Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Mayrii

3 basic things that would instantly improve the game

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
19 posts

     It's no surprise that as more and more ships and mechanics have been added, the more inconsistent and nonsensical the game has become. The fundamental problem with the game has always been, and especially now, boils down to 3 things:

1. Information

2. Inconsistency

3. Unimportance of capability

 

     Information is simple. It is the amount of factors available to you that affect your decision making. Currently there is a discrepancy of how information is acquired and manipulated between different ships. This involves things like concealment, aircraft spotting, radar, and hydro. These are all the factors that make information a fundamental problem with the game, and there are ways to fix them all. Radar and hydro are the simplest:

     Currently, both of these information acquisition mechanics are omnidirectional. This is a mistake. Rather than gather information from every direction, it should be a field of view defined by the user. How wide that field of view is would depend on it's range. The only exception to this would be hydro that is not stacked with vigilance, and does not have a base ship acquisition range that exceeds 4.2km. The field of view would also move with the ship, and traverse with their camera. This would mean radar usage for a skilled player would hardly change, but would hinder it to be used for such unintentionally great effect by a less skilled player. Being able to spot things that weren't intended, no matter their position, is unarguably too powerful of a tool to have.

 

     Concealment half falls into information and half inconsistency. Different ships regardless of nation or other anatomical characteristics have different concealment per ship, instead falling into a somewhat random range based on "flavor." But this flavor is an invalid argument in this state of the game, as concealment specialized ships are no longer the best in their category, nor do ships without the lowest of concealments rely on it. This can be seen by comparing US destroyers to IJN destroyers. Though the US often have the same concealment, they are faster on average, have better torpedoes, better guns, better AA, better handling, and comparable HP. Other nations either rely on extra utility or evasion to contest parts of the map.

 

     Aircraft spotting touches in a much bigger problem with carriers, and the solution to a good part of it would be simple: Have different modes for squads to be in. One of them would be normal; they are attacked by AA when near ships, can spot ships, can attack ships, can attack other planes. But another mode would take all of that away, in exchange for giving them faster cruising speed. This would automatically be applied to all kinds of planes, including catapult fighters and spotting planes. The spotting plane could be attacked by enemy fighters that are in the same mode as it, but can't if they're not, nor could they even see it. Catapult fighters and planes assigned to escort would automatically switch states to match enemy planes that come near it and attack them, so long as they are spotted.

     This solves a lack of control problem that some mid to high tier carriers face, when a single ship could be in a place that denies all of their activity, intentional or not. This gives the carrier captain more control over what happens to their planes and when.

     Switching plane states would take up to 10 seconds, though be much faster for squads with low count, or catapult planes.

 

 

     Inconsistency is a problem when the game doesn't obey some/a lot of it's own rules. Angling is the most obvious one to point out, as in this state of the game, proper angling has become far less important, and often times doesn't work as intended.

The simple fix to this would be to make citadels impossible to overpenetrate, as well as make each and every one of them vulnerable from any range, but not from every angle; only broadside, and not from every gun caliber. If there is to be a range at which they can no longer be penetrated, it needs to be consistent for every tree across every nation and never change unless it changes universally.

     The second requirement to fix this would be to remove overmatch. Overmatch is one of the biggest problems with the game entirely. Rather than have things like autobounce, overmatch, and angle tolerance, they need to all be replaced with a single mechanic that makes bigger guns able to penetrate armour at steeper angles, and thicker armour being able to resist being penetrated at steeper angles. Lastly, each nation would have a specific multiplier on how much penetration per degree of angling it gets.

This would make all kinds of angling work as intended. The only thing that would affect how you angle is the caliber of gun and the nation of ship you face, not the class of ship. Plus the use of proper ammunition depending on angle would be encouraged.

 

     A second major consistency problem is shell deceleration. Many ships suffer from having fast shells that slow down a lot before landing, both affecting the accuracy of the travel timer, and how those ships can use cover, whereas other ships have a more or less constant velocity no matter the range, meaning their shells always behave predictably and are easy to look at and understand the way they move. Shells need to travel at either constant, or very near constant velocity for their entire flight time. Shell velocity can thus be readjusted accordingly, and would be much easier to calculate with.

 

 

     Unimportance of capability is an idea that at the ends of either low skill or high skill play, the choice of ship matters more than one's own ability to play it. Depending on how the ship is constructed in game, it can be very effective without the player actually having much knowledge about what's actually happening, or how the game works. Likewise, a poorly constructed ship can have some of the best players using it and still not be able to make it work, even in otherwise ideal circumstances. This idea is a rather difficult one for some people to accept as actually true, but it is a very real problem and needs to be addressed. Everything needs to be designed with the intent of rewarding those who use it better than others. This keeps the game able to be competitive, make improvement matter, and encourage capability based matchmaking, and controlled matchmaking for newer/less skilled players. Better players will know what better players think and can better predict/work with them, whereas new/less skilled players don't need to worry about fighting better players.

     But creating the new matchmaking right now wouldn't matter, since being a good player doesn't mean as much as it should.

 

 

 

Every one of these changes is based around gameplay at tiers with maximum discrepancy of player capability, as well as where information and inconsistency is most apparent. Everything else that would be negatively impacted would need class specific changes

Edited by Mayrii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,146
[PVE]
Members
12,550 posts
26,104 battles

One thing would make this game so much better...

 

For people to realize it is a game and to just play and have fun. Stop expecting perfection and enjoy what we have. :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
19 posts

In a game where the goal of the game is to win, and in any game where there is a designated "winning" side and "losing" side, we can't just "enjoy what we have", and trying to convince yourself that the current state of the game is fine is self delusional and will make for an unhealthy and unsuccessful game. In order for most players to even have fun, the game needs to be well designed, and it's not. The logical consequence of having rules that don't always obey themselves means that trying to apply that set of rules to the way everything functions without making any exceptions, is that there will be things that can never be balanced about the game, and thus those rules will have to go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,146
[PVE]
Members
12,550 posts
26,104 battles

Again, it is a game (a pretty good one that is darn successful and overall plays well despite what you seem to think). This isn't life or death. Relax, chill, and try to have fun. People just complain about the game way too much.

Edited by AdmiralThunder
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
19 posts

Function is an irrelevant factor. Anything can function any way. That doesn't mean everything should function every way. For a game to be genuinely successfully, it needs to be well designed, and it's an objective falsehood to say the game as it is could be considered well designed. Being designed well does not mean being made to function, hence why even some of the most masterfully crafted and optimized games are still not able to be considered well designed, because being able to make a game does not make you a game designer. At the end of the day, the game is not well designed, and simple, unguided, little steps aren't enough. Well guided [by actual game designers] whole leaps are needed, and above is just 3 things that could be done. Just

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,146
[PVE]
Members
12,550 posts
26,104 battles

Well, you seem to know everything about what makes an online game successful. So, go get some investors and create your own game and show us all how it's done. Seriously. You seem to think it is simple and easy so go do it and make yourself rich.

I like WOWS. I think it is a good game and a lot of fun. Is it perfect? No. Impossible to make something and please everyone so being perfect is impossible. I take the good it provides and try my best to enjoy it. Sounds to me like you shouldn't even play the game as you don't seem to like it.

Whatever, have a good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,216
[CVA16]
Members
5,650 posts
17,425 battles
On 9/18/2017 at 3:09 PM, Mayrii said:

Currently, both of these information acquisition mechanics are omnidirectional. This is a mistake. Rather than gather information from every direction, it should be a field of view defined by the user. How wide that field of view is would depend on it's range.

Remember that IRL, ships had a sizeable crew. Some with the dedicated purpose to search in a given sector. (check pictures of IJN bridges where you can see multiple large binoculars mounted around the bridge). When they spot something it is relayed to a central point for plotting so a captain at that point has an good idea what is around him.  Limiting the game to be even more to a tunnel-visioned gunsight like perspective would be very bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
19 posts
11 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Well, you seem to know everything about what makes an online game successful. So, go get some investors and create your own game and show us all how it's done. Seriously. You seem to think it is simple and easy so go do it and make yourself rich.

 

Pulling the "go make your own game" argument just means you surrender your skewed and shallow viewpoint that has so far not offered any sort of counter or useful input to what I have said. I don't have the time, money, or know any skilled programmers that can make our own game. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to criticize other games. When doing so, anyone, myself included needs to be mindful of how they present their criticism. There is nothing I have said that I would want to change just because I find it a bit irking. Being irked at something doesn't justify that it needs to change if it is something that is good for the game.

So far I have not given any opinion of whether I do like the game or not, so to say that I don't because I'm giving valid criticism holds no water. I do like the game, and I want to see it get better. The only time I will leave on my own accord is if, despite constant feedback, it gets worse and worse. Admittedly I am nearing that point, but I am still here in the hopes that the developers will listen to genuine feedback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
19 posts
2 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

Remember that IRL, ships had a sizeable crew. Some with the dedicated purpose to search in a given sector. (check pictures of IJN bridges where you can see multiple large binoculars mounted around the bridge). When they spot something it is relayed to a central point for plotting so a captain at that point has an good idea what is around him.  Limiting the game to be even more to a tunnel-visioned gunsight like perspective would be very bad.

 

The suggestion in question targets only Hydro and Radar. It does not create tunnel vision either, as the field of acquisition moves with the camera [at a set tracking speed]. It's sole purpose is to make them both more skill based consumables, rewarding those who know where to look and hardly rewarding those who don't

Edited by Mayrii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[O7]
Members
197 posts
8,916 battles

Make radar and hydro ranges viewable on ships w/out having purchased the ships or researched certain hulls (Chapaev)

Make radar/hydro/proximity range available on the minimap

Actual tutorial system that includes stuff like angling, overmatch, shell selection, concealment/spotting, kiting, popping d-cons, sitting in smoke (and the torpedoes sent in their way), team etiquette - not torping teammates, smoking teammates w/ actual economic rewards for it etc. - add on to this list if you wish - btw this was not entirely original so nobody start flaming below plz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×