_teethhappy:

I would agree that camping is encouraged by the game design but not for the reasons you state. I personally think it is the combination of increasingly accurate guns (and longer effective range), decreasing mobility (increased rudder shift times and turning radius), along with the increasing dpm that promotes camping. The result of this means that getting caught out of position has increasingly dire consequences the higher tier you play. Additionally, detection modifying mechanics such as hydro, radar, and smoke can also encourage stand off play. I won't pretend to know hoow they should go about fixing it but it doesn't surprise me that players are cautious about taking damage since many high tier mechanics discourage initiative.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RevBC said:

Smoke should be changed to where no one can see out of it. If you can't see in it, you shouldn't be able to see out of it. (unless you have radar or hydro). Also, radar and hydro needs to not work through islands (as much as I love my Moskva with the radar module)

News flash. You technically can't. Other people are spotting for you. With out them, you can't see crap.

 

Really wish people would learn and understand game mechanics.


2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 5:45 PM, tcbaker777 said:

i'll make this short and sweet, you don't, theres no fixing the camping meta, there will ALWAYS be campers, and there little WG can do to stop that, they can pull off all these things that they hope will end camping, but camping will never go away, there will always be *those* players that hide in the back and refuse to push, then complain that their team is bad wen they're the only ones left, completely oblivious to the fact that THEY are the problem

There's a difference between camping and passive play.  The OP was talking about "passive play", though it's possible he may not appreciate the difference.

I want to see more dynamic play, i.e. more shoot and maneuver, as opposed to bow-on static fighting or sitting still (or barely moving a little) in or behind smoke.  

Winning battles is not about always pushing.  Sometimes, it's about knowing when to hang back and engage in some mid range sniping/slugging, and knowing how to recognize when you have an advantage and when it's time to push that advantage and push into the enemy. 

At the same time, sometimes your team is pushing on one side of the map but you're on the other side.  And you have to be smart enough to accept that sometimes the wisest course of action is a give ground while fighting.  A well played BB or 2 with a little support can fight one hell of a tough fighting withdrawal and make the enemy pay hard for every kilometer, buying time for the rest of the team to either get to the enemy base in standard mode, or come back to reinforce you and crush the enemy you're trying to slow down.

Edited by Crucis

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IronWolfV said:

News flash. You technically can't. Other people are spotting for you. With out them, you can't see crap.

 

Really wish people would learn and understand game mechanics.

It would make it purely defensive instead of offensive, which is the point.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Crucis said:

There's a difference between camping and passive play.  The OP was talking about "passive play", though it's possible he may not appreciate the difference.

I want to see more dynamic play, i.e. more shoot and maneuver, as opposed to bow-on static fighting or sitting still (or barely moving a little) in or behind smoke.  

Winning battles is not about always pushing.  Sometimes, it's about knowing when to hang back and engage in some mid range sniping/slugging, and knowing how to recognize when you have an advantage and when it's time to push that advantage and push into the enemy. 

At the same time, sometimes your team is pushing on one side of the map but you're on the side.  And you have to be smart enough to accept that sometimes the wisest course of action is a give ground while fighting.  A well played BB or 2 with a little support can fight one hell of a tough fighting withdrawal and make the enemy pay hard for every kilometer, buying time for the rest of the team to either get to the enemy base in standard mode, or come back to reinforce you and crush the enemy you're trying to slow down.

well if you're wanting to see less "passive play" i wouldn't hold your breath, just saying


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

News flash. You technically can't. Other people are spotting for you. With out them, you can't see crap.

 

Really wish people would learn and understand game mechanics.

I wish that people like you would understand that we want those crappy, idiotic game mechanics to be changed!!!  The fact that we want them changed DOES NOT mean that we don't understand them!  What is it with people like you, IronWolf, who assume that wanting something changed means that we haven't learned nor understood a game mechanic?  It's damned annoying, let me tell you.

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

There's a difference between camping and passive play.  The OP was talking about "passive play", though it's possible he may not appreciate the difference.

I want to see more dynamic play, i.e. more shoot and maneuver, as opposed to bow-on static fighting or sitting still (or barely moving a little) in or behind smoke.  

Winning battles is not about always pushing.  Sometimes, it's about knowing when to hang back and engage in some mid range sniping/slugging, and knowing how to recognize when you have an advantage and when it's time to push that advantage and push into the enemy. 

At the same time, sometimes your team is pushing on one side of the map but you're on the side.  And you have to be smart enough to accept that sometimes the wisest course of action is a give ground while fighting.  A well played BB or 2 with a little support can fight one hell of a tough fighting withdrawal and make the enemy pay hard for every kilometer, buying time for the rest of the team to either get to the enemy base in standard mode, or come back to reinforce you and crush the enemy you're trying to slow down.

I know the  difference. I have no problem with that pesky PITA Des Moines sitting in a tactical position defending a cap, but BBs (and possibly the rest of your team) fleeing to/sitting on the B line is just irritating


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I wish that people like you would understand that we want those crappy, idiotic game mechanics to be changed!!!  The fact that we want them changed DOES NOT mean that we don't understand them!  What is it with people like you, IronWolf, who assume that wanting something changed means that we haven't learned nor understood a game mechanic?  It's damned annoying, let me tell you.

 

Exactly. I think by 4600+ battles total, played all classes (but not so much CV to be fair), I understand the game mechanics, especially smoke.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

well if you're wanting to see less "passive play" i wouldn't hold your breath, just saying

If some of the possible changes I described were implemented, you would start seeing more passive play, if only in self defense by the players affected.  If ships couldn't park and fight their ships bow on, do you really think that  they'd sit there and get wrecked after eventually learning that it's no longer a valid tactic?  Do you think that people would play the game parked in smoke if they couldn't fight from inside that smoke (unless they had radar or hydro, of course)?  I think that people would eventually learn to change, because they'd have no choice to do otherwise.

Of course, this wouldn't change the idiot who just sits broadside to the enemy at 20km.  You can't fix stupid people.  But you can fix stupid mechanics.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

Didn't fix camping before. Won't fix it now. Campers gonna camp. PERIOD.

^^ That, sadly. WG introduces mechanics to counter/fix camping, people will find ways to get around it or just ignore it and camp harder.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I wish that people like you would understand that we want those crappy, idiotic game mechanics to be changed!!!  The fact that we want them changed DOES NOT mean that we don't understand them!  What is it with people like you, IronWolf, who assume that wanting something changed means that we haven't learned nor understood a game mechanic?  It's damned annoying, let me tell you.

 

Oh look who's going ape****. Keep your nose out of where it doesn't belong. Actually know what. You have never had anything worth while to say anyways and I am weary of dealing with you. Adios to ignore land. May you rot there.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RevBC said:

Here's how we should fix the passive meta in tiers 8 through 10:

Buff the CVs (specifically USN ones) to make BBs scared of them again.

Give Midway her jets back

 

Stop playing Passive simple. Lead by example.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

Stop playing Passive simple. Lead by example.

That would require players to actually acknowledge they have guts, gumption, balls etc.

 

Which most of the player base does not.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

Stop playing Passive simple. Lead by example.

First they have to know that a mini map exists.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IronWolfV said:

That would require players to actually acknowledge they have guts, gumption, balls etc.

 

Which most of the player base does not.

Yes but to lead is the only way. don't play passive.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

Yes but to lead is the only way. don't play passive.

I try to. I usually end up 1 of 2 ways.

Dead

Beaten into a retreat with low health

 

It ia extremely rare for gutless wonders to actually follow me in.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.