Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Aduial

My biggest problems with high tier gameplay

56 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,339
Members
7,047 posts
4,534 battles

(In no particular order)

1. Radar goes through islands:

Three words: Complete. Cap. Denial. If a ship with radar decides to sit behind one of the islands at a cap, there's nothing a destroyer can do to cap the area, and there's nothing that the team can do to help the destroyer, except push slowly around the whole flank and reach the opposite side of the cap. This in turn, creates stagnant gameplay where none of the DDs are willing to approach a cap because they know that they could be lit up by radar from any one of the islands near the cap. 

 

2. Missouri: 

Yes, we all love our premium ships, but there's just no excuse for creating a ship that completely ignores all pre-established guidelines when it comes to ship class roles. Is it a battleship's job to spot the DD and kill it? If you look at the 2-week stats on the NA server, Missouri has a 55.09% win rate - and the second highest performing T9 BB is Lion with 50.71% - more than a FOUR PERCENT DIFFERENCE. It beats the Khabarovsk, a ship that is known to be overperforming substantially, by almost 2%. That's just how much impact radar has on a ship's utility and its ability to influence the battle. And throwing on the radar consumables without any forethought just so you can sell some more premium ships with gimmicks is absolutely unacceptable in my opinion. Now, since WG has a "we don't nerf premium ships" policy, I'm guessing they're never going to change this ship, but I advice the developers strongly to not make the same mistake again. 

 

3. Extremely accurate battleship guns:

Once you get to T8-10, the wonky dispersion of ships like the New Mexico are gone; in any given battle, you have multiple 9-12 gun battleships that can accurately hit a target from long range, and outright destroy them if they get one lucky shot. People always talk about how passive play is caused by torpedoes or HE spam; however, I believe that battleships that have devastating alpha strike are the biggest contributors to the reluctance to push.

 

3. Autobouncing shells with bow armour (BB vs BB):

From tier 5 to tier 7, battleships can overmatch the bow armour of same tier battleships. This means that bow-tanking is not a very reliable strategy. However, once you get to T8 and above, battleships can sit bow-on all day and take minimal damage from other battleships, unless they're facing a Yamato. A long time ago, a change that would lower the bow armour of high tier battleships was proposed to reduce the amount of bow-camping; however, it was shot down by players who felt BBs would become too fragile. Well, from current stats, I see no indication that BBs are having trouble surviving - therefore, I believe that this idea should be reconsidered.

 

4. Bad map design:

 -Shatter: Who the heck came up with the idea of putting a huge island in the middle of the C cap? Every time I get a match on this map, I pray that I don't spawn on the C side, because there's no way you can cap it if the enemies camp behind the huge island the whole game. This obviously creates very stagnant play where you wait for the other team to make the mistake of rotating around the island, or you yourself make the choice to push around to near certain death.

 -Tears of the Desert: Again, similar problem, except it happens across the whole map. A game on this map basically consists of waiting behind one of the islands in the big ring of islands until someone makes a mistake. 

 

5. Gun bloom:

Having guns of all caliber bloom for the same amount of time is hugely punishing to both DDs and CAs, while it allows BBs with good concealment to be undetected for a full 1/3 of their gun reload. I have always been of the opinion that gun bloom should scale with gun caliber, but for some reason that has never been explicitly stated, WG thinks this is a bad idea. If there really is a reason for this, I would really love to hear it; otherwise, I wish WG would listen to the playerbase and actually consider the suggestions that are coming from the experienced players. 

 

Feedback is much appreciated (but please try to keep the bias to a minimal level). 

 

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,891
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
10,725 posts
7,682 battles

Not all tier 5-7 Bbs can over match bows, 14” tier 6 Bbs can’t ( I.e. majority of the tier), scharnhorst and KGV can’t, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,339
Members
7,047 posts
4,534 battles
1 minute ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

Not all tier 5-7 Bbs can over match bows, 14” tier 6 Bbs can’t ( I.e. majority of the tier), scharnhorst and KGV can’t, etc.

Yes, I probably was generalizing too much. But the point is that BBs at those tiers generally cannot reliably bow-tank other BBs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[FAE]
Members
2,160 posts
2,633 battles

I can agree to much of this. 

Hilarious how quickly that bow nerf disappeared. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27
[ISLA]
Beta Testers
334 posts
7,132 battles
26 minutes ago, Aduial said:

(In no particular order)

1. Radar goes through islands:

Three words: Complete. Cap. Denial. If a ship with radar decides to sit behind one of the islands at a cap, there's nothing a destroyer can do to cap the area, and there's nothing that the team can do to help the destroyer, except push slowly around the whole flank and reach the opposite side of the cap. This in turn, creates stagnant gameplay where none of the DDs are willing to approach a cap because they know that they could be lit up by radar from any one of the islands near the cap. 

 

2. Missouri: 

Yes, we all love our premium ships, but there's just no excuse for creating a ship that completely ignores all pre-established guidelines when it comes to ship class roles. Is it a battleship's job to spot the DD and kill it? If you look at the 2-week stats on the NA server, Missouri has a 55.09% win rate - and the second highest performing T9 BB is Lion with 50.71% - more than a FOUR PERCENT DIFFERENCE. It beats the Khabarovsk, a ship that is known to be overperforming substantially, by almost 2%. That's just how much impact radar has on a ship's utility and its ability to influence the battle. And throwing on the radar consumables without any forethought just so you can sell some more premium ships with gimmicks is absolutely unacceptable in my opinion. Now, since WG has a "we don't nerf premium ships" policy, I'm guessing they're never going to change this ship, but I advice the developers strongly to not make the same mistake again. 

 

3. Extremely accurate battleship guns:

Once you get to T8-10, the wonky dispersion of ships like the New Mexico are gone; in any given battle, you have multiple 9-12 gun battleships that can accurately hit a target from long range, and outright destroy them if they get one lucky shot. People always talk about how passive play is caused by torpedoes or HE spam; however, I believe that battleships that have devastating alpha strike are the biggest contributors to the reluctance to push.

 

3. Autobouncing shells with bow armour (BB vs BB):

From tier 5 to tier 7, battleships can overmatch the bow armour of same tier battleships. This means that bow-tanking is not a very reliable strategy. However, once you get to T8 and above, battleships can sit bow-on all day and take minimal damage from other battleships, unless they're facing a Yamato. A long time ago, a change that would lower the bow armour of high tier battleships was proposed to reduce the amount of bow-camping; however, it was shot down by players who felt BBs would become too fragile. Well, from current stats, I see no indication that BBs are having trouble surviving - therefore, I believe that this idea should be reconsidered.

 

4. Bad map design:

 -Shatter: Who the heck came up with the idea of putting a huge island in the middle of the C cap? Every time I get a match on this map, I pray that I don't spawn on the C side, because there's no way you can cap it if the enemies camp behind the huge island the whole game. This obviously creates very stagnant play where you wait for the other team to make the mistake of rotating around the island, or you yourself make the choice to push around to near certain death.

 -Tears of the Desert: Again, similar problem, except it happens across the whole map. A game on this map basically consists of waiting behind one of the islands in the big ring of islands until someone makes a mistake. 

 

5. Gun bloom:

Having guns of all caliber bloom for the same amount of time is hugely punishing to both DDs and CAs, while it allows BBs with good concealment to be undetected for a full 1/3 of their gun reload. I have always been of the opinion that gun bloom should scale with gun caliber, but for some reason that has never been explicitly stated, WG thinks this is a bad idea. If there really is a reason for this, I would really love to hear it; otherwise, I wish WG would listen to the playerbase and actually consider the suggestions that are coming from the experienced players. 

 

Feedback is much appreciated (but please try to keep the bias to a minimal level). 

 

123 and 5 I would say would be wrong.

  1: yes radar can see through islands but so can sonar.  its a game mechanic that they will have to over haul to make work. So probly not any time soon. Seeing as clan battle seems to be there main focus atm.   A big thing for me when playing my dd or cl is see what ship has radar in the loading screen.  and thing ok what are the odds of him being at thus cap.  nothing says you have to cap in the first 2 mins.

2:  bb are not the only ships having skills that would normally be a ca/cl skill aa radar hydro.  DD and have been dipping into this roll too AA/radar and hydro.  as for win rate for the ship I could careless. 

3: Top tier BB dispersion has not change much as you go up tiers the only thing that has change would be modules you can install and capt.  points.  you don't see much t5 running a 19 point capt.

5:  gun bloom is even through out the board 20 sec for all.  simple you shot be prepared to be shot.  not more stealth firing as the days of old.  at first I hated this fix,  it sure has made the game more less of a camp fest. Rember the invsable khab you never could spot and keeped lighting you on fire? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,972
[SYN]
Members
14,448 posts
10,425 battles

Missouri stronk.

the accuracy combined with lolpen vs. DDs is quite strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,339
Members
7,047 posts
4,534 battles
7 minutes ago, DeadIyArT said:

1: yes radar can see through islands but so can sonar.  its a game mechanic that they will have to over haul to make work. So probly not any time soon. Seeing as clan battle seems to be there main focus atm.   A big thing for me when playing my dd or cl is see what ship has radar in the loading screen.  and thing ok what are the odds of him being at thus cap.  nothing says you have to cap in the first 2 mins.

Sonar doesn't have 9 km range that can cover a whole cap like radar can. And no, you don't have to rush the cap. However, when a cruiser is or could be behind an island at the cap, the risk vs reward is being hugely imbalanced. And that's fine, if you're ok with passive gameplay. 

7 minutes ago, DeadIyArT said:

2:  bb are not the only ships having skills that would normally be a ca/cl skill aa radar hydro.  DD and have been dipping into this roll too AA/radar and hydro.  as for win rate for the ship I could careless

Yes, I do agree that DDs should not get things like DF or hydro. However, none of those have as much of an impact as radar does, and if you don't understand this, you need more high tier experience. If you don't know why win rate is important, well, then you don't realize the point of the game is to win, and that winning more defines a better ship. 

7 minutes ago, DeadIyArT said:

3: Top tier BB dispersion has not change much as you go up tiers the only thing that has change would be modules you can install and capt.  points.  you don't see much t5 running a 19 point capt.

Clearly not true. Don't know how to explain this shortly, go look up the dispersion / sigma values for each tier if you want. 

7 minutes ago, DeadIyArT said:

5:  gun bloom is even through out the board 20 sec for all.  simple you shot be prepared to be shot.  not more stealth firing as the days of old.  at first I hated this fix,  it sure has made the game more less of a camp fest. Rember the invsable khab you never could spot and keeped lighting you on fire? 

Again, risk vs reward is imbalanced. I don't see why you can't comprehend this concept. Also Khab could never stealth-fire effectively, so I don't know what you're talking about. 

Edited by Aduial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[ANIME]
Members
363 posts
9,306 battles
49 minutes ago, Aduial said:

4. Bad map design:

 -Shatter: Who the heck came up with the idea of putting a huge island in the middle of the C cap? Every time I get a match on this map, I pray that I don't spawn on the C side, because there's no way you can cap it if the enemies camp behind the huge island the whole game. This obviously creates very stagnant play where you wait for the other team to make the mistake of rotating around the island, or you yourself make the choice to push around to near certain death.

 -Tears of the Desert: Again, similar problem, except it happens across the whole map. A game on this map basically consists of waiting behind one of the islands in the big ring of islands until someone makes a mistake. 

I find Shatter to be quite enjoyable actually.   It could be the way I play or the teams I've had, Shatter just seems to have closer games and the tighter combat makes things feel more impactful.  I do see the issue, but I have not necessarily seen the consequences of the issue.

 

I'm curious about to map comparisons.

 

Firstly what do you think about Okinawa, then is it better than Tears of the Desert.  Personally Okinawa is better than a lot of the new maps.  It could be the same thing with Shatter where I've been lucky to have very engaging games, but something about the openness.  Is Okinawa better than Ocean in your opinion?  I see that the problem with Tears of the Desert isn't necessarily the lack of cover, but rather the poor placement of cover, but would it be better to have no cover?

 

I'm also curious about your opinions about Neighbors and Atlantic.  Before you read on, do you think Neighbors is a good map, and do you think Atlantic is a good map.  Personally Neighbors is quite good while Atlantic is quite bad.  It curious though as both maps feature a similar design.  The northern cap has a plethora of islands around it (although Atlantic does lack an island in the cap), the center cap decent cover from the norther cap, and the southern cap has some isolated cover, and then between the middle and the southern cap is just a large body of open water.  Atlantic does have the thin island separating the side, but no cover past that.  Do you think that Neighbors is a good map, and if so why doesn't it really translate well into something similar like Atlantic.

 

 

Edited by AhosChaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
198
[WOLF1]
Members
619 posts
12,934 battles

To me its just boring unless you are in a cruiser, in a dd you gotta fight your way just to get a good torp run and bb play is just bow forward meta that doesn't look like it will change much.  And overall everyone just waiting till someone pokes there head out first, rinse and repeat.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,339
Members
7,047 posts
4,534 battles
2 minutes ago, AhosChaos said:
Spoiler

I find Shatter to be quite enjoyable actually.   It could be the way I play or the teams I've had, Shatter just seems to have closer games and the tighter combat makes things feel more impactful.  I do see the issue, but I have not necessarily seen the consequences of the issue.

 

I'm curious about to map comparisons.

 

Firstly what do you think about Okinawa, then is it better than Tears of the Desert.  Personally Okinawa is better than a lot of the new maps.  It could be the same thing with Shatter where I've been lucky to have very engaging games, but something about the openness.  Is Okinawa better than Ocean in your opinion?  I see that the problem with Tears of the Desert isn't necessarily the lack of cover, but rather the poor placement of cover, but would it be better to have no cover?

 

I'm also curious about your opinions about Neighbors and Atlantic.  Before you read on, do you think Neighbors is a good map, and do you think Atlantic is a good map.  Personally Neighbors is quite good while Atlantic is quite bad.  It curious though as both maps feature a similar design.  The northern cap has a plethora of islands around it (although Atlantic does lack an island in the cap), the center cap decent cover from the norther cap, and the southern cap has some isolated cover, and then between the middle and the southern cap is just a large body of open water.  Atlantic does have the thin island separating the side, but no cover past that.  Do you think that Neighbors is a good map, and if so why doesn't it really translate well into something similar like Atlantic.

 

I think cover is something that's needed, but the approach of using using big islands to provide cover for an entire area, especially if it's inside a cap zone or near the spawn point, is bad. I dislike Ocean, simply because it has no cover.

Okinawa: Placement of islands in B is somewhat like the C cap on Shatter, but since it's a long, not a fat island, you don't have any cover from one side, so I don't find this to be much of a problem. However, there's too little cover at C, while the huge island separating A from B is a huge invitation for camping. 

Neighbour: I think this is one of the better map designs, although again, we have the problem of huge islands separating the A and C caps from the B cap completely. I would prefer a series of smaller islands rather than a single huge island. 

Atlantic: I like the design with smaller islands in the northern cap, but dislike the big island between center and southern cap. 

 

Overall, the key to making a good map is finding the right balance between too much and too little cover. One of my favourite maps in the game would be Hotspot, because none of the caps are too open or too closed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[ANIME]
Members
363 posts
9,306 battles
1 minute ago, Aduial said:

I think cover is something that's needed, but the approach of using using big islands to provide cover for an entire area, especially if it's inside a cap zone or near the spawn point, is bad. I dislike Ocean, simply because it has no cover.

Okinawa: Placement of islands in B is somewhat like the C cap on Shatter, but since it's a long, not a fat island, you don't have any cover from one side, so I don't find this to be much of a problem. However, there's too little cover at C, while the huge island separating A from B is a huge invitation for camping. 

Neighbour: I think this is one of the better map designs, although again, we have the problem of huge islands separating the A and C caps from the B cap completely. I would prefer a series of smaller islands rather than a single huge island. 

Atlantic: I like the design with smaller islands in the northern cap, but dislike the big island between center and southern cap. 

 

Overall, the key to making a good map is finding the right balance between too much and too little cover. One of my favourite maps in the game would be Hotspot, because none of the caps are too open or too closed. 

I agree about favorite map.  I thoroughly enjoy Hotspot and I to an extent Trap.

 

How do you feel about Land of Fire.  You have solid cover all around C, some what lacking around B, and decent cover at A.  Aside from the issue of a tiny B and C cap, does Land of Fire fit the good balance?

 

Also how do you feel about new Islands of Ice(Ice Islands?) compared to old Islands of Ice.  Which one is closer to your ideal?  You kinda went from one extreme to another.  Granted there is a fair amount of cover in the south on the new version, there is a lack of cover in the middle and north caps, at least from enemies that are pushing into the cap from the sides rather than the south.  Going off of what you like about big islands, is the bigger island between the south and middle cap on the new version good or bad and then there is a pretty bad choke point from the north to the middle cap, is that good or bad?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27
[ISLA]
Beta Testers
334 posts
7,132 battles
11 minutes ago, Aduial said:
19 minutes ago, DeadIyArT said:

1: yes radar can see through islands but so can sonar.  its a game mechanic that they will have to over haul to make work. So probly not any time soon. Seeing as clan battle seems to be there main focus atm.   A big thing for me when playing my dd or cl is see what ship has radar in the loading screen.  and thing ok what are the odds of him being at thus cap.  nothing says you have to cap in the first 2 mins.

Sonar doesn't have 9 km range that can cover a whole cap like radar can. And no, you don't have to rush the cap. However, when a cruiser is or could be behind an island at the cap, the risk vs reward is being hugely imbalanced. And that's fine, if you're ok with passive gameplay. 

I never said sonar cover the cap and has the same effect. I said the game mechanic is the same, It covers a area in a circle same with aa same with view radius the same as sonar.  Then push around the back side of the cap no bunch up in a cap point. Radar does not make passive game play. Passive game play has been like this before radar ever cap around.  I like my dd and i like my cruisers ie. moskiva 11.9km radar it lets me do my job of hunting dds.  with out radar they would not do there job well.  yes seeing through islands is b.s. but until they over haul the game mechanics your tough out of luck and have to deal with it like ever one else.

 

19 minutes ago, Aduial said:
27 minutes ago, DeadIyArT said:

2:  bb are not the only ships having skills that would normally be a ca/cl skill aa radar hydro.  DD and have been dipping into this roll too AA/radar and hydro.  as for win rate for the ship I could careless

Yes, I do agree that DDs should not get things like DF or hydro. However, none of those have as much of an impact as radar does, and if you don't understand this, you need more high tier experience. If you don't know why win rate is important, well, then you don't realize the point of the game is to win, and that winning more defines a better ship. 

Right now the most games i have played in tiers are high tiers. I HAVE ALL THREE t10 cruisers that have radar! in fact i have 10 t10 so yes i know the high end game play very well.  I know the mechanics of it and how it works and what impacts it has on the game.  And as for win rate on the BB ship you where talking about Missouri, i could careless about it win rate as a ship.

28 minutes ago, Aduial said:
35 minutes ago, DeadIyArT said:

5:  gun bloom is even through out the board 20 sec for all.  simple you shot be prepared to be shot.  not more stealth firing as the days of old.  at first I hated this fix,  it sure has made the game more less of a camp fest. Rember the invsable khab you never could spot and keeped lighting you on fire? 

Again, risk vs reward is imbalanced. I don't see why you can't comprehend this concept. Also Khab could never stealth-fire effectively, so I don't know what you're talking about. 

Lets see you shot your gun they see you. Ok they shoot there guns back at you.  DD should not get less of detection time then any other class.  And yes khab/ and gearing where very good at stealth firing. 

It seems your butt hurt about radar i get it some CA or BB radar you and killed you.  read the map see where the ships with radar are move away from them.  If you push caps early be ready to bail from them, have an escape rough planed.  Radar is here to stay and i am glade it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
449
[-AA-]
Members
1,729 posts
6,657 battles

1. I totally agree.

2. I don't have one. What about replacing Radar with Hydro + big free exp boost to keep people happy?

3. I don't mind the accurate guns of battleships, but what I do mind is that they lowered the citadel of the Montana and made the Conqueror also nearly impossible to citadel. BB players also need to know the game mechanics. It is awfull to see how many people keep sailing broadside now without getting punished, while a cruiser player gets insta deleted for being oblivious. At tier 8910 you should know how this game works out and get punished like cruisers. Some may say we go back to a sniper meta, but as far as I can tell nothing has changed...

4. I have no problem with this. You need to do some good positioning, otherwise you get burned down really fast.

5. Agree.

6. Perhaps they could test this to make knife fights between DDs more fun and cause less DDs dieing the first minute of the game. EDIT: because the moment you fire a gun it feels like you are being spotted for an eternity.

Edited by joris92

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
698
[SPTR]
Members
20,099 posts
5,372 battles
2 hours ago, Aduial said:

(In no particular order)

1. Radar goes through islands:

Three words: Complete. Cap. Denial. If a ship with radar decides to sit behind one of the islands at a cap, there's nothing a destroyer can do to cap the area, and there's nothing that the team can do to help the destroyer, except push slowly around the whole flank and reach the opposite side of the cap. This in turn, creates stagnant gameplay where none of the DDs are willing to approach a cap because they know that they could be lit up by radar from any one of the islands near the cap. 

 

2. Missouri: 

Yes, we all love our premium ships, but there's just no excuse for creating a ship that completely ignores all pre-established guidelines when it comes to ship class roles. Is it a battleship's job to spot the DD and kill it? If you look at the 2-week stats on the NA server, Missouri has a 55.09% win rate - and the second highest performing T9 BB is Lion with 50.71% - more than a FOUR PERCENT DIFFERENCE. It beats the Khabarovsk, a ship that is known to be overperforming substantially, by almost 2%. That's just how much impact radar has on a ship's utility and its ability to influence the battle. And throwing on the radar consumables without any forethought just so you can sell some more premium ships with gimmicks is absolutely unacceptable in my opinion. Now, since WG has a "we don't nerf premium ships" policy, I'm guessing they're never going to change this ship, but I advice the developers strongly to not make the same mistake again. 

 

3. Extremely accurate battleship guns:

Once you get to T8-10, the wonky dispersion of ships like the New Mexico are gone; in any given battle, you have multiple 9-12 gun battleships that can accurately hit a target from long range, and outright destroy them if they get one lucky shot. People always talk about how passive play is caused by torpedoes or HE spam; however, I believe that battleships that have devastating alpha strike are the biggest contributors to the reluctance to push.

 

3. Autobouncing shells with bow armour (BB vs BB):

From tier 5 to tier 7, battleships can overmatch the bow armour of same tier battleships. This means that bow-tanking is not a very reliable strategy. However, once you get to T8 and above, battleships can sit bow-on all day and take minimal damage from other battleships, unless they're facing a Yamato. A long time ago, a change that would lower the bow armour of high tier battleships was proposed to reduce the amount of bow-camping; however, it was shot down by players who felt BBs would become too fragile. Well, from current stats, I see no indication that BBs are having trouble surviving - therefore, I believe that this idea should be reconsidered.

 

4. Bad map design:

 -Shatter: Who the heck came up with the idea of putting a huge island in the middle of the C cap? Every time I get a match on this map, I pray that I don't spawn on the C side, because there's no way you can cap it if the enemies camp behind the huge island the whole game. This obviously creates very stagnant play where you wait for the other team to make the mistake of rotating around the island, or you yourself make the choice to push around to near certain death.

 -Tears of the Desert: Again, similar problem, except it happens across the whole map. A game on this map basically consists of waiting behind one of the islands in the big ring of islands until someone makes a mistake. 

 

5. Gun bloom:

Having guns of all caliber bloom for the same amount of time is hugely punishing to both DDs and CAs, while it allows BBs with good concealment to be undetected for a full 1/3 of their gun reload. I have always been of the opinion that gun bloom should scale with gun caliber, but for some reason that has never been explicitly stated, WG thinks this is a bad idea. If there really is a reason for this, I would really love to hear it; otherwise, I wish WG would listen to the playerbase and actually consider the suggestions that are coming from the experienced players. 

 

Feedback is much appreciated (but please try to keep the bias to a minimal level). 

 

First of all, welcome back, Aduial. I haven't seen you for some time. 
For your points, I have some oppositions and comments to bring up.
1. Quite a few threads have been made of the same topic, not just about radar passing through islands but the consumable as a whole. It should be noted CA gameplay is already at low rates, and at the ranges where Radar can be used there is the risk of your ship being extremely vulnerable to citadels. My solution for this is to make Radar act as in real life; longer range and time, but only "pinging" such ships, requiring more skill to hit but allowing players to close in on destroyers. 
2. Note that Missouri does generally have a pool of higher-skilled players playing the ship. There are multiple reasons for this, including financial reasons (lower skilled players are less likely to spend money on the game, prime example being me) and the difficulties of earning FXP.
3. Accuracy is a rather tenacious subject, but so to say that your logic counters itself. Accuracy matters best at long range, and yet the reluctance to push keeps said ships at long range. You do have a point, however, as the sheer accuracy and power to kill cruisers mid-range keeps them away from the front, leaving Battleships without AA power. Additionally, the accuracy we currently have on Battleships (not to high or low) causes them to be highly dangerous to DDs.
3b. (Your numbers messed me up, goddammit) Agreed. There has to be a way to encourage angling as an alternative to bow-tanking as a tanking tactic. However, the characteristics of some of the Battleships, including the maneuverability for all, make this quite challenging.
4. Indeed, however, I'd like to point out that Shatter is usually considered as better that TotD. I believe it to be due to the fact that TotD has higher islands, cutting out behind-island shooting, which is a perfectly-reliable strategy. There is a logic behind this, but I'm too tired at this point to connect the dots.
5. Gun bloom is correct, but your logic does have its flaws. There are Battleship lines in the game that actually depend on concealment as a balancing factor, mainly the US BBs (UK BBs have the heal, kek), and the 20 second gun bloom got them into trouble due to the fact that firing their guns kept them exposed to gunfire for the same time as a ship that does not depend on concealment. The gun bloom solution was lazy at best, and there has to be a better solution. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
825 posts
13,665 battles
4 hours ago, Aduial said:

1. Radar goes through islands:

that is indeed a problem, along with Hydro. It should def work with line of sight.

there is a similar problem with being spotted by invisible planes, even when you have a fighter above your ship. Just ludicrous and poorly implemented feature.

 

4 hours ago, Aduial said:

2. Missouri: 

I don't like looking at the win rate and "balance" the ship because of that. This is how WG has been working and it has brought terrible gameplay. For instance with OWSF. They implemented a poor solution then tried to buff some of the DDs touched by that. The problem is likely the same as your first point. The way radar works.

 

4 hours ago, Aduial said:

3. Autobouncing shells with bow armour (BB vs BB):

The answer is HE. It is astonishing the amount of BBs that keep using AP and a bow on BB.

 

4 hours ago, Aduial said:

3. Extremely accurate battleship guns:

again, I don't think the problem is there. But it is a problem when combined with radars, and gun bloom. Deleting a DD has never been easier for BBs, and at a distance where DDs cannot even torp them. Hence the passive gameplay and all the stat padders players in-game atm. Cruisers also have very accurate guns and it is fine imo. It would not be fair to penalize damage dealing ships on their main weapon. Now, they should not be able to see every ship on the map. Again, pb with gun bloom and radars/hydro imo.

 

4 hours ago, Aduial said:

5. Gun bloom:

That is the main culprit. And this is a direct result of this OWSF nonsense. WG blew it with 6.3.0 and they keep arguing the opposite. OWSF was never a problem, except for a couple of cruisers. and what they implemented was poor. They had a much fairer solution for this, which was, you detect whatever shoots at you if in line of sight.

That gun bloom is the worst nerf that has been done on DDs. A flat 10s or the time of the reload (whichever is smaller) would be a much better solution.

 

Again, gun bloom combined with radars (which are present in multiple copies in every game now) is just ludicrous. And it gets worse the higher the tier. But history as shown that the BB community was too happy about it to even consider anything else. this has brought more BBs in game, less DDs, and passive game play. Rather amusing when WG wants to limit the amount of BBs in CBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
719
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
6,175 battles

Forget about CVs. If one team has an inferior CV (whether by ship design or by player skill), don't bother expecting a good game. One sided domination. This is especially a problem for DD. CV can shut down DDs for the entire duration of the game and there's nothing DD can do about it. Sure DD can run back to friendlies, but that'll just result in a low contribution game and even a win would result in loss of credits.

 

Wargaming should redo the reward system. There's no reason for a player not to at least break even if he wins the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
825 posts
13,665 battles
1 minute ago, NeutralState said:

Forget about CVs. If one team has an inferior CV (whether by ship design or by player skill), don't bother expecting a good game. One sided domination. This is especially a problem for DD. CV can shut down DDs for the entire duration of the game and there's nothing DD can do about it. Sure DD can run back to friendlies, but that'll just result in a low contribution game and even a win would result in loss of credits.

Interesting. But I do't think that CVs able to shut down DDs is a problem, In fact it makes quite a bit of sense, even to a DD main. The problem is that depending on the loadout of the CV in your team, the game can be lost before it started. If a CV cannot counter the other CV, that is a problem. there are way too many strike CVs imo. A CV should not be able to spec without fighters, that would be a good start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
816
[_ARP_]
[_ARP_]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,741 posts
3,228 battles
5 hours ago, Aduial said:

-snip-

While I do hate radar, and I am part of the "Remove Radar" crowd, I encounter it fairly rarely. Yes, Missouri is an issue, I cannot torp one in my Kagerou efficiently until I am certain it's radar isn't active, but for the most part, I just need to watchout for USN and VMF High Tier cruisers.

Bow-tanking is a problem, but right now it's the most reliable tactic to prevent yourself from being absolutely demolished by a BB or a Zao just spamming fires from bow to stern. At the moment, fire spamming and accurate, devastating BB guns are a massive issue in Tier 10. And the UK BBs just added to the fire hell. (I almost don't even want to take my Izumo out because of all those fires.)

For me personally, the things I would change for high-tiers to promote less camping would be:

Neuter high tier BB and Cruiser ranges so that they're no more than 21km and 17km respectively. Remove the ability for float-planes to increase range, it's not useful enough and only promotes more camping. Lower radar ranges to 7km so that cap-denial isn't such a big issue. And put a global nerf on fire-damage, specifically on fires that are started on the Stern or the Bow. Those fires realistically wouldn't do more than scorch those parts of the ship, and thus should do minute amounts of damage. Super-structure fires are more dangerous because crucial fire-control systems and the bridge sit there, their damage is fine and may persist.

And I do not say this as a BB player, but also as a cruiser player. Fires are broken, especially when you figure as a Cruiser, 2 or more fires spells the end of you, especially if you made a mistake in maneuvering and an HE round destroys your steering gears, and you need to hit that repair button because a cruiser that doesn't dance, is dead. And then, boom, 2 fires from an enemy cruiser, welcome to the world of losing half your HP as a cruiser to two fires you cannot repair because you just repaired your rudder. It's a mechanic that doesn't rely on skill, but how much RNG your 9%, 12%, 17% and 21% fire-chances are favored, at the same time, how much does RNG hate the other guy's own fire-chance on his ship? There's no skill involved in setting fires and removes overall skill from the game. At least radar requires tactics.

~Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
825 posts
13,665 battles

 

25 minutes ago, Hunter_Steel said:

And put a global nerf on fire-damage

certainly not. Fire damage is actually pretty low. First you can stop it with a consumable, and half the ships can repair the damage ! It takes 8-10 mins for a DD to burn a BB to death, and one salvo for a BB to delete a cruiser. The problem is people going in solo who get multiple fires because they are focused by several ships. I do not think fire should be nerf because people yolo.

Now, I do not know any DD who can take on a cruiser and burn it to death either. Even the mighty Khab gets punished by any T10 cruisers in few salvos.

 

Nerfing fire will only result in one thing, more BBs in-game. Then again, that might be interesting for a new capping BB line

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
816
[_ARP_]
[_ARP_]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,741 posts
3,228 battles
1 minute ago, PicknChew said:

 

certainly not. Fire damage is actually pretty low. First you can stop it with a consumable, and half the ships can repair the damage ! It takes 8-10 mins for a DD to burn a BB to death, and one salvo for a BB to delete a cruiser. The problem is people going in solo who get multiple fires because they are focused by several ships. I do not think fire should be nerf because people yolo.

Now, I do not know any DD who can take on a cruiser and burn it to death either. Even the mighty Khab gets punished by any T10 cruisers in few salvos.

 

Nerfing fire will only result in one thing, more BBs in-game. Then again, that might be interesting for a new capping BB line

 

More BBs in the game who're willing to move up to the front, which makes my time in a DD easier. Nerfing fire only shifts the focus of a cruiser from BBs to DDs as they should. 45s of two fires burning on my ship while my Heal and Damage Control are on cool-down rips 35k HP from my Izumo, out of the 78k I already have. This leaves me with 43k hp. That is a hell of a lot of HP that I have just lost, from two fires. Yes, I can repair that all back, but that is in the ideal situation. I am taking damage from Battleships that want me dead and carriers. Let us not forget Cruisers that engage at 19km don't need to get close to keep me on fire. Your analogy of being too close assumes I rush out ahead which I don't. I find a position to which I can push with help, but never do I go forward. Of course, Battleships nuking cruisers is a problem, so just lower cruiser citadels below the water-line. Problem solved. As well as give most cruisers from Tier 8+ a 32mm bow, to ensure that a BB doesn't just insta-delete them while they are turning and a 9/12 gun salvo phases through his front.

~Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
825 posts
13,665 battles

so if I follow you correctly, reduce fire damage so BB can push up, and lower the risk of cruisers to get citadeled, so they can also push up. I can tell you that your time in a DD is not going to be easier.

 

I would also like to remind you, that if you have everything on CD.... well, it kinda is your choice ! the repair consumable is already ridiculous, and you can even decrease the cooldowns, and make the repair more efficient.

 

Making ships immune to threats is not the way forward, especially if a class is once more at the receiving end of this. Not all DDs have good torps you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,339
Members
7,047 posts
4,534 battles
16 hours ago, DeadIyArT said:

I never said sonar cover the cap and has the same effect. I said the game mechanic is the same, It covers a area in a circle same with aa same with view radius the same as sonar.  Then push around the back side of the cap no bunch up in a cap point. Radar does not make passive game play. Passive game play has been like this before radar ever cap around.  I like my dd and i like my cruisers ie. moskiva 11.9km radar it lets me do my job of hunting dds.  with out radar they would not do there job well.  yes seeing through islands is b.s. but until they over haul the game mechanics your tough out of luck and have to deal with it like ever one else.

I think you should make yourself clear. Are you saying that radar is not a deterrence to DDs who are trying to cap? Yes, passive play has always been a thing, but that doesn't prove that radar has not taken the situation further. And they already have the necessary game mechanics for making land masses impenetrable to radar. 

16 hours ago, DeadIyArT said:

Right now the most games i have played in tiers are high tiers. I HAVE ALL THREE t10 cruisers that have radar! in fact i have 10 t10 so yes i know the high end game play very well.  I know the mechanics of it and how it works and what impacts it has on the game.  And as for win rate on the BB ship you where talking about Missouri, i could careless about it win rate as a ship.

If you still don't understand that not all consumables are created equal, then that's not a problem of experience. For example, you mention hydro and defensive, which are very situational tools, while radar is always a deterrence to any ships relying on stealth or smoke. Also, the win rate of a ship does matter, simply because the point of the game is to win, and winning more defines a good ship. It's the only accurate metric for measuring the effectiveness of a ship, since damage can easily be padded by shooting only at bigger targets. 

16 hours ago, DeadIyArT said:

Lets see you shot your gun they see you. Ok they shoot there guns back at you.  DD should not get less of detection time then any other class.  And yes khab/ and gearing where very good at stealth firing. 

It seems your butt hurt about radar i get it some CA or BB radar you and killed you.  read the map see where the ships with radar are move away from them.  If you push caps early be ready to bail from them, have an escape rough planed.  Radar is here to stay and i am glade it is.

When you say ridiculous things like "Khab was very good at stealth firing", I don't even know what to say. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the gun bloom of the Khab and its base concealment were too large for it to have a meaningful stealth-firing window (if it even had one). 

Unlike some people, I like and play all classes, so I don't operate on a personal agenda. And as someone who performs well in DDs, I don't think I have any problem with map reading. Again, this isn't about what you can do to be the safest you can. To put it simply, the risk of going into a cap is too great to be compensated for with the reward of capping. Also, I don't think I ever said anything about radar itself. Maybe instead of assuming my intentions, you should actually read what I wrote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,339
Members
7,047 posts
4,534 battles
15 hours ago, khaenn35 said:

3. Accuracy is a rather tenacious subject, but so to say that your logic counters itself. Accuracy matters best at long range, and yet the reluctance to push keeps said ships at long range. You do have a point, however, as the sheer accuracy and power to kill cruisers mid-range keeps them away from the front, leaving Battleships without AA power. Additionally, the accuracy we currently have on Battleships (not to high or low) causes them to be highly dangerous to DDs.

I think you have a point there, but a mid-range, where it's far enough for accuracy to matter, it certainly is a deterrence. 

16 hours ago, khaenn35 said:

5. Gun bloom is correct, but your logic does have its flaws. There are Battleship lines in the game that actually depend on concealment as a balancing factor, mainly the US BBs (UK BBs have the heal, kek), and the 20 second gun bloom got them into trouble due to the fact that firing their guns kept them exposed to gunfire for the same time as a ship that does not depend on concealment. The gun bloom solution was lazy at best, and there has to be a better solution. 

Battleship lines could be rebalanced around different aspect if necessary, but personally I find it ridiculous that a BB even needs to rely that much on concealment. They have the HP and armour to stay alive, and even if their bloom times are longer, they would still be able to drop out of spotting range by not firing (after which they could repair some of the damage). 

But maybe gun bloom should be something that makes your concealment flare out, and then slowly decrease to your base concealment. There's no reason to have gun bloom as an "on/off" multiplier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,732
[INTEL]
Members
8,577 posts
25,666 battles
19 hours ago, Aduial said:

(In no particular order)

1. Radar goes through islands:

Three words: Complete. Cap. Denial. If a ship with radar decides to sit behind one of the islands at a cap, there's nothing a destroyer can do to cap the area, and there's nothing that the team can do to help the destroyer, except push slowly around the whole flank and reach the opposite side of the cap. This in turn, creates stagnant gameplay where none of the DDs are willing to approach a cap because they know that they could be lit up by radar from any one of the islands near the cap. 

 

2. Missouri: 

Yes, we all love our premium ships, but there's just no excuse for creating a ship that completely ignores all pre-established guidelines when it comes to ship class roles. Is it a battleship's job to spot the DD and kill it? If you look at the 2-week stats on the NA server, Missouri has a 55.09% win rate - and the second highest performing T9 BB is Lion with 50.71% - more than a FOUR PERCENT DIFFERENCE. It beats the Khabarovsk, a ship that is known to be overperforming substantially, by almost 2%. That's just how much impact radar has on a ship's utility and its ability to influence the battle. And throwing on the radar consumables without any forethought just so you can sell some more premium ships with gimmicks is absolutely unacceptable in my opinion. Now, since WG has a "we don't nerf premium ships" policy, I'm guessing they're never going to change this ship, but I advice the developers strongly to not make the same mistake again. 

 

3. Extremely accurate battleship guns:

Once you get to T8-10, the wonky dispersion of ships like the New Mexico are gone; in any given battle, you have multiple 9-12 gun battleships that can accurately hit a target from long range, and outright destroy them if they get one lucky shot. People always talk about how passive play is caused by torpedoes or HE spam; however, I believe that battleships that have devastating alpha strike are the biggest contributors to the reluctance to push.

 

3. Autobouncing shells with bow armour (BB vs BB):

From tier 5 to tier 7, battleships can overmatch the bow armour of same tier battleships. This means that bow-tanking is not a very reliable strategy. However, once you get to T8 and above, battleships can sit bow-on all day and take minimal damage from other battleships, unless they're facing a Yamato. A long time ago, a change that would lower the bow armour of high tier battleships was proposed to reduce the amount of bow-camping; however, it was shot down by players who felt BBs would become too fragile. Well, from current stats, I see no indication that BBs are having trouble surviving - therefore, I believe that this idea should be reconsidered.

 

4. Bad map design:

 -Shatter: Who the heck came up with the idea of putting a huge island in the middle of the C cap? Every time I get a match on this map, I pray that I don't spawn on the C side, because there's no way you can cap it if the enemies camp behind the huge island the whole game. This obviously creates very stagnant play where you wait for the other team to make the mistake of rotating around the island, or you yourself make the choice to push around to near certain death.

 -Tears of the Desert: Again, similar problem, except it happens across the whole map. A game on this map basically consists of waiting behind one of the islands in the big ring of islands until someone makes a mistake. 

 

5. Gun bloom:

Having guns of all caliber bloom for the same amount of time is hugely punishing to both DDs and CAs, while it allows BBs with good concealment to be undetected for a full 1/3 of their gun reload. I have always been of the opinion that gun bloom should scale with gun caliber, but for some reason that has never been explicitly stated, WG thinks this is a bad idea. If there really is a reason for this, I would really love to hear it; otherwise, I wish WG would listen to the playerbase and actually consider the suggestions that are coming from the experienced players. 

 

Feedback is much appreciated (but please try to keep the bias to a minimal level). 

 

 

Pretty much my list. All of the maps in the high tiers are bad to garbage, save Ocean, but Shatter is the worst map in the game. That island in C means that every game on Shatter is exactly the same, and grotesquely awful. Half the islands on that map should be deleted and the other half spread around the map -- that would make it instantly more playable.  But other maps are so incredibly choked -- Sea of Fortune is a disaster, Loop is just Sea of Fortune redux. Islands of Ice is the same game every time, and the islands are stupidly tall.


WG even complained that the space on many maps isn't used, but then introduced Riposte, which is almost nothing but unused space. The trick to getting people to use space is to put islands in it -- ever notice how games sprawl across New Dawn? Because there are islands everywhere on that map. The greater the distribution of islands, the more players will use them. High tier maps have islands concentrated in the center -- exactly the wrong place. The islands need to be distributed all the way across the map, so that players can move up using them for concealment. The ideal islands should not be stupidly tall, but low, just tall enough for ships to hide behind if they are close, but short enough to shoot over if they maintain distance. 

Every time I get on a high tier map, I just think "from this map it is obvious that the devs do not play the game". 

The crappy high tier maps, and the destruction of T5-6 radically reduced the joy of gameplay. Basically we can play the "fun" tiers of T5 and 6 and be uptiered to oblivion, or play T10 for crap gameplay. Those are not good choices, WG. More and more I find myself gravitating to T4 because the games are still fun. The lesson there is that powerful does not necessarily equate to more enjoyable. 

I've long advocated that BB reload times at high tiers should be limited to 30 seconds at least. Totally agree that the destructiveness of high tier BB fire is a powerful reason no one wants to push up. Also agree with gun bloom ideas. And the MIssouri -- fine as a credit printer, but giving it radar was a stupid idea that makes it obvious the devs don't play the game. And hate destroyers.

WG's decision on Clan Wars actually validates everything you have written about BBs. WG conceded that CVs are so powerful they shouldn't even be in games, and also conceded that high tier BBs are so powerful they make it difficult for other ships, by limiting their numbers -- limiting the number of BBs in matches is a common forum topic. 

Like so many other players, I am finding that less and less I play DDs in high tier matches, because of the idiotic radar through islands garbage. Again, it is clear to me from that alone that the devs simply don't actually play the game. Sad.  
 

Quote

I would really love to hear it; otherwise, I wish WG would listen to the playerbase and actually consider the suggestions that are coming from the experienced players.

 

Haha. It's as if WG looks at what experienced players advocate, then does the opposite. Perhaps we should push WG to change high tier reload times to 15 seconds and all sigmas to 2.3. Then maybe we would get playable and enjoyable high tier matches.

Seriously, we should also advocate that devs div with experienced high tier players in a range of ships so they could get first-hand experience of what a mess they have made of things. That should be mandatory.

Edited by Taichunger
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,614 posts
3,569 battles
19 hours ago, Aduial said:

2. Missouri: 

Yes, we all love our premium ships, but there's just no excuse for creating a ship that completely ignores all pre-established guidelines when it comes to ship class roles. Is it a battleship's job to spot the DD and kill it? If you look at the 2-week stats on the NA server, Missouri has a 55.09% win rate - and the second highest performing T9 BB is Lion with 50.71% - more than a FOUR PERCENT DIFFERENCE. It beats the Khabarovsk, a ship that is known to be overperforming substantially, by almost 2%. That's just how much impact radar has on a ship's utility and its ability to influence the battle. And throwing on the radar consumables without any forethought just so you can sell some more premium ships with gimmicks is absolutely unacceptable in my opinion. Now, since WG has a "we don't nerf premium ships" policy, I'm guessing they're never going to change this ship, but I advice the developers strongly to not make the same mistake again. 

 

Your analysis is incorrect.

 

A consumable, that barely lasts through two salvos if timed correctly. Does not a 4% gap in win rate, create.

 

It is the player base that own's Missouri. I guarantee you that the majority of players that purchased Missou, are long time, good players of the Iowa class. Know how the ship works in this game, and how to bets apply her to the battle. And then chose to purchase the ship due to their understanding and enjoyment of Iowa as it was in game, combine with the credit earning potential.

 

I would be willing to be real world money, that if you took radar away, and put a spotter plane on missou, it would not make a statistically meaningful difference in her performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×