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

Two Game Suggestions

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

160
[AWP]
Members
784 posts
3,081 battles

These 2 suggestions just came to mind last night while playing. I think one would just be a simple appearance improvement (some people may disagree) and the other might help a little with gameplay.

1) The simple one: Add a clean or new version of the camo as an option. I doubt this would be difficult to do but I guess it depends on how the camos are actually designed. The US and IJN ships have an option of color schemes for their camo so why not add an option for the perma camo and the camo that costs credits to have a new or the used and rusted version.

2) This is a little more controversial I guess since it would affect gameplay. So I have noticed tier 7 to 8 And tier 8 to 9 have different slots for upgrades. Should WG consider moving the upgrades down a tier or 2? The Z-39 kind of pushed me to thinking about this because of the concealment upgrade.

Spoiler

Tier 9 and 10 are improvements over tier 8 with the modules such as reload, shell size, armor, among other factors. This is understandable and how it should be. The big thing to me is the upgrade slot that you gain. Should tier 8 gain access to slot 6? Maybe set some way so that it only works when bottom tier or only some ships gain access? 

Tier 8 and 9 have access to the concealment upgrade while lower tiers do not. I think the ships this hurts the most are DD’s because of the major change in detectability. It is becoming less often now, but lately I have run into a few tier 6 and 7 DD’s in my Benson and it doesn’t quite seem fair. Recently the Z-39 and Haida have been released with 6.08km and 5.7km detection respectively. This might not seem like too much of a difference with tier 8 but it is because they are recently released and exceptions to the rule. The worst concealment at tier 8 is the Kiev with 7.07km while the best at tier 7 is Shiratsuyu with 5.8km. I have to include this so it doesn’t look like I am cherry picking data but if you remove these 2 oddballs you are left with an average concealment of 5.87km for tier 8 and 6.6km for tier 7. When you consider the differences in DD’s with health, guns, and torpedoes this seems a little odd. 

Maybe the Concealment upgrade should be allowed at lower tiers? It just seems fair to me. I would think a lower tier should have better concealment or at least very close. I have both Haida and Z-39 and wish that the concealment they have would be given to the tech tree lower tiers. 

Your thoughts? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,824
[SALVO]
Members
17,148 posts
17,812 battles
1 hour ago, Belyy_Klyk said:

These 2 suggestions just came to mind last night while playing. I think one would just be a simple appearance improvement (some people may disagree) and the other might help a little with gameplay.

1) The simple one: Add a clean or new version of the camo as an option. I doubt this would be difficult to do but I guess it depends on how the camos are actually designed. The US and IJN ships have an option of color schemes for their camo so why not add an option for the perma camo and the camo that costs credits to have a new or the used and rusted version.

2) This is a little more controversial I guess since it would affect gameplay. So I have noticed tier 7 to 8 And tier 8 to 9 have different slots for upgrades. Should WG consider moving the upgrades down a tier or 2? The Z-39 kind of pushed me to thinking about this because of the concealment upgrade.

Maybe the Concealment upgrade should be allowed at lower tiers? It just seems fair to me. I would think a lower tier should have better concealment or at least very close. I have both Haida and Z-39 and wish that the concealment they have would be given to the tech tree lower tiers. 

Your thoughts? 

Belyy_Klyk, honestly, I think that the tier 8 Concealment module and the tier 9 gun range enhancing module should be removed from the game, and replaced with some sort of different modules that can be countered.  The problem with these two modules is that they're uncounterable and, IMHO, create an imbalance in the game.  Dropping them down a couple of tiers would only serve to shift the tier location of this problem, not fix it.  Furthermore, given how costly these modules are, dropping them down a couple of tiers would only make them seem like a pay to win (though with credits) where veteran players with large credit balances would be easily able to afford them, while newer players with very few extra credits would not.

These two modules are rather unique.  Other upgrade modules give benefits that do not represent an uncounterable advantage, like better steering or better engine acceleration or better gun accuracy.  If a cruiser mounts this gun range module and outranges you, there's not a bloody thing you can do about it, other than try to go dark and run away.  And when you compare DDs from the same line at tiers 7 and 8, their base concealments are usually fairly close.  But when you add the concealment module to the tier 8 DD, it now has a major concealment advantage over the tier 7 DD from the same line.

What I would suggest for a concealment upgrade module replacement would be a Camouflage module.  The Camouflage module would increase the dispersion of guns aiming at the mounting ship.  While this is an advantage, it's not an uncounterable one.  You can still shoot at this ship and with good aim, you'd still have a decent chance of hitting it, particularly with favorable RNG.

As for the gun range enhancing module, I think that I'd suggest replacing it with a gun accuracy module that reduces the dispersion of your guns (main guns only, or perhaps mains and secondaries).  And again, this is an advantage, but a counterable one.

 

As for the clean vs. rusty versions of camos, I largely have no opinion.  It seems to me that this is entirely cosmetic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
473 posts
12,505 battles
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Belyy_Klyk, honestly, I think that the tier 8 Concealment module and the tier 9 gun range enhancing module should be removed from the game, and replaced with some sort of different modules that can be countered.  The problem with these two modules is that they're uncounterable and, IMHO, create an imbalance in the game.  Dropping them down a couple of tiers would only serve to shift the tier location of this problem, not fix it.  Furthermore, given how costly these modules are, dropping them down a couple of tiers would only make them seem like a pay to win (though with credits) where veteran players with large credit balances would be easily able to afford them, while newer players with very few extra credits would not.

These two modules are rather unique.  Other upgrade modules give benefits that do not represent an uncounterable advantage, like better steering or better engine acceleration or better gun accuracy.  If a cruiser mounts this gun range module and outranges you, there's not a bloody thing you can do about it, other than try to go dark and run away.  And when you compare DDs from the same line at tiers 7 and 8, their base concealments are usually fairly close.  But when you add the concealment module to the tier 8 DD, it now has a major concealment advantage over the tier 7 DD from the same line.

What I would suggest for a concealment upgrade module replacement would be a Camouflage module.  The Camouflage module would increase the dispersion of guns aiming at the mounting ship.  While this is an advantage, it's not an uncounterable one.  You can still shoot at this ship and with good aim, you'd still have a decent chance of hitting it, particularly with favorable RNG.

As for the gun range enhancing module, I think that I'd suggest replacing it with a gun accuracy module that reduces the dispersion of your guns (main guns only, or perhaps mains and secondaries).  And again, this is an advantage, but a counterable one.

 

As for the clean vs. rusty versions of camos, I largely have no opinion.  It seems to me that this is entirely cosmetic.  

I agree, moving the modules down to tier 7 would just mean tier 5 would then have to deal with them.

Get rid of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
160
[AWP]
Members
784 posts
3,081 battles
1 hour ago, Prothall said:

I agree, moving the modules down to tier 7 would just mean tier 5 would then have to deal with them.

Get rid of them.

@Crucis I do think they should be removed but they’ve said that’s not an option. I don’t mind certain upgrades, but to me being bottom tier in and of itself is harsh enough. You are already at a disadvantage in most ways. When you add in upgrades, it’s even worse. I mean a Montana vs NC or a Benson vs a Mahan or Iowa vs Colorado. They are all hindered to begin with. Add in upgrades and it’s even worse. 

The only reason I suggest lowering tiers for them is because tier 5 is a short grind and I rarely see tier 5’s unless playing one. Tier 7+ are the ones I’m constantly seeing differences in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
473 posts
12,505 battles
4 minutes ago, Belyy_Klyk said:

@Crucis I do think they should be removed but they’ve said that’s not an option. I don’t mind certain upgrades, but to me being bottom tier in and of itself is harsh enough. You are already at a disadvantage in most ways. When you add in upgrades, it’s even worse. I mean a Montana vs NC or a Benson vs a Mahan or Iowa vs Colorado. They are all hindered to begin with. Add in upgrades and it’s even worse. 

The only reason I suggest lowering tiers for them is because tier 5 is a short grind and I rarely see tier 5’s unless playing one. Tier 7+ are the ones I’m constantly seeing differences in.

Lots of people play their tier 7s precisely because they get top tier more often with a 5-7 match. You give them a high tier module advantage and this problem will only get worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
789
[NG-NL]
Members
5,038 posts
8,290 battles

What's the use of going up the tiers if the concealment and slot 6 upgrades vanish? A nerf to those ships won't sit well w/ long-time players and may cause campfest to stagnate more.

It'd be better if concealment  also reduced max spotting range (say red ships normally render at 16km for you. Mount concealment, it drops to 14km), for example. If you're harder to see, then it's only fair you lose something. I'd be thrilled if even my Yamato, in exchange for having both concealment skills, cannot render any targets unless within 14km--there, campfest problem solved immediately.

Slot 6 is largely dependent on the ship. Yamato runs MBM3 because it's the only good one available, but the Unique Module is a good contender, whereas Montana largely has to stick to the MB accuracy. It does not cause any sort of balance issue as it's a tool w/ strengths and weaknesses--up to the player to deal with it.

However, such changes would change the game fundamentals and to my knowledge, most of playerbase doesn't reach patch notes. Do you think they will take kindly to their ships being changed?

Edited by Reymu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
160
[AWP]
Members
784 posts
3,081 battles
16 minutes ago, Reymu said:

What's the use of going up the tiers if the concealment and slot 6 upgrades vanish? A nerf to those ships won't sit well w/ long-time players and may cause campfest to stagnate more.

It'd be better if concealment  also reduced max spotting range (say red ships normally render at 16km for you. Mount concealment, it drops to 14km), for example. If you're harder to see, then it's only fair you lose something. I'd be thrilled if even my Yamato, in exchange for having both concealment skills, cannot render any targets unless within 14km--there, campfest problem solved immediately.

Slot 6 is largely dependent on the ship. Yamato runs MBM3 because it's the only good one available, but the Unique Module is a good contender, whereas Montana largely has to stick to the MB accuracy. It does not cause any sort of balance issue as it's a tool w/ strengths and weaknesses--up to the player to deal with it.

However, such changes would change the game fundamentals and to my knowledge, most of playerbase doesn't reach patch notes. Do you think they will take kindly to their ships being changed?

I agree in a sense but the issue I have is you go from an improved ship to a significantly improved ship. Some are affected more than others but IMO anything that affects concealment or ROF or range should be either eliminated or allowed for all ships. You cross tier gaps and not only do you gain the normal tier to tier upgrades but you can also gain 10% concealment or reload boost or range boost. I get why they do it but I don’t agree with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,824
[SALVO]
Members
17,148 posts
17,812 battles
52 minutes ago, Reymu said:

What's the use of going up the tiers if the concealment and slot 6 upgrades vanish? A nerf to those ships won't sit well w/ long-time players and may cause campfest to stagnate more.

It'd be better if concealment  also reduced max spotting range (say red ships normally render at 16km for you. Mount concealment, it drops to 14km), for example. If you're harder to see, then it's only fair you lose something. I'd be thrilled if even my Yamato, in exchange for having both concealment skills, cannot render any targets unless within 14km--there, campfest problem solved immediately.

Slot 6 is largely dependent on the ship. Yamato runs MBM3 because it's the only good one available, but the Unique Module is a good contender, whereas Montana largely has to stick to the MB accuracy. It does not cause any sort of balance issue as it's a tool w/ strengths and weaknesses--up to the player to deal with it.

However, such changes would change the game fundamentals and to my knowledge, most of playerbase doesn't reach patch notes. Do you think they will take kindly to their ships being changed?

I disagree, Reymu.  Base concealments already improve as you go up in tier.  There shouldn't be a massive jump in concealment just because of an upgrade module.  It's unfair to tier 6's and 7's to have to face tier 8's and 9's that have a massive improvement in concealment.  Seriously, compare the base concealment of a Farragut, a Mahan, and a Benson, and then compare them after including the Concealment module to the Benson.  It's grossly unfair to the Farragut and Mahan for the Benson to get such a ridiculous bump in concealment due to a single module.  This is why I suggest replacing the concealment module with one that enhances camouflage (i.e. increases the dispersion of enemy ships shooting at you).  That is a counterable benefit.  Concealment really isn't.

Also, no one suggested getting rid of all slot 6 upgrade modules.  Only the range enhancing one.  MBM3 only enhances reload time in exchange for some turret rotation speed, which is an enhancement which isn't uncounterable.  That is, a Montana without MBM3 can still shoot at a Montana with MBM3.  The only difference is that the Montana with it shoots a smidge more quickly.  And that's only useful if you actually hit your targets.  But if you're in a cruiser with a range of, say, 16km (making numbers up here, btw), facing the same cruiser mounting the range enhancing slot 6 module, there's nothing you can do about it if that cruiser is pegging you outside of your unenhanced gun range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,824
[SALVO]
Members
17,148 posts
17,812 battles
2 hours ago, Prothall said:

I agree, moving the modules down to tier 7 would just mean tier 5 would then have to deal with them.

Get rid of them.

Exactly.  Reducing the tier of the t8 concealment module and the t9 gun range enhancing module just means that lower tiers have to deal with the problems they create.  That's why I suggest replacing them with modules that have counterable benefits that don't seem like the end of the world (so to speak) to those that have to face ships mounting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,384
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,466 posts
3,875 battles
7 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I disagree, Reymu.  Base concealments already improve as you go up in tier.

They actually don't. They only seem to because of the concealment module.

 

If you check out, say, the IJN destroyers-- you'll notice that at tier 6, base concealment steadily increases by an amount that is reduced by the addition of Concealment Expert to roughly match tiers 5 and lower. At tier 8, there's a concealment range increase that is subsequently cancelled out by the addition of the concealment module, keeping them all at roughly the same range.

 

Frankly, CE and the module could be removed and the values just baked into each ship in the line, since they're very clearly designed around taking this captain skill and this module. Remove them without baking the values into the line and the entire line is unnecessarily nerfed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,824
[SALVO]
Members
17,148 posts
17,812 battles
1 minute ago, KiyoSenkan said:

They actually don't. They only seem to because of the concealment module.

 

If you check out, say, the IJN destroyers-- you'll notice that at tier 6, base concealment steadily increases by an amount that is reduced by the addition of Concealment Expert to roughly match tiers 5 and lower. At tier 8, there's a concealment range increase that is subsequently cancelled out by the addition of the concealment module, keeping them all at roughly the same range.

 

Frankly, CE and the module could be removed and the values just baked into each ship in the line, since they're very clearly designed around taking this captain skill and this module. Remove them without baking the values into the line and the entire line is unnecessarily nerfed.

I actually have no problem with some baking in of concealments.  I just don't like the idea that there are some lines (*cough* USN DDs *cough*) where the base concealment improves marginally as one might expect, but then you add in the concealment module, and suddenly the Benson is massively better concealed than the Mahan or Farragut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
2,041 posts
3,580 battles
3 hours ago, Crucis said:

Belyy_Klyk, honestly, I think that the tier 8 Concealment module and the tier 9 gun range enhancing module should be removed from the game, and replaced with some sort of different modules that can be countered.  The problem with these two modules is that they're uncounterable and, IMHO, create an imbalance in the game.  Dropping them down a couple of tiers would only serve to shift the tier location of this problem, not fix it.  Furthermore, given how costly these modules are, dropping them down a couple of tiers would only make them seem like a pay to win (though with credits) where veteran players with large credit balances would be easily able to afford them, while newer players with very few extra credits would not.

These two modules are rather unique.  Other upgrade modules give benefits that do not represent an uncounterable advantage, like better steering or better engine acceleration or better gun accuracy.  If a cruiser mounts this gun range module and outranges you, there's not a bloody thing you can do about it, other than try to go dark and run away.  And when you compare DDs from the same line at tiers 7 and 8, their base concealments are usually fairly close.  But when you add the concealment module to the tier 8 DD, it now has a major concealment advantage over the tier 7 DD from the same line.

What I would suggest for a concealment upgrade module replacement would be a Camouflage module.  The Camouflage module would increase the dispersion of guns aiming at the mounting ship.  While this is an advantage, it's not an uncounterable one.  You can still shoot at this ship and with good aim, you'd still have a decent chance of hitting it, particularly with favorable RNG.

As for the gun range enhancing module, I think that I'd suggest replacing it with a gun accuracy module that reduces the dispersion of your guns (main guns only, or perhaps mains and secondaries).  And again, this is an advantage, but a counterable one.

 

As for the clean vs. rusty versions of camos, I largely have no opinion.  It seems to me that this is entirely cosmetic.

wait... concealment isn't countered by radar? And range isn't countered by maneuverability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,824
[SALVO]
Members
17,148 posts
17,812 battles
2 hours ago, Counter_Gambit said:

wait... concealment isn't countered by radar? And range isn't countered by maneuverability?

No, I mean that if I'm in a DD without the concealment module and you're in the same DD that has the concealment module, there's not a bloody thing I can do about it.  Radar counters ALL concealment, provided you're in range of the radar.  

When I'm talking about "countering", I'm talking about still being able to shoot at the target in question.  The benefits of things like DC modules or steering or engine modules don't need to be "countered" because you can still shoot at the target whether they're mounted or not.  Ditto for a modules that trade reload speed for turret rotation speed (in either direction).  

Tier limited Upgrade Modules that buff concealment or gun range create unfair advantages IMO.  This is why I suggest replacing concealment with camouflage (i.e. increases to dispersion of guns shooting at you) and replacing gun range enhancing modules with accuracy enhancement modules.  In both of these cases, you can still shoot at the target mounting the module (provided you can detect the ship in question).  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
789
[NG-NL]
Members
5,038 posts
8,290 battles
3 hours ago, Crucis said:

I disagree, Reymu.  Base concealments already improve as you go up in tier.  There shouldn't be a massive jump in concealment just because of an upgrade module.  It's unfair to tier 6's and 7's to have to face tier 8's and 9's that have a massive improvement in concealment.  Seriously, compare the base concealment of a Farragut, a Mahan, and a Benson, and then compare them after including the Concealment module to the Benson.  It's grossly unfair to the Farragut and Mahan for the Benson to get such a ridiculous bump in concealment due to a single module.  This is why I suggest replacing the concealment module with one that enhances camouflage (i.e. increases the dispersion of enemy ships shooting at you).  That is a counterable benefit.  Concealment really isn't.

Also, no one suggested getting rid of all slot 6 upgrade modules.  Only the range enhancing one.  MBM3 only enhances reload time in exchange for some turret rotation speed, which is an enhancement which isn't uncounterable.  That is, a Montana without MBM3 can still shoot at a Montana with MBM3.  The only difference is that the Montana with it shoots a smidge more quickly.  And that's only useful if you actually hit your targets.  But if you're in a cruiser with a range of, say, 16km (making numbers up here, btw), facing the same cruiser mounting the range enhancing slot 6 module, there's nothing you can do about it if that cruiser is pegging you outside of your unenhanced gun range.

Increasing dispersion would be preferable to getting more concealment. The main issue is seeing the other team. But not too much dispersion or the BB lot will throw a fit. I'd say around 5-15% more dispersion, and mounts in slot 5 to compete w/ the concealment module. The captain CE anyone can acquire eventually.

I'd have preferred reducing max spotting range on all ships a great deal, requiring TAM to be able to target anything farther than 14km away, but if dispersion % on camo gets a buff, that'd be acceptable.

Almost makes you wish Slot 6 had an upgrade that improves chance of causing Detonation, I bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
2,041 posts
3,580 battles
53 minutes ago, Crucis said:

No, I mean that if I'm in a DD without the concealment module and you're in the same DD that has the concealment module, there's not a bloody thing I can do about it.  Radar counters ALL concealment, provided you're in range of the radar.  

When I'm talking about "countering", I'm talking about still being able to shoot at the target in question.  The benefits of things like DC modules or steering or engine modules don't need to be "countered" because you can still shoot at the target whether they're mounted or not.  Ditto for a modules that trade reload speed for turret rotation speed (in either direction).  

Tier limited Upgrade Modules that buff concealment or gun range create unfair advantages IMO.  This is why I suggest replacing concealment with camouflage (i.e. increases to dispersion of guns shooting at you) and replacing gun range enhancing modules with accuracy enhancement modules.  In both of these cases, you can still shoot at the target mounting the module (provided you can detect the ship in question).  

 

Having to get closer to shoot at a target now equals unable to shoot at the target...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,824
[SALVO]
Members
17,148 posts
17,812 battles
2 minutes ago, Counter_Gambit said:

Having to get closer to shoot at a target now equals unable to shoot at the target...

Stop being obtuse.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,824
[SALVO]
Members
17,148 posts
17,812 battles
13 minutes ago, Reymu said:

Increasing dispersion would be preferable to getting more concealment. The main issue is seeing the other team. But not too much dispersion or the BB lot will throw a fit. I'd say around 5-15% more dispersion, and mounts in slot 5 to compete w/ the concealment module. The captain CE anyone can acquire eventually.

I'd have preferred reducing max spotting range on all ships a great deal, requiring TAM to be able to target anything farther than 14km away, but if dispersion % on camo gets a buff, that'd be acceptable.

Almost makes you wish Slot 6 had an upgrade that improves chance of causing Detonation, I bet.

Nah, I'd rather that a Camouflage module REPLACED the concealment module.  As for the numbers, I don't know.  I'd leave it to the devs to determine an appropriate and balanced number.

As for the Target Acquisition module, it would be nice if that module was seriously improved to the point that it was valuable enough that people would have a hard decision as to whether to use it or the concealment module (or Steering Mod 3, if applicable).    Maybe the TAM would be able to negate concealment enhancements on enemy ships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
2,041 posts
3,580 battles
3 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Stop being obtuse.

 

I seriously thought you were joking about concealment not having a counter. But you're spiel about having to get closer in order to shoot them, means you can't shoot them at all, was just laughably stupid. But you want a serious answer, here you go:

SMOKESCREEN!!!: Can't spot you if you can't be seen. You use that to disengage. Those with Hydro: Their hydro range is inside their concealment, so that is a non-issue. The only destroyers this may not work with are: Pan-Asian tiers 8-10, and Black, because of their radar. But that would mean the Black gave up its Engine Boost, while the Pan-Asian ships gave up their smokescreen.

On another note: Because majority of destroyer players tend not to open their main batteries until they are spotted, or the ship they are aiming at is low health, you can guarantee torpedoes, which means you simply initiate WASD hacks.

Seriously, there are ways of countering a ship that has better concealment than you, that doesn't rely on radar.

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.

×