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

Incentives BBs/Cruisers to Push caps

BB/Cruiser Cap Push  

28 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Cruisers and BBs get more Incentive to push Caps?

    • Yes
      20
    • No
      8
  2. 2. What should the Incentive be?

    • XP
      13
    • Credits
      2
    • Achievement
      6
    • Other
      7
  3. 3. As it stands Most BBs will likely sit back and snipe?

    • Yes
      23
    • No
      5
  4. 4. Does BB/Cruiser pushing add to fun of Gameplay

    • Yes
      24
    • No
      4

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

10
[STW-D]
Members
96 posts
10,624 battles

Should we incentives more aggressive BB and Cruiser Play in World of Warships to push Caps and win Game rather to than to purely Kite/Snipe and DamageMonger? I think for one we should and giving something in reward may be all that we need to do. Share your opinions please!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,130
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
10,585 posts
15,896 battles

The issue is what will the rewards be, because we already know what the penalty can be; elimination.

So the incentive needs to be pretty substantive to match the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[AXE]
Alpha Tester
152 posts
4,860 battles

I like this poll.  Hopefully WG notices BB gameplay seems broken (sniper BB is the trend vs brawler BB).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,632 posts
3,603 battles

XP gains from both capping and defending caps is really good, they buffed this a while back but it didn't change much because players will still snipe, heck I regularly see Gneisenau's sitting at max range trying to snipe. Players will be scrubs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,299 posts

I find the higher up I go in tier, the less likely I am to find players of all ships pushing.  I love my Missouri and Alabama, and I'm trying to push to T10 BBs, but playing in a T8-10 match is terrible after playing some T5-7 matches.

Though I turned pink not long ago and dropped down to play some T1 coop battles (easy way to play 5 games) and, wow, I remembered why I loved this game so much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[PROJX]
Members
1,009 posts
18,299 battles

The following is anecdotal from my own gameplay, since I have not collected the hard data on this - I've noticed that WG does seem to have, as part of its XP scoring a mechanism, a means of rewarding more aggressive BB play.   Though there is the player tendency to not put a BB in harms way, I'm not sure how many BB players realize they are missing out on a significant portion of their existing XP scoring mechanism by not tanking damage.

 

If you use your BB, in appropriate situations (i.e. not YOLOing to get killed), to tank damage (i.e. your potential damage number are high and your total damage received is high), even if you have a so-so offensive stat in damage inflicted, you will be surprisingly far up the leader board because you have received XP credit for this.   This is probably true for all ship types, but BBs are uniquely qualified to take advantage of this without dying.

 

You can also notice this when you are on the weak flank that has collapsed and you're forced to kite away while enemy ships chase you.  In this case, you're almost completely defensive, w/ multiple enemies chasing you and taking whatever opportunity you have to fire on them.  If you can keep this up long enough, you appear to receive significant XP points for this and your score is higher than you'd expect from just your damange numbers.

 

There is a series of military studies resulting in Lanchesters (Square) Law which applies to the ship tactics in WOWS that also seem to support why the XP scoring should also reflect this.

 

There are probably other circumstances where a BB can be rewarded (e.g. if a BB gets shot at vs. a closer ship for instance, which takes potential salvo damage away from other ships), but these scenarios also get trickier and WG is probably also wary of instances where players would use the scoring mechanic to "game" the system.  An example of this is possibly why DDs currently don't really get credit for smoking up their team, even though this is (was more so before the smoke change) a very important strategic play.  It would be too easy to smoke teammates in non-strategic situations to game the scoring and it would be hard for the game to tell when it was a "useful" play vs. just an attempt to bump scoring.

 

Edited by hangglide42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,632 posts
3,603 battles
16 minutes ago, Wowzery said:

I find the higher up I go in tier, the less likely I am to find players of all ships pushing.  I love my Missouri and Alabama, and I'm trying to push to T10 BBs, but playing in a T8-10 match is terrible after playing some T5-7 matches.

Though I turned pink not long ago and dropped down to play some T1 coop battles (easy way to play 5 games) and, wow, I remembered why I loved this game so much. 

 

That's because ships at that tier are so powerful and accurate that any bad move is instantly and harshly punished. At lower tiers you can get away with allot more mistakes. This is also why stealth builds are so popular, so players can disappear when being focused on our having to turn around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
292 posts
11,075 battles

Here is a crazy idea, off map dive bombers/torp planes that can/will attack ships close to the rear camp zones of both sides. You wanna stay in the back 1/4 of the map avoiding capping sniping? Fine,but get ready to have land based planes all over you. That would also force carriers to actually engage engines,, a novel concept ,as 3/4 of carrier drivers don't move.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,026
[SALVO]
Members
19,958 posts
19,909 battles
1 hour ago, MassiveSalvo said:

Should we incentives more aggressive BB and Cruiser Play in World of Warships to push Caps and win Game rather to than to purely Kite/Snipe and DamageMonger? I think for one we should and giving something in reward may be all that we need to do. Share your opinions please!

Your poll is a fail, because Q2 assumes that you answered "yes" to Q1.  There's no option in Q2 for those who answered No to Q1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,026
[SALVO]
Members
19,958 posts
19,909 battles
1 minute ago, Alien_Observer said:

Here is a crazy idea, off map dive bombers/torp planes that can/will attack ships close to the rear camp zones of both sides. You wanna stay in the back 1/4 of the map avoiding capping sniping? Fine,but get ready to have land based planes all over you. That would also force carriers to actually engage engines,, a novel concept ,as 3/4 of carrier drivers don't move.

 

Actually, here's a different, and IMO, a better way to force carriers to move, not to mention (horrors!) more realistic.  Carriers required some wind over their decks to launch their planes.  Require carriers to be moving at 3/4's speed minimum if they want to launch planes.  THAT will get them moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,026
[SALVO]
Members
19,958 posts
19,909 battles
1 hour ago, Ihitu said:

I like this poll.  Hopefully WG notices BB gameplay seems broken (sniper BB is the trend vs brawler BB).

BB play is NOT "broken".  The game does not crash because people don't play the way you want them to.  I'm sick and tired of this misuse of the word "broken".  The game is only "broken" if it fails to function, not if people play it in some way that you don't like.

As for the rest, historically BB's hardly ever looked to brawl with the enemy.  It only happened at Iron Bottom Sound because it was a night battle and the two sides had gotten that close before they'd spotted each other.  Historically, BB's were designed to fight at range, ranges that increased over the decades from the initial introduction of the dreadnought.  And their armoring schemes were designed to reflect this.  Heck, the German turtleback armor that existed on the Bismarck was considered obsolete by WW2 and was most likely only used because the Germans, unlike other nations' navies, hadn't been able to so any real live fire testing on old BB hulks to test out armor theories, and thus they stuck with what they knew.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
292 posts
11,075 battles

Hows this for a new map idea, teams spawn and HAVE to all move forward as the rear of each side (and sides ) slowly turn red. The reason being both fleets need to get to the other sides rear area (call it a safe zone). The red area that is encroaching will be fill with unseen submarines, speed boats, pirates, you name it, and if you get over taken by the red area its instant detonation. The zones that the fleet can escape through can be 2 or 3 larger funnels plus a few island groupings, that are large enough to shield which way the enemy fleet is advancing till BOOM, contact. Now you will have fleets moving together and cooperating, with the victory being which side gets more ships to the other safe area before meeting Davey Jones.

My 2 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,026
[SALVO]
Members
19,958 posts
19,909 battles
35 minutes ago, Wowzery said:

I find the higher up I go in tier, the less likely I am to find players of all ships pushing.  I love my Missouri and Alabama, and I'm trying to push to T10 BBs, but playing in a T8-10 match is terrible after playing some T5-7 matches.

Though I turned pink not long ago and dropped down to play some T1 coop battles (easy way to play 5 games) and, wow, I remembered why I loved this game so much. 

One of the things about trying to close the range is that doing so can be quite "painful".  What I mean here is that even the fastest ships are relatively slow and if you're 20km from the enemy, it will take quite some time to get within, let's say, 10km (unless perhaps they're also trying to close on you too).  And during all that time, it's entirely possible that the enemy may focus on you to the degree that by the time you get to the close range you desire, you're more than half dead and coming close to combat ineffective (if not already so).  This is one reason why concealment, whether due to the ship itself, or smoke, or physical blocking of the line of sight (i.e. islands) is important for closing the range.  The best way to do it safely is to not be seen at all during your approach.  But that's not always possible, and it's probably at those times that things get the campiest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,026
[SALVO]
Members
19,958 posts
19,909 battles
6 minutes ago, Alien_Observer said:

Hows this for a new map idea, teams spawn and HAVE to all move forward as the rear of each side (and sides ) slowly turn red. The reason being both fleets need to get to the other sides rear area (call it a safe zone). The red area that is encroaching will be fill with unseen submarines, speed boats, pirates, you name it, and if you get over taken by the red area its instant detonation. The zones that the fleet can escape through can be 2 or 3 larger funnels plus a few island groupings, that are large enough to shield which way the enemy fleet is advancing till BOOM, contact. Now you will have fleets moving together and cooperating, with the victory being which side gets more ships to the other safe area before meeting Davey Jones.

My 2 cents

 

No.  Not just no, but hell to the no!!!

 

The game should NOT force players to play in any way that they don't want to play.  Never EVER.

 

If some players want to be use weak tactics and strats and hide in back camping, it's none of your business if they do.  But I would suggest that you make the most of their weak play by beating them, repeatedly.

 

Edited by Crucis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
292 posts
11,075 battles

Are you not forced to cap a circle in that map? Do you not have to defend your flag on a map? Are you not forced to accomplish those objectives before your enemy does? You already are forced to follow a direction the dev's have set in motion on any given scenario, and that is why we have these threads. Because people don't want to have to do what is necessary to achieve victory in their opinion. They don't want to play as a team/group/to win/yada yada yada. As is their right. But they will LOSE by following the mindset they are in. Happens every game. Has that stopped the dev's from making the win criteria any different? The map style I suggested would be IMHO a fun/different style of an encounter. You don't like it? Sit still and die. You wanna stay in back and snipe? Here comes that red zone,,,, ever expanding, Piss you off? Complain about it on the forums,, as everyone does. You can't please everyone all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,392
[HINON]
Members
10,650 posts

Pushing caps at the right time is already really rewarding in giving more xp and credits for wrecking the enemy team and the xp bonus for winning more often.

Edited by RipNuN2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,026
[SALVO]
Members
19,958 posts
19,909 battles
45 minutes ago, Alien_Observer said:

Are you not forced to cap a circle in that map? Do you not have to defend your flag on a map? Are you not forced to accomplish those objectives before your enemy does? You already are forced to follow a direction the dev's have set in motion on any given scenario, and that is why we have these threads. Because people don't want to have to do what is necessary to achieve victory in their opinion. They don't want to play as a team/group/to win/yada yada yada. As is their right. But they will LOSE by following the mindset they are in. Happens every game. Has that stopped the dev's from making the win criteria any different? The map style I suggested would be IMHO a fun/different style of an encounter. You don't like it? Sit still and die. You wanna stay in back and snipe? Here comes that red zone,,,, ever expanding, Piss you off? Complain about it on the forums,, as everyone does. You can't please everyone all the time.

I have no interest in playing a map that's like a trash compactor.  And I do NOT think that it would be fun, not in the least.  The very idea of it is unfun, anti-fun, and it hasn't even been implemented.  Forcing people to play the style of play that YOU want is wrong.  

Edited by Crucis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[F-U]
Members
205 posts
3,248 battles

Why should carriers have to move? 

 

Also, there are already benefits of pushing in BB/CA's which is mainly winning. If you don't push and take caps you don't generally win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
298
[SCCC]
Members
708 posts
6,079 battles

Giving achievements and captain/ship XP flags for these achievements would be a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,173 posts
3,842 battles

This argues that players using battleships or cruisers should forego the strengths of the ships they're playing in favor of doing stuff with them that doesn't make sense.  Forcing a battleship forward into relatively close range combat is, from the battleship player's perspective, stupid.  But, if the game was incentivizing that, it would be forcing a battleship player to do what doesn't work for their ship.  Same goes for cruiser drivers.  Rushing forward to get more capture points because the game is laid out that way will only get the ship pummeled and lost quickly.  These options run contrary to what the game should incentivize, good play.  It would be better to simply rearrange the capture points such that battleships and cruisers have more opportunities to get on them within the game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
298
[SCCC]
Members
708 posts
6,079 battles
1 hour ago, Murotsu said:

 Forcing a battleship forward into relatively close range combat is, from the battleship player's perspective, stupid. 

Are you serious? Either you have never played USN/KMS BBs or you haven't a clue what you are talking about. BBs excel in "relatively" close range combat. Have you not seen what German or American guns can do to ship at approx 10km to 15km away? Hint: It doesn't turn out well for the target.

 

Note: I see that you are somewhat new to the game. (Highest tier BB is V not including your premium) With that said, BBs are not snipers. Get in central locations of the map where you can get guns on multiple caps. Stay bow on and stay centrally located on the map. The game may start slow but trust me, as the game progresses and the Reds push into your guns, you will see damage numbers start to go up. The best ranges for New Mexico and Colorado guns are right around the 10km to 15km range. Please for the love of God. Do not grow up to be that Colorado captain or New Mexico captain that either A: Sits at range and gets left behind when the late rounds of the battle starts because you don't have the speed to catch up with the team if your winning. B: Yolos off alone only to be focused fired by HE and burnt down without an escape because you are too slow to retreat or C: Doesn't push into defensible central locations of the map which leaves your devastating mid range guns useless because dispersion at range chokes them from being useful.

Edited by smf117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,173 posts
3,842 battles
18 minutes ago, smf117 said:

Are you serious? Either you have never played USN/KMS BBs or you haven't a clue what you are talking about. BBs excel in "relatively" close range combat. Have you not seen what German or American guns can do to ship at approx 10km to 15km away? Hint: It doesn't turn out well for the target.

 

Note: I see that you are somewhat new to the game. (Highest tier BB is V not including your premium) With that said, BBs are not snipers. Get in central locations of the map where you can get guns on multiple caps. Stay bow on and stay centrally located on the map. The game may start slow but trust me, as the game progresses and the Reds push into your guns, you will see damage numbers start to go up. The best ranges for New Mexico and Colorado guns are right around the 10km to 15km range. Please for the love of God. Do not grow up to be that Colorado captain or New Mexico captain that either A: Sits at range and gets left behind when the late rounds of the battle starts because you don't have the speed to catch up with the team if your winning. B: Yolos off alone only to be focused fired by HE and burnt down without an escape because you are too slow to retreat or C: Doesn't push into defensible central locations of the map which leaves your devastating mid range guns useless because dispersion at range chokes them from being useful.

Actually, I play entirely for free so it takes forever to move up past about tier V.  Yes, I have not spent a cent on the game, and I'm not "new" to it.  Now, since I haven't played top tiers, if that's how those are played, I probably won't be doing much of it when I get there.  Sounds like the game becomes more and more like a game not something with a modicum of reality involved.  That's too bad.

Oh, I don't gripe or hold a grudge against those who spend tons of cash to buy their way to the top.  That's fine with me as that's their choice and they make the game possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
298
[SCCC]
Members
708 posts
6,079 battles
2 minutes ago, Murotsu said:

Actually, I play entirely for free so it takes forever to move up past about tier V.  Yes, I have not spent a cent on the game, and I'm not "new" to it.  Now, since I haven't played top tiers, if that's how those are played, I probably won't be doing much of it when I get there.  Sounds like the game becomes more and more like a game not something with a modicum of reality involved.  That's too bad.

Oh, I don't gripe or hold a grudge against those who spend tons of cash to buy their way to the top.  That's fine with me as that's their choice and they make the game possible.

Uhh...okay. Not sure why you ran on about money, buying your way to the top or whatever but sure. Also, if you are looking for a game that sticks to what "reality involved", you're in the wrong place lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,173 posts
3,842 battles
56 minutes ago, smf117 said:

Uhh...okay. Not sure why you ran on about money, buying your way to the top or whatever but sure. Also, if you are looking for a game that sticks to what "reality involved", you're in the wrong place lol

I'd like it at least to reasonably work the way it actually did rather than be totally fictional and just a game.  That is to say, I'd like what worked in reality generally will work in the game to a good degree even if the scenarios are totally contrived.

Oh, went on about the money thing because I take some grief over things like how many ships I have, or what tiers I have compared to the number of games I've played.  I'm slot limited obviously and don't have premium ships unless they are a give away.  Seems a lot of players automatically assume I dumped lots of money into the game because they did.  I know in WoT I've been told by players more than once that I'm full of $h!+ claiming I play for free, that it's impossible or "Nobody does that..."  I get a little defensive about it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
298
[SCCC]
Members
708 posts
6,079 battles
26 minutes ago, Murotsu said:

I'd like it at least to reasonably work the way it actually did rather than be totally fictional and just a game.  That is to say, I'd like what worked in reality generally will work in the game to a good degree even if the scenarios are totally contrived.

Well, you better stay our of tiers VII and above where you will face radar that can see through mountains then...

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×