2,085 [WOLF2] TheDreadnought Beta Testers 4,720 posts Report post #1 Posted October 30, 2017 Reduce information sharing between ships on the same side. Spotting by other ships will update spotted ships on your minimap. But you are only able to see and lock on to ships that you can see yourself via sighting range or spotting plane. This will force battleships to get closer. This will increase cruiser and DD survivability. This will reduce island camping. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4,000 [CREDO] Spud_butt Members 2,457 posts 9,220 battles Report post #2 Posted October 30, 2017 no. permanently submerged subs, with slow torps, spawning near the back of the red side. you stay there long enuff, you will get torped. end of camping and reversing off the map. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,085 [WOLF2] TheDreadnought Beta Testers 4,720 posts Report post #3 Posted October 30, 2017 1 minute ago, not_acceptable said: no. permanently submerged subs, with slow torps, spawning near the back of the red side. you stay there long enuff, you will get torped. end of camping and reversing off the map. Terrible idea. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,593 [CRMSN] Cobraclutch Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters 6,021 posts 4,739 battles Report post #4 Posted October 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, not_acceptable said: no. permanently submerged subs, with slow torps, spawning near the back of the red side. you stay there long enuff, you will get torped. end of camping and reversing off the map. Kinda like a PUBG circle but with Subs lol! 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4,000 [CREDO] Spud_butt Members 2,457 posts 9,220 battles Report post #5 Posted October 30, 2017 1 minute ago, TheDreadnought said: Terrible idea. better than yours. I acknowledge this is not saying much. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,431 [NO2BB] m373x Members 3,885 posts 24,515 battles Report post #6 Posted October 30, 2017 I was going to comment on this but the idea is so horrible I don't even know what to begin with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4,000 [CREDO] Spud_butt Members 2,457 posts 9,220 battles Report post #7 Posted October 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Cobraclutch said: Kinda like a PUBG circle but with Subs lol! +1 funny :o) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3,198 [WOLF5] AJTP89 Supertester 5,240 posts 4,523 battles Report post #8 Posted October 30, 2017 One of the solutions to camping is CVs. Camping BBs are easy targets for CVs, even AA specc'ed ones will get deleted (from personal experience). Unless you have a AA cruiser nearby, you not going to want to be sitting still in a CV game. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4,000 [CREDO] Spud_butt Members 2,457 posts 9,220 battles Report post #9 Posted October 30, 2017 1 minute ago, AJTP89 said: One of the solutions to camping is CVs. Camping BBs are easy targets for CVs, even AA specc'ed ones will get deleted (from personal experience). Unless you have a AA cruiser nearby, you not going to want to be sitting still in a CV game. terrible idea. (ed. note: I just had to. this is not an effort to kill a thread, but somebody has to do it. if not me, then who? if not now, then when??) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3,198 [WOLF5] AJTP89 Supertester 5,240 posts 4,523 battles Report post #10 Posted October 30, 2017 Just now, not_acceptable said: terrible idea. (ed. note: I just had to. this is not an effort to kill a thread, but somebody has to do it. if not me, then who? if not now, then when??) Why? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5,912 [CNO] Soshi_Sone Members 7,450 posts 23,087 battles Report post #11 Posted October 30, 2017 Take charge. Lead the charge. Just make sure it's a legit charge and not a yolo. Albeit, I have yolo'd a few times...hoping to instill support. It usually works...but sometimes...oh well. Also, there is a time period in high tier games where you really do need to "wait" (i don't like the term passive) and determine how the Reds are deploying. Once the necessary intel is collected, then one can make the determination whether they are in a push force (be aggressive) or in a defend force. I don't like the term "passive" for the latter. Kiting is a legit tactic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4,000 [CREDO] Spud_butt Members 2,457 posts 9,220 battles Report post #12 Posted October 30, 2017 Just now, AJTP89 said: Why? 1) CVs are already in the game, so they would not have to nerf anything. 2) it would involve CVs. 3) because. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
7,039 Skpstr Members 34,409 posts 10,768 battles Report post #13 Posted October 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, not_acceptable said: no. permanently submerged subs, with slow torps, spawning near the back of the red side. you stay there long enuff, you will get torped. end of camping and reversing off the map. What happens when you need to come back and reset a cap, or you get driven back, and need space to kite? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4,000 [CREDO] Spud_butt Members 2,457 posts 9,220 battles Report post #14 Posted October 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Soshi_Sone said: Take charge. Lead the charge. Just make sure it's a legit charge and not a yolo. Albeit, I have yolo'd a few times...hoping to instill support. It usually works...but sometimes...oh well. Also, there is a time period in high tier games where you really do need to "wait" (i don't like the term passive) and determine how the Reds are deploying. Once the necessary intel is collected, then one can make the determination whether they are in a push force (be aggressive) or in a defend force. I don't like the term "passive" for the latter. Kiting is a legit tactic. whoa, soshi !! that's fairly constructive. find myself taken aback just a little bit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4,000 [CREDO] Spud_butt Members 2,457 posts 9,220 battles Report post #15 Posted October 30, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Skpstr said: What happens when you need to come back and reset a cap, or you get driven back, and need space to kite? oh, well, that's easy! subs would not be able to reload torps. it would include a high degree of unrealism to the type that exists elsewhere in the game, so nobody would mind. Edited October 30, 2017 by not_acceptable Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
280 [CAPGO] VVoony Members 775 posts 12,369 battles Report post #16 Posted October 30, 2017 fix the minds that passive play is always bad. Passive play is passive play. tactic is a tactic.but... game should not reward those people for every situation. Smoke was one thing that rewarded them heavily for playing passive every single time. Let the passive play be a thing but don't make it the ultimate tactic to win. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
838 [YK] Akeno017 Members 2,238 posts 11,324 battles Report post #17 Posted October 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, not_acceptable said: 1) CVs are already in the game, so they would not have to nerf anything. 2) it would involve CVs. 3) because. 1. Carriers being in the game makes it far easier to implement as a solution, especially when we have anecdotal evidence to say it works. 2. CVs have a reputation for ruining everything simply by being present, this is due to the lack of a rework greatly needed, essentially since release, post-rework "involves CVs" would no longer be an argument against it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,085 [WOLF2] TheDreadnought Beta Testers 4,720 posts Report post #18 Posted October 30, 2017 11 minutes ago, not_acceptable said: better than yours. I acknowledge this is not saying much. No. It's really not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4,000 [CREDO] Spud_butt Members 2,457 posts 9,220 battles Report post #19 Posted October 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, TheDreadnought said: No. It's really not. pretty sure you are trying to arguing with me, which is futile to begin with, as my statements are pretty much all trash to begin with, but.... I stated 'I acknowledge this is not saying much' to which you reply; "it's really not" which would imply agreement. well, you got me there, I rarely know what to do with agreement in any form. uh, thank you! please come again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,523 Stauffenberg44 Members 4,335 posts 10,761 battles Report post #20 Posted October 30, 2017 (edited) An extremely loud klaxon horn goes off if you maintain N distance value from enemy ships and are scoring no hits: Edited October 30, 2017 by Stauffenberg44 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4,043 [SALTY] Ace_04 Members 8,930 posts 18,141 battles Report post #21 Posted October 30, 2017 That's it! Bot carriers on every team! 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
12,403 [SALVO] Crucis Members 28,054 posts 41,668 battles Report post #22 Posted October 30, 2017 21 minutes ago, TheDreadnought said: Reduce information sharing between ships on the same side. Spotting by other ships will update spotted ships on your minimap. But you are only able to see and lock on to ships that you can see yourself via sighting range or spotting plane. This will force battleships to get closer. This will increase cruiser and DD survivability. This will reduce island camping. I usually get annoyed with people trying to "fix" what they see as passive play. Not because I actually like passive play myself, but because I think that the best think you can do is punish bad play by defeating the team engaging in it. However, this one time, I happen to agree with what you suggest. I happen to believe that all ships should be required to self-spot their targets, either with their own ship or a spotter plane (but NOT cat fighters!!!). As you suggest, spotting by other ships or planes should put the enemy ships that have been spotted on the mini-map, nothing more. I know that some people hate this idea. But frankly, all I usually see is a knee jerk reflexive response to it rather than any attempt to defend the current system. And for that matter, any legitimate defenses of the current system are to me rather weak and greatly outweighed by the benefit of adopting a self-spotting required system. As for whether it would reduce passive play, while it wouldn't be my intent for such a self-spotting system, I think that perhaps you're on to something when you point out that it would force BBs to get closer to the enemy if they wanted to engage. I won't say that I'm certain that it would enhance cruiser survival, though it might. And DD survival, perhaps as well, though I have to say that I'm a bit ambivalent where DDs are concerned. Logical consistency would seem to require that BBs to have to see enemy DD's on their own to engage them. OTOH, given the short concealment ranges of most DDs, this could be outright suicidal for any BB to try to close on a nearby enemy DD that their teammates can see but they can't. So I have to admit that the idea of having to self-spot DDs scares me quite a bit. No doubt that it would be beneficial to stealthy DDs, but would it be too beneficial for them? I don't know, but I am scared that it might be. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3,198 [WOLF5] AJTP89 Supertester 5,240 posts 4,523 battles Report post #23 Posted October 30, 2017 20 minutes ago, not_acceptable said: 1) CVs are already in the game, so they would not have to nerf anything. 2) it would involve CVs. 3) because. 1. CVs are in the game, but in a terrible state. When they fix them, they will become more common, and will cut back on camping. 2. CVs are part of the game, in this case a part that can help cut back on an undesired meta 3. You have a better legit idea? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
270 [BONKZ] Kevs02Accord [BONKZ] Members 1,629 posts 16,275 battles Report post #24 Posted October 30, 2017 13 minutes ago, Ace_04 said: That's it! Bot carriers on every team! Or bot dd's launching torps at your stern. cant tell you how many times I was tk'd by bots on the PTS, I was amazed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4,000 [CREDO] Spud_butt Members 2,457 posts 9,220 battles Report post #25 Posted October 30, 2017 16 minutes ago, Crucis said: I usually get annoyed with people trying to "fix" what they see as passive play. Not because I actually like passive play myself, but because I think that the best think you can do is punish bad play by defeating the team engaging in it. However, this one time, I happen to agree with what you suggest. I happen to believe that all ships should be required to self-spot their targets, either with their own ship or a spotter plane (but NOT cat fighters!!!). As you suggest, spotting by other ships or planes should put the enemy ships that have been spotted on the mini-map, nothing more. I know that some people hate this idea. But frankly, all I usually see is a knee jerk reflexive response to it rather than any attempt to defend the current system. And for that matter, any legitimate defenses of the current system are to me rather weak and greatly outweighed by the benefit of adopting a self-spotting required system. As for whether it would reduce passive play, while it wouldn't be my intent for such a self-spotting system, I think that perhaps you're on to something when you point out that it would force BBs to get closer to the enemy if they wanted to engage. I won't say that I'm certain that it would enhance cruiser survival, though it might. And DD survival, perhaps as well, though I have to say that I'm a bit ambivalent where DDs are concerned. Logical consistency would seem to require that BBs to have to see enemy DD's on their own to engage them. OTOH, given the short concealment ranges of most DDs, this could be outright suicidal for any BB to try to close on a nearby enemy DD that their teammates can see but they can't. So I have to admit that the idea of having to self-spot DDs scares me quite a bit. No doubt that it would be beneficial to stealthy DDs, but would it be too beneficial for them? I don't know, but I am scared that it might be. agree. it would undo the hellacious super-nerfs to IJN DDs, and actually put them back in the rock paper scissors thingie. this in turn would be a blow to BBs, so it will never happen. I like the realism of the self spotting thing, because very few ships were ever hit with shells fired on coordinates from other ships in WW2 or before... what it would do to the gameplay I don't know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites