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

" Camping Meta "

58 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

84
[UDEAD]
Members
326 posts
17,312 battles

Anyone have any Ideas on how to change this? Ive come up with a few but have been told ' you cant punish players for sitting back and not helping your team! '.

 

Theres ships that can nuke away cruisers and help DD's get those caps.. they can eliminate the radar threat.. they camp. Theres ships with all these secondary builds.. they camp.

 

Take 5k off the range of their guns so they need to move up and support their team.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
722
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
7,594 battles

As long as the game rewards players based on their own damage done in random battle, the meta will remain.

 

Look to Clan Wars and tournaments for a different meta.

 

It's the same in WoT. Clan wars in WoT, for example, are all about moving as one and assault the enemy together. Same can be seen in tournaments. Clan wars in WoWS is also very different from random battle.

 

It's [edited] reward mechanism. But do not despair, WG just works really slowly. It took WoT almost 10 years to have a good "assist" system. WoWS will probably evolve the same way, slowly.

 

edit: speaking of not playing IJN DDs, I've not seen any purpples with significant portions of their games in IJN DDs. Usually purples don't touch IJN DDs. If that's not a statement to how [edited] IJN DDs in the current meta. IJN DDs need some seriously love.

Edited by NeutralState
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
722
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
7,594 battles
9 minutes ago, Pulicat said:

Let me ask you, what do you think all the good players do about it?

Judging by your stats, good players play in divisions. at least 10% more win rate in divisions.

 

Divisions should have their own MM queue, but alas, not enough player base for that sort of MM. 

 

edit: also not playing IJN DDs help.

Edited by NeutralState

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,376
[CUTER]
Members
3,858 posts
17,877 battles

 You are talking about "sniping". 'Camping' is not what you are describing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,197
[TNG]
Members
5,159 posts
7 minutes ago, NeutralState said:

Judging by your stats, good players play in divisions. at least 10% more win rate in divisions.

 

Divisions should have their own MM queue, but alas, not enough player base for that sort of MM. 

 

edit: also not playing IJN DDs help.

No, I mean their mindset. Do you see good players consistently making threads complaining about camping?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
722
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
7,594 battles
Just now, Pulicat said:

No, I mean their mindset. Do you see good players consistently making threads complaining about camping?

if you are in a division, obviously, your mindset is vastly different than that of solo players.

"Camping" to a division is just farm, but to a solo player, especially one that's in the same team as the campers, are far worse.

 

For example, bow on farming damage divisions can easily be over ran by a determined push, but solo players will NEVER do that, because [edited] the team that's why. 

 

The point is, the game mechanics reward more to [edited] the team rather than work with the team. 

 

More team working and assist reward please WG.

 

Furthermore, CVs have vastly more influence on the outcome of the match, thus, need a remake.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,197
[TNG]
Members
5,159 posts
1 minute ago, NeutralState said:

if you are in a division, obviously, your mindset is vastly different than that of solo players.

"Camping" to a division is just farm, but to a solo player, especially one that's in the same team as the campers, are far worse.

 

For example, bow on farming damage divisions can easily be over ran by a determined push, but solo players will NEVER do that, because [edited] the team that's why. 

 

The point is, the game mechanics reward more to [edited] the team rather than work with the team. 

 

More team working and assist reward please WG.

 

Furthermore, CVs have vastly more influence on the outcome of the match, thus, need a remake.

And what tiers are you playing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
722
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
7,594 battles
1 minute ago, Pulicat said:

And what tiers are you playing. 

CVs are OP in every tier, thus, need a complete remake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,046
[NG-NL]
Members
5,708 posts
9,439 battles

Camping meta only exists because of the fact offensive firepower outweighs defensive means. Except for not being detected, DDs can hardly survive concentrated fire. Cruisers survive longer, but their armor's not meant for it. Battleships have the tankiness and HP, but poor rudder.

 

HP does scale up, but torp damage and MB accuracy progress too. Even a Yamato loses 1/3 HP if eats 3 Mogami torps in the nose. It's simply impossible to justify being aggressive all the time now.

 

Unless WG reworks the offense vs. defense, campfest is here to stay. Only way to profit at high tiers and live long enough to make a difference.

 

Perhaps a starting poke to learn more about the change that'll talk playerbase out of camping is in order...start by requiring a minimum base XP after T7. If, for instance, you fail to get at least 900 base XP, you only break even--no credits gained nor lost, ditto for experience. So it can easily mean wasted XP-boosting flags and camos, but on the other hand, players won't have a choice but to learn to play better if they want to advance a tier...unless FXP is still an option for skipping it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25,141
[HINON]
Supertester
20,521 posts
13,920 battles
42 minutes ago, danojaye said:

Anyone have any Ideas on how to change this?

They did. The fire spam HE meta is meant to counter the bow-on camping meta by making it useless to sit still and just be a floating fiery inferno.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
552
[MIA-P]
Supertester
1,655 posts
5,657 battles
3 minutes ago, NeutralState said:

CVs are OP in every tier, thus, need a complete remake.

I'm fairly sure i do not i share that assessment.  CVs are an orthoganal game element.  They cause you to be aware of more than what's on the horizon.  Those who stay zoomed in and don't look at the sky are easy pickings for even part time CV players.

Good CV players are no different than good anything else players - they're going to hurt you no matter what you do.

So the point of view that we differ on is what happens to the "regular players".  Are they OP in a CV?  I suggest no.  They just do massive alpha strike damage with tremendous cooldowns (~2 mins to land and refuel).  They're also the only class that can be shut down completely either by other CVs or by ship AA, which you don't even need to control.  Strike CVs are the strongest, but also the most vulnerable.  AS CVs are the most annoying to other CVs, but really can't do much to hurt ships comparatively.

Having a great game in a CV is no better than having a great game in any other ship.  You're probably going to top over 100k damage in either case, but the difference is you might get that out of just 2-3 ships instead of 6-8.  Those 2-3 ships are going to be rather unhappy about the damage they took from you, but as it affects the team in general, a CV and a BB do about the same amount of damage when they "do well".

If you want to data mine and go throw stats in my face about particular ships, fine, but it won't change my assessment of CV balance.  Sometimes you get picked on and get deleted.  That's how it goes.  It doesn't make CVs OP.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[TMS]
Members
2,344 posts
24,300 battles
54 minutes ago, NeutralState said:

As long as the game rewards players based on their own damage done in random battle, the meta will remain.

 

Look to Clan Wars and tournaments for a different meta.

 

It's the same in WoT. Clan wars in WoT, for example, are all about moving as one and assault the enemy together. Same can be seen in tournaments. Clan wars in WoWS is also very different from random battle.

 

It's [edited] reward mechanism. But do not despair, WG just works really slowly. It took WoT almost 10 years to have a good "assist" system. WoWS will probably evolve the same way, slowly.

 

edit: speaking of not playing IJN DDs, I've not seen any purpples with significant portions of their games in IJN DDs. Usually purples don't touch IJN DDs. If that's not a statement to how [edited] IJN DDs in the current meta. IJN DDs need some seriously love.

Would be great if it was not for the very limited times you can play them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,069
[SALVO]
Members
20,022 posts
19,932 battles
1 hour ago, danojaye said:

Anyone have any Ideas on how to change this? Ive come up with a few but have been told ' you cant punish players for sitting back and not helping your team! '.

 

Theres ships that can nuke away cruisers and help DD's get those caps.. they can eliminate the radar threat.. they camp. Theres ships with all these secondary builds.. they camp.

 

Take 5k off the range of their guns so they need to move up and support their team.

Stop worrying about it.  If they want to play that way, that's their business, not yours.  And if they're on the enemy team, then punish them for playing that way ... if you can.  And if they're on your team, work with the team, however you can.  In the end, it's not up to you to dictate how people play the game. 

Oh, I don't see anything wrong with trying to teach players how to do things better, but there's a big difference between trying to teach and trying to dictate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,069
[SALVO]
Members
20,022 posts
19,932 battles
3 hours ago, NeutralState said:

CVs are OP in every tier, thus, need a complete remake.

I have a lard (ooops, "hard", not "lard") time seeing CV's being OP at every tier.  At lower tiers, they don't have manual drops and do have very limited numbers of planes.  Honestly, you sound like someone who hates CVs so much that you're blinding yourself to the reality of the situation.

 

Mind you, I also think that CVs need a significant rework.  But my primary reason for feeling that way is that in the current design of CV's, they are FAR too great a skill multiplier to the players playing them to the degree that great CV players are devastatingly OP while weak CV players are essentially nonexistent. This gap isn't anywhere near as wide in the other ship types and needs to be changed.

 

Edited by Crucis
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
722
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
7,594 battles
1 hour ago, InvalidKey said:

I'm fairly sure i do not i share that assessment.  CVs are an orthoganal game element.  They cause you to be aware of more than what's on the horizon.  Those who stay zoomed in and don't look at the sky are easy pickings for even part time CV players.

Good CV players are no different than good anything else players - they're going to hurt you no matter what you do.

So the point of view that we differ on is what happens to the "regular players".  Are they OP in a CV?  I suggest no.  They just do massive alpha strike damage with tremendous cooldowns (~2 mins to land and refuel).  They're also the only class that can be shut down completely either by other CVs or by ship AA, which you don't even need to control.  Strike CVs are the strongest, but also the most vulnerable.  AS CVs are the most annoying to other CVs, but really can't do much to hurt ships comparatively.

Having a great game in a CV is no better than having a great game in any other ship.  You're probably going to top over 100k damage in either case, but the difference is you might get that out of just 2-3 ships instead of 6-8.  Those 2-3 ships are going to be rather unhappy about the damage they took from you, but as it affects the team in general, a CV and a BB do about the same amount of damage when they "do well".

If you want to data mine and go throw stats in my face about particular ships, fine, but it won't change my assessment of CV balance.  Sometimes you get picked on and get deleted.  That's how it goes.  It doesn't make CVs OP.

yes that's why WG clearly stated inclusion of them in clan wars would make an entire class of ships pointless, and clearly stated they have way too much influence in a match.

 

CV, thusly, needs a remake.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,069
[SALVO]
Members
20,022 posts
19,932 battles
1 hour ago, InvalidKey said:

I'm fairly sure i do not i share that assessment.  CVs are an orthoganal game element.  They cause you to be aware of more than what's on the horizon.  Those who stay zoomed in and don't look at the sky are easy pickings for even part time CV players.

Good CV players are no different than good anything else players - they're going to hurt you no matter what you do.

So the point of view that we differ on is what happens to the "regular players".  Are they OP in a CV?  I suggest no.  They just do massive alpha strike damage with tremendous cooldowns (~2 mins to land and refuel).  They're also the only class that can be shut down completely either by other CVs or by ship AA, which you don't even need to control.  Strike CVs are the strongest, but also the most vulnerable.  AS CVs are the most annoying to other CVs, but really can't do much to hurt ships comparatively.

Having a great game in a CV is no better than having a great game in any other ship.  You're probably going to top over 100k damage in either case, but the difference is you might get that out of just 2-3 ships instead of 6-8.  Those 2-3 ships are going to be rather unhappy about the damage they took from you, but as it affects the team in general, a CV and a BB do about the same amount of damage when they "do well".

If you want to data mine and go throw stats in my face about particular ships, fine, but it won't change my assessment of CV balance.  Sometimes you get picked on and get deleted.  That's how it goes.  It doesn't make CVs OP.

This is not true.  Carriers leverage player skill to a far greater degree than any other ship type, making the gap between strong and weak carrier players far, far greater than, for example, strong and weak BB players.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
196
[NEMO]
[NEMO]
Members
808 posts
8,071 battles
7 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Oh, I don't see anything wrong with trying to teach players how to do things better, but there's a big difference between trying to teach and trying to dictate.

Problem is, even when you politely make suggestions to other players, 90% of the time you get the response: "FU I play how I want".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,069
[SALVO]
Members
20,022 posts
19,932 battles
1 minute ago, Thraxian said:

Problem is, even when you politely make suggestions to other players, 90% of the time you get the response: "FU I play how I want".

Well, you just hope that the remaining 10% learn from your suggestion and hope to see the other 90% on the enemy team more often than your team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
196
[NEMO]
[NEMO]
Members
808 posts
8,071 battles
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Well, you just hope that the remaining 10% learn from your suggestion and hope to see the other 90% on the enemy team more often than your team.

LOL

I 'hope' the bad players are on the other team ALL the time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,640
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,388 posts
12,745 battles
1 hour ago, Reymu said:

Camping meta only exists because of the fact offensive firepower outweighs defensive means. Except for not being detected, DDs can hardly survive concentrated fire. Cruisers survive longer, but their armor's not meant for it. Battleships have the tankiness and HP, but poor rudder.

 

This.  People camp because it's safer.  Mistakes are heavily punished, so, they counter that risk with timidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,804
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,934 battles

Even a more simple solution. Make the ballistics of the tuns match the range.

 

Example. Iowa has a max range of 30 km. The guns on the Iowa fire as if they can hit 30 km, but she can only fire want 23-25 km?

 

So ballistics and guns in general outstrip armor by leaps and bounds.

 

This is why turtleback armor is so strong in this game. It was meant to fight the broadside to broadside fight where as ships that don't have this armor style struggle more.

 

Take again the USN who tailored their ships for plunging fire. Well there is no plunging fire in this game. Meaning USN guns have to go the brute force method which they were not designed to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,069
[SALVO]
Members
20,022 posts
19,932 battles
1 hour ago, NeutralState said:

As long as the game rewards players based on their own damage done in random battle, the meta will remain.

 

Look to Clan Wars and tournaments for a different meta.

 

It's the same in WoT. Clan wars in WoT, for example, are all about moving as one and assault the enemy together. Same can be seen in tournaments. Clan wars in WoWS is also very different from random battle.

 

It's [edited] reward mechanism. But do not despair, WG just works really slowly. It took WoT almost 10 years to have a good "assist" system. WoWS will probably evolve the same way, slowly.

 

edit: speaking of not playing IJN DDs, I've not seen any purpples with significant portions of their games in IJN DDs. Usually purples don't touch IJN DDs. If that's not a statement to how [edited] IJN DDs in the current meta. IJN DDs need some seriously love.

Seriously, is there any need to swear in forum posts, regardless of the fact that they're usually edited out by the filters?

As for rewards, what would you rather see?  Only reward winning and losing?  I sure as heck hope not, because there are so many weak players that you'd end up with no other way to enhance your rewards in a loss for your efforts, while some pathetic player who contributed nothing and was barely more effective than an AFK ship ended up getting the same reward as you.  No, I hope that NEVER happens.

 

Speaking if IJN DD's, it tells me a few things.  First, it tells me that purples care more about their stats than they do about playing a variety of ships.  It tells me that they're looking to play ships that they know they can use to reliably pad their stats.  Secondly, it also proves that we all know to be true anyways, I.e. that torpedoes are an unreliable means of producing damage compared to guns.  And that your ability to land torp hits ends the second you launch them.  And during the time they're on the way to their target, the enemy ship may intentionally or unintentionally dodge those torpedoes.  They may also just change course for a reason completely unrelated to torp avoidance, like turning to face a different enemy, but the result ends up being the same for your torps ... they miss.

Could IJN DD's use a buff?  Without a doubt.  It seems patently ridiculous that the navy whose DDs rely almost entirely on their torpedoes aren't even the best actual torpedo DD's in the game, across the board.  Shouldn't the IJN DD's be unquestionably the best torp DD's in the game, if torpedoes are clearly their primary weapon?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,069
[SALVO]
Members
20,022 posts
19,932 battles
9 minutes ago, Thraxian said:

LOL

I 'hope' the bad players are on the other team ALL the time...

Well, of course.  :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×