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

The Fix for Passive Play

67 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,073
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
4,701 posts

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.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,416
[META_]
Members
2,255 posts
7,485 battles

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
2,073
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
4,701 posts
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.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,588
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,009 posts
4,623 battles
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!

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,416
[META_]
Members
2,255 posts
7,485 battles
1 minute ago, TheDreadnought said:

 

Terrible idea.

better than yours. I acknowledge this is not saying much.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[YIKES]
Members
3,880 posts
23,627 battles

 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
3,416
[META_]
Members
2,255 posts
7,485 battles
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
2,496
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,399 posts
4,198 battles

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.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,416
[META_]
Members
2,255 posts
7,485 battles
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
2,496
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,399 posts
4,198 battles
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
3,934
[CNO]
Members
6,074 posts
18,515 battles

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
3,416
[META_]
Members
2,255 posts
7,485 battles
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
5,880
[WOLFG]
Members
30,629 posts
9,257 battles
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
3,416
[META_]
Members
2,255 posts
7,485 battles
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
3,416
[META_]
Members
2,255 posts
7,485 battles
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 by not_acceptable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
257
[CAPGO]
Members
744 posts
8,973 battles

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
828
[KIA-T]
Members
2,237 posts
9,838 battles
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
3,416
[META_]
Members
2,255 posts
7,485 battles
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
Members
4,247 posts
9,871 battles

An extremely loud klaxon horn goes off if you maintain N distance value from enemy ships and are scoring no hits:

 

Edited by Stauffenberg44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,656
[-K-]
Members
8,491 posts
14,883 battles

That's it!  Bot carriers on every team! :cap_book:

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,726
[SALVO]
Members
25,438 posts
27,395 battles
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.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,496
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,399 posts
4,198 battles
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
[GGWP]
[GGWP]
Members
1,628 posts
10,852 battles
13 minutes ago, Ace_04 said:

That's it!  Bot carriers on every team! :cap_book:

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
3,416
[META_]
Members
2,255 posts
7,485 battles
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×