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

6 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

475
[NSEW]
Members
2,115 posts
11,366 battles

Disclosure & Rules: 

  • This post was not made to take any position with the subject matter. I am merely, trying to gauge the players objective views. Please stay on topic.
  • Also, as this is a game. Please let us refrain from trying to bring in the arguments of realism out of this completely. In fact, I would like to request it (realism) off the table for this particular thread.
  • Any and all talks about "win rate", or anything that is not pertaining to the thread relevancy will be ignored/not counted (stick to the substance of the argument).

 

There are have been many major changes through the patch updates, this year alone. The stereotypical mechanics of ship type/class were generally known, and what their roles were.  Currently, these preexisting understandings and usage of these various ship types have been harder to clearly define. The "rock, paper, scissor" concept is starting to be less so, but with more complexities by adding a "multi-tool" into "Rock, paper, scissor" game.

For example: Missouri with Radar; Destroyer with Hydro, Defensive fire modules, etc. 

There are also, many views of the current state of the game (as seen in the forums). Some disagree fervently, whilst others are nonchalant about the changes. 

 

So, my small introduction done. Here are the questions; (or just an amalgamation of ideas, brainstorming, suggestion, brain fart, late night result of forum reading)

 

  1.  What if the Destroyer detection ranges were reduced (surface, and air), more than the current state? 
  2.  What if the Radar modules had a very short (i.e. half the current active time) and adjusted range to scan?
  3.  What if the Hydro modules had a longer time than current, but limited in numbers (even with Premium modules)?
  4.  What if the Damage Control Party module could be reactivated quicker but limited in numbers (much like Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya)?

 

Naturally, these questions/ideas were borne with few thoughts in my mind. However, for the benefit of the game and its dedicated community of players. I'll keep myself quiet, but only interjecting if someone breaks the aforementioned "rule" above.

So, let us get our brains ticking, and bring interesting angle/view on the 4 questions above.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
444
[MPIRE]
[MPIRE]
Members
1,662 posts
24,160 battles
2 minutes ago, LowSpeed_US said:

 

  1.  What if the Destroyer detection ranges were reduced (surface, and air), more than the current state? 
  2.  What if the Radar modules had a very short (i.e. half the current active time) and adjusted range to scan?
  3.  What if the Hydro modules had a longer time than current, but limited in numbers (even with Premium modules)?
  4.  What if the Damage Control Party module could be reactivated quicker but limited in numbers (much like Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya)?

1. DDs are already a pain in the [edited]to spot as it is.

2. Totally for radar being nerfed to much shorter durations

3. Hydro is already limited in numbers

4. God no. The HE fire spam is already bad enough as it is. Smart play is using it wisely, not popping it instantly the second you catch fire. I see ORs go down to fires all the time because they run out of charges. I have no idea why WG decided to give that ship such a stupid feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
475
[NSEW]
Members
2,115 posts
11,366 battles
15 hours ago, Ju87s said:

1. DDs are already a pain in the [edited]to spot as it is.

2. Totally for radar being nerfed to much shorter durations

3. Hydro is already limited in numbers

4. God no. The HE fire spam is already bad enough as it is. Smart play is using it wisely, not popping it instantly the second you catch fire. I see ORs go down to fires all the time because they run out of charges. I have no idea why WG decided to give that ship such a stupid feature.

Hi @Ju87s

Thank you for your input to start this going. Whilst I appreciate your point of views. I expected some form of supportive comments with your statements given.

 

i.e. "Hydro is already limited in numbers" but why?

Ideally, I would expand upon that to perhaps say; Hydro modules to be maxed out at 1 per ship (2 with Premium). The longer (or shorter) active time (but with very limited number of modules per ship), would encourage players to use them more cautiously. Thereby also encouraging a team play with effective communications between players. If you spam the hydro away, you may be out of any Hydro in the later half of the battle. Also, encouraging the players to communicate and work together (indirectly, via a game design).

 

 

 

Edited by LowSpeed_US

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
444
[MPIRE]
[MPIRE]
Members
1,662 posts
24,160 battles
4 hours ago, LowSpeed_US said:

Hi @Ju87s

Thank you for your input to start this going. Whilst I appreciate your point of views. I expected some form of supportive comments with your statements given.

 

i.e. "Hydro is already limited in numbers" but why?

Ideally, I would expand upon that to perhaps say; Hydro modules to be maxed out at 1 per ship (2 with Premium). The longer (or shorter) active time (but with very limited number of modules per ship), would encourage players to use them more cautiously. Thereby also encouraging a team play with effective communications between players. If you spam the hydro away, you may be out of any Hydro in the later half of the battle. Also, encouraging the players to communicate and work together (indirectly, via a game design).

Sounds more like you just want massive buffs for DDs and massive nerfs for their counters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
475
[NSEW]
Members
2,115 posts
11,366 battles

Actually, as I've posted above. I was not taking a concrete position about any "nerfs" or "buffs". I was giving an example of "why" you think the Hydro (or whatever aspects the 4 points above may question) would be better with limited and with slightly longer active time.

 

Think bigger. That is what I'd like to see. Just take on a perspective that is not purely on a single ship class, but also how other ship classes and the game may be directed towards. My definition of "fun" is different to yours, and yours to others; it's relative. Why not get the ball rolling, to see where we can get to with objective lateral thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×