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

The Game Needs This Feature For the Border Humper Forever Back Paddlers

72 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

720
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
6,187 battles

image.thumb.png.08ee866e192fd3e7bf2a958ef9b559b8.png

 

There should be a in game reminder for people that's too far from the objective to move in. Maybe set the distance to > ship's firing range after the ship remains outside that range for few minutes.

  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,018
[ARGSY]
Members
6,354 posts
4,288 battles
2 minutes ago, NeutralState said:

There should be a in game reminder

"You :etc_swear: worthless :etc_swear:, get in there and fight!" In Dasha's voice.

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
471 posts
12,484 battles

I like the idea but it would be a waste of time.

You can't fix stupid.

You can't turn sheep into wolves.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
977
Members
4,566 posts
6,503 battles
38 minutes ago, Prothall said:

I like the idea but it would be a waste of time.

You can't fix stupid.

You can't turn sheep into wolves.

Yup. The concept that it is best to hang way back, shoot from ridiculous ranges, and take no chances of getting killed is very deeply ingrained in so very many players. How many matches have I/you been in that were lost due to this type of player.....lots and lots. Bunch. Whole bunch. Big batch. When your fleet divides into the aggressive players and the passive players the aggressive players don't have the juice due to lack of numbers to prevail against an aggressive red team and when they get defeated your passive players lack the numbers to win.....so both groups get defeated in detail.  I see this repeated again and again. Your team gets divided into 2 groups.  Bad. Very bad. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
66
[RCB4]
[RCB4]
Beta Testers
472 posts
1 minute ago, dmckay said:

Yup. The concept that it is best to hang way back, shoot from ridiculous ranges, and take no chances of getting killed is very deeply ingrained in so very many players. How many matches have I/you been in that were lost due to this type of player.....lots and lots. Bunch. Whole bunch. Big batch. When your fleet divides into the aggressive players and the passive players the aggressive players don't have the juice due to lack of numbers to prevail against an aggressive red team and when they get defeated your passive players lack the numbers to win.....so both groups get defeated in detail.  I see this repeated again and again. Your team gets divided into 2 groups.  Bad. Very bad. 

yep 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,229
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,678 posts
9,071 battles
19 minutes ago, dmckay said:

Yup. The concept that it is best to hang way back, shoot from ridiculous ranges, and take no chances of getting killed is very deeply ingrained in so very many players. How many matches have I/you been in that were lost due to this type of player.....lots and lots. Bunch. Whole bunch. Big batch. When your fleet divides into the aggressive players and the passive players the aggressive players don't have the juice due to lack of numbers to prevail against an aggressive red team and when they get defeated your passive players lack the numbers to win.....so both groups get defeated in detail.  I see this repeated again and again. Your team gets divided into 2 groups.  Bad. Very bad. 

In the past in the upper tiers in particular that was how you didn't lose credits because surviving in a mediocre match paid more than dying in a pretty good match. It is surprising and sad at the same time how many people don't realize that repairs were changed to a flat service fee a long time ago.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles
28 minutes ago, dmckay said:

Yup. The concept that it is best to hang way back, shoot from ridiculous ranges, and take no chances of getting killed is very deeply ingrained in so very many players. How many matches have I/you been in that were lost due to this type of player.....lots and lots. Bunch. Whole bunch. Big batch. When your fleet divides into the aggressive players and the passive players the aggressive players don't have the juice due to lack of numbers to prevail against an aggressive red team and when they get defeated your passive players lack the numbers to win.....so both groups get defeated in detail.  I see this repeated again and again. Your team gets divided into 2 groups.  Bad. Very bad. 

I call this Tier IX+ Battleships. I love Iowa but she will almost never get any Battleship support unless they are from my Division. She will push and she will push alone. My way of seeing it:

  • Tier IX+ equals Passive Play
  • Tier VI - VIII equals "Dynamic" Play

Basically what I mean by this is that I have less fun playing Iowa at TIer IX as bottom tier to the Tier X Battleships because 90% of the time (and my battles) they just hang back while everyone else dies. Now if I play Richelieu at Tier VIII as bottom Tier X, my games just tends to be more dynamic because reasons. Obviously Iowa and Richelieu are both very different ships but it is that Tier difference that shows a difference in tactics. It's weird and I think it's stupid because Tier IX+ is Passive. Will I adapt to it? Probably not. Will I git gud? Probably not. Am I blaming the team? Yes. Am I myself to blame? Yes. Then again when the enemy is being pushed back and your allied Battleships are still hiding behind islands while you are the only one pushing... I got no clue anymore.

If Iowa was Tier VIII but with nerfed stats, she would be more fun than how she is at Tier IX. Change in tactics, difference in tactics. Hence the reason I call Tier IX+ S**t Tier.

I don't judge you based on the stats, I judge you based on your performance in battle.

Edited by Vangm94
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

I think the a line, j line, 1 line, and 10 line should all have the blight mechanic from the Halloween event.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2 posts
653 battles

I find it ironic that the penalty for being on it is reduced engine power which in turn makes it that much harder/longer to get off of it.  Yes, I know you shouldn't be humping it, but it does happen and on some maps the cap and border are very close, so you are still in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
977
Members
4,566 posts
6,503 battles
12 minutes ago, Vangm94 said:

I call this Tier IX+ Battleships. I love Iowa but she will almost never get any Battleship support unless they are from my Division. She will push and she will push alone. My way of seeing it:

  • Tier IX+ equals Passive Play
  • Tier VI - VIII equals "Dynamic" Play

Basically what I mean by this is that I have less fun playing Iowa at TIer IX as bottom tier to the Tier X Battleships because 90% of the time (and my battles) they just hang back while everyone else dies. Now if I play Richelieu at Tier VIII as bottom Tier X, my games just tends to be more dynamic because reasons. Obviously Iowa and Richelieu are both very different ships but it is that Tier difference that shows a difference in tactics. It's weird and I think it's stupid because Tier IX+ is Passive. Will I adapt to it? Probably not. Will I git gud? Probably not. Am I blaming the team? Yes. Am I myself to blame? Yes. Then again when the enemy is being pushed back and your allied Battleships are still hiding behind islands while you are the only one pushing... I got no clue anymore.

If Iowa was Tier VIII but with nerfed stats, she would be more fun than how she is at Tier IX. Change in tactics, difference in tactics. Hence the reason I call Tier IX+ S**t Tier.

Interesting point. Tier 7 can be a good tier and I have Scharnhorst but in past couple of  months or so I am getting many more matches where I am up against tier 8-9 ships and I am the only tier 7. Lotta tier 9!   Not sure why this is happening more cause when I first got her I did not see this nearly as much and I was able to raise hell with her but it's changed.  Anyone know why? Seems to me it began after the Cleveland got uptiered. Seems like it. Could that be it? Maybe it's all my imagination... but numbers with her have dropped recently. 

Edited by dmckay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,229
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,678 posts
9,071 battles
3 minutes ago, Kat_butt_bomb said:

I find it ironic that the penalty for being on it is reduced engine power which in turn makes it that much harder/longer to get off of it.  Yes, I know you shouldn't be humping it, but it does happen and on some maps the cap and border are very close, so you are still in play.

This, the theory of the engine power reduction is it makes a ship on the border easier to hit. However the engine power should stay up as long as a player stays on course to get off the border but if they hit it again within a short period, one minute sounds about right, it should immediately drop to the maximum reduction and stay that way as long as they stay on the border.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,807
[SALVO]
Members
17,094 posts
17,761 battles
1 hour ago, Vengeance said:

But that border, it's so bright. Must go into the light.:fish_cute_2:

Actually, I don't find the border all that bright.  I often run into it completely by accident BECAUSE I can't see it.  IMO, it needs to be wider and brighter, and preferably of a color other than white.  Perhaps yellow or red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles
7 minutes ago, dmckay said:

Interesting point. Tier 7 can be a good tier and I have Scharnhorst but in past couple of  months or so I am getting many more matches where I am up against tier 8-9 ships and I am the only tier 7. Lotta tier 9!   Not sure why this is happening more cause when I first got her I did not see this nearly as much and I was able to raise hell with her but it's changed.  Anyone know why? Seems to me it began after the Cleveland got uptiered. Seems like it. Could that be it? Maybe it's all my imagination... but numbers with her have dropped recently. 

More than likely. If you notice though, my bet is that since you are bottom tier playing a Tier IX battle, the battle is more "dynamic". Play Tier IX and the battle becomes passive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,807
[SALVO]
Members
17,094 posts
17,761 battles
2 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

This, the theory of the engine power reduction is it makes a ship on the border easier to hit. However the engine power should stay up as long as a player stays on course to get off the border but if they hit it again within a short period, one minute sounds about right, it should immediately drop to the maximum reduction and stay that way as long as they stay on the border.

I guess that I disagree.  I never border hump.  And, if I'm working a side of the map where getting close to the border is entirely likely, I often end up on the map border for the simple reason that I just can't see it at times.  The border needs to be made easier to see.

I can't remember if the collision alert sounds if you're within a certain distance of the border and heading towards it, like it would if you were heading into an island.  But it should.  It would help players avoid borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200
[ONAVY]
Members
775 posts
6,307 battles
20 minutes ago, Vangm94 said:

I call this Tier IX+ Battleships. I love Iowa but she will almost never get any Battleship support unless they are from my Division. She will push and she will push alone. My way of seeing it:

  • Tier IX+ equals Passive Play
  • Tier VI - VIII equals "Dynamic" Play

Basically what I mean by this is that I have less fun playing Iowa at TIer IX as bottom tier to the Tier X Battleships because 90% of the time (and my battles) they just hang back while everyone else dies. Now if I play Richelieu at Tier VIII as bottom Tier X, my games just tends to be more dynamic because reasons. Obviously Iowa and Richelieu are both very different ships but it is that Tier difference that shows a difference in tactics. It's weird and I think it's stupid because Tier IX+ is Passive. Will I adapt to it? Probably not. Will I git gud? Probably not. Am I blaming the team? Yes. Am I myself to blame? Yes. Then again when the enemy is being pushed back and your allied Battleships are still hiding behind islands while you are the only one pushing... I got no clue anymore.

If Iowa was Tier VIII but with nerfed stats, she would be more fun than how she is at Tier IX. Change in tactics, difference in tactics. Hence the reason I call Tier IX+ S**t Tier.

I don't judge you based on the stats, I judge you based on your performance in battle.

The Iowa is an awesome ship...if captained right. She's a baby Monty...I play her as aggressive as a cruiser or destroyer. Damn the campers and Damn the torpedoes lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles
Just now, C_D said:

The Iowa is an awesome ship...if captained right. She's a baby Monty...I play her as aggressive as a cruiser or destroyer. Damn the campers and Damn the torpedoes lol.

I play her aggressive and end up solo. I play Richeleiu aggressive and she has a good time. It can't be helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,229
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,678 posts
9,071 battles
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

I guess that I disagree.  I never border hump.  And, if I'm working a side of the map where getting close to the border is entirely likely, I often end up on the map border for the simple reason that I just can't see it at times.  The border needs to be made easier to see.

I can't remember if the collision alert sounds if you're within a certain distance of the border and heading towards it, like it would if you were heading into an island.  But it should.  It would help players avoid borders.

No warning that you are going to hit the border. I hit the border fairly often when I am running & gunning while trying to avoid the attacking horde that has me in their sites. However, I don't stay on the border any longer than I have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,774 posts
8,328 battles
1 hour ago, NeutralState said:

image.thumb.png.08ee866e192fd3e7bf2a958ef9b559b8.png

 

There should be a in game reminder for people that's too far from the objective to move in. Maybe set the distance to > ship's firing range after the ship remains outside that range for few minutes.

They already get penalized for actually hitting the boarder with decreased speed and maneuverability,  Not only that there is a warning sound with it as well.  But sigh still even some tier X players run scared for that thin little line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200
[ONAVY]
Members
775 posts
6,307 battles
1 minute ago, torpsRus said:

They already get penalized for actually hitting the boarder with decreased speed and maneuverability,  Not only that there is a warning sound with it as well.  But sigh still even some tier X players run scared for that thin little line.

Yea if you have hit the border your already in Kimchee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,807
[SALVO]
Members
17,094 posts
17,761 battles
22 minutes ago, Vangm94 said:

I call this Tier IX+ Battleships. I love Iowa but she will almost never get any Battleship support unless they are from my Division. She will push and she will push alone. My way of seeing it:

  • Tier IX+ equals Passive Play
  • Tier VI - VIII equals "Dynamic" Play

Basically what I mean by this is that I have less fun playing Iowa at TIer IX as bottom tier to the Tier X Battleships because 90% of the time (and my battles) they just hang back while everyone else dies. Now if I play Richelieu at Tier VIII as bottom Tier X, my games just tends to be more dynamic because reasons. Obviously Iowa and Richelieu are both very different ships but it is that Tier difference that shows a difference in tactics. It's weird and I think it's stupid because Tier IX+ is Passive. Will I adapt to it? Probably not. Will I git gud? Probably not. Am I blaming the team? Yes. Am I myself to blame? Yes. Then again when the enemy is being pushed back and your allied Battleships are still hiding behind islands while you are the only one pushing... I got no clue anymore.

If Iowa was Tier VIII but with nerfed stats, she would be more fun than how she is at Tier IX. Change in tactics, difference in tactics. Hence the reason I call Tier IX+ S**t Tier.

I don't judge you based on the stats, I judge you based on your performance in battle.

I don't play BBs much differently whether they're tier 8 or tier 9.  If anything, I'm probably a little more assertive when playing a tier 9 BB in a tier 10 battle, as opposed to a tier 8 BB.  This isn't to say that I'm hiding way in back in a tier 8 BB in a tier 10 battle.  I'm just a little more cautious.  In that situation, I prefer to let the higher tier BBs take the lead, while I support them.

As for judging based on stats or performance, your stats are your performance in battle, just across all of your battles taken together.  However, since players can get better over time, sometimes it's better to take a look at their more recent stats, such as the last few hundred battles or the last 30 days.  Judging someone based only on the current battle is simply too small a sample size.  And it doesn't account for the possibility that RNG happens to be favoring them in this battle, or that they're just having a good night, or whatever.  Oh, it's ok to tell the mediocre player that they had a nice battle (assuming they did), but I would definitely NOT judge them to be a "good" player based on how they performed in a single battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I don't play BBs much differently whether they're tier 8 or tier 9.  If anything, I'm probably a little more assertive when playing a tier 9 BB in a tier 10 battle, as opposed to a tier 8 BB.  This isn't to say that I'm hiding way in back in a tier 8 BB in a tier 10 battle.  I'm just a little more cautious.  In that situation, I prefer to let the higher tier BBs take the lead, while I support them.

As for judging based on stats or performance, your stats are your performance in battle, just across all of your battles taken together.  However, since players can get better over time, sometimes it's better to take a look at their more recent stats, such as the last few hundred battles or the last 30 days.  Judging someone based only on the current battle is simply too small a sample size.  And it doesn't account for the possibility that RNG happens to be favoring them in this battle, or that they're just having a good night, or whatever.  Oh, it's ok to tell the mediocre player that they had a nice battle (assuming they did), but I would definitely NOT judge them to be a "good" player based on how they performed in a single battle.

While judging only based on that one battle is only a small sample, I am unlikely to ever see them again. If I see the player play good, I consider him good and I might give him a compliment. I have been stat shamed before because my Ryujo stats suck. That is why I judge by battle, not by stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
191 posts
15,804 battles

The problem is with the current trend of new maps

Too many islands near the center of the map forces cruisers to move near the boarder to find open water. I hate border hugging but I find myself near the border far more often the I would like.

On ideal maps like Ocean there is never a problem, for every other map expanding them by 1 square width for each side would be a very welcomed change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles
9 minutes ago, DoIphin_Princess said:

The problem is with the current trend of new maps

Too many islands near the center of the map forces cruisers to move near the boarder to find open water. I hate border hugging but I find myself near the border far more often the I would like.

On ideal maps like Ocean there is never a problem, for every other map expanding them by 1 square width for each side would be a very welcomed change.

Ocean is too unrealistic :fish_cute_2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
203
[NMKJT]
Members
1,762 posts
5,004 battles
1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

In the past in the upper tiers in particular that was how you didn't lose credits because surviving in a mediocre match paid more than dying in a pretty good match. It is surprising and sad at the same time how many people don't realize that repairs were changed to a flat service fee a long time ago.

That was so long ago though that a lot of players probably don't even have experience with it. They just want to not take risks no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×