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

WG: Passive Gameplay Encouraged!

42 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

10
[TLW]
Members
6 posts
5,182 battles

Wargaming keeps saying that they dislike passive gameplay.  But they are ONLY saying it.  They haven't done ANYTHING in game to encourage people to get in and brawl.  All recent game changes encourage camping.  More radar, extended radar, higher rate of fire on anti-dd ship (that includes harugamo and kitikaze), hydro on everything so that torpedos are so unlikely it hit anything that aiming doesn't even matter, soft new american cruisers (more radar and island camping because they can be deleted).  It's not even like dd's can just wait back and go into camp after baiting out a radar...because there are 3 radars on the other team so a dd player has nothing do to unless the bb's on his team get really aggressive about killing radar cruisers.  I've been saying for years that decent players will just adapt and that's still true.  But after 3,500 games for me, I am losing the desire to adapt because the game is built to encourage camping and discourage team play by rewarding almost exclusively damage.

Wargaming, if you really want to discourage passive game play, take away non-line of sight spotting.  I don't mind radar penetrating a smoke screen.  But if there's an island between the radar ship and any other ship, those other ships should remain undetected--no exceptions.  Even the 2km proximity spotting needs to operate only if there is no island in the way and the ships have line of sight.  If a bb comes around a corner and doesn't see a dd's waiting there with 10 battle fishes ready to delete him, that's his team's problem for not getting another dd or plane out there to spot before he moves in.  Another way to put it...someone has to risk their hp to spot--no line of sight is no risk and that's why nobody takes any risk and we get static game play.  

Please line of sight ALL spotting except radar/hydro penetration of smoke screens.

  • Cool 10
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester, Beta Testers
5,783 posts
8,422 battles

This would be a nerf to cruisers and a buff to battleships. The end result would be even more passive Island camping due to fear of being deleted.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,476
[HINON]
Members
7,656 posts
8,168 battles
6 minutes ago, Compassghost said:

This would be a nerf to cruisers and a buff to battleships. The end result would be even more passive Island camping due to fear of being deleted.

:Smile_great:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,850
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
7,168 posts
3,967 battles

You remove Radar then RN CLs will sit in smoke blapping away, and DDs will return to doing it as well.

DDs will be able to flank, unspotted, and engage BBs with torps inside 7km, then smoke up and blap from smoke.

Cruisers will hide behind rocks, the entire game, waiting for the enemy DDs to die so they can engage in the battle without being perma-spotted and blapped from orbit by BBs.

Cruisers are intended to counter DDs in general in game. If you can find a way to allow Cruisers to actively engage in hunting DDs without relying on pure guesswork then you might be able to get Radar replaced.

At this time Radar exists to give Cruisers a chance to stop the perma-spotting issue and allow some counter to sitting in  smoke other than blind firing torpedoes.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10
[TLW]
Members
6 posts
5,182 battles

I'm not saying radar doesn't have a place and it probably does more good than harm.  My point is that WG has done nothing that actually encourages active game play despite saying they want to.  Everything they do makes one or more classes camp more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
647
[WOLF5]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
2,842 posts
42,217 battles

The new mode that is in testing right now should encourage a more active gameplay.  But as it is being tested, it is only for tier 9 and 10 right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
650
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,357 posts
6,780 battles

They can encourage it but that does not mean the playerbase will play actively. I can tell my team to help me exploit a hole in the enemy lines doesn't mean they are gonna follow me (because they never do). I can find every enemy in the map with my Ryujo and find that two of my BBs are sailing behind TWO GIANT ISLANDS and that there are NO ENEMY IN THAT LOCATION doesn't mean they are gonna listen to what I have to say. It sucks but you can only do so much to order... encourage people.

You are either on a team that:

  • Plays aggressive
  • Plays passive
  • Plays worst than passive by sailing needlessly

and much more.

Edited by Vangm94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
647
[WOLF5]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
2,842 posts
42,217 battles
3 minutes ago, Vangm94 said:

They can encourage it but that does not mean the playerbase will play actively. I can tell my team to help me exploit a hole in the enemy lines doesn't mean they are gonna follow me (because they never do). I can find every enemy in the map with my Ryujo and find that two of my BBs are sailing behind TWO GIANT ISLANDS and that there are NO ENEMY IN THAT LOCATION doesn't mean they are gonna listen to what I have to say. It sucks but you can only do so much to order... encourage people.

WG cannot force all players to play in any one particular way.  Just like players cannot force other players to play one particular way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
650
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,357 posts
6,780 battles
2 minutes ago, Patton5150 said:

WG cannot force all players to play in any one particular way.  Just like players cannot force other players to play one particular way.

Yep, no matter how much WG or I try (with my Ryujo's scouting abilities and knowing where 90% of the enemy is). I will still try because I have that ability as a CV to find those weaknesses in the enemy so that we can win the battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
308
[-S-R-]
Beta Testers
531 posts
3,592 battles

Well part of the problem is the disparity in ranges as you get up in tiers.  At 2-4 everyone has too be pretty close to be effective, so things are balanced by that fact (e.g torps don't go as fast, have insane damage or range).  By 8-10 closing to under 10K is a risk that doesn't really provide any reward for most ships, and often puts you at extreme risk.  This combined with using map terrain to mitigate the range issue, leads to very passive play as people become tethered to certain areas due to the extreme risk posed by advancing for most of the early match.  By the end, there's fewer ships on the same size map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,850
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
7,168 posts
3,967 battles
11 minutes ago, IKEELU_Brew said:

I'm not saying radar doesn't have a place and it probably does more good than harm.  My point is that WG has done nothing that actually encourages active game play despite saying they want to.  Everything they do makes one or more classes camp more.

Radar made Cruisers and BBs camp less, and improved DD survival rates by making the more catious. 

Torpedo Soup was lessened to decrease camping.

Smoke firing by 203mm gunned ships and above was implemented to decrease camping.

OWSF was removed to decrease camping.

The game is less campy than ever. The problem is that players play at max range. BBs do it because they can, Cruisers do it to avoid BB fire, and DDs do it to avoid Cruisers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,769
[SALVO]
Members
24,197 posts
24,546 battles
40 minutes ago, Vangm94 said:

They can encourage it but that does not mean the playerbase will play actively. I can tell my team to help me exploit a hole in the enemy lines doesn't mean they are gonna follow me (because they never do). I can find every enemy in the map with my Ryujo and find that two of my BBs are sailing behind TWO GIANT ISLANDS and that there are NO ENEMY IN THAT LOCATION doesn't mean they are gonna listen to what I have to say. It sucks but you can only do so much to order... encourage people.

You are either on a team that:

  • Plays aggressive
  • Plays passive
  • Plays worst than passive by sailing needlessly

and much more.

I'm sorry, but this isn't a binary thing.  Furthermore what far, far too many people call "aggressive play", I call recklessly aggressive game play.  I prefer smart, cautious aggression.  Hanging back when that's the smart play.  And pushing forward when that's the smart play.  But overall, I prefer playing SMART over being blindly aggressive or blindly passive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,769
[SALVO]
Members
24,197 posts
24,546 battles

If you want to encourage BBs to be willing to close to secondary range, there's a damned simple solution.  Get rid of the concepts that only certain ships or certain nations should have good secondaries, and that ships with good secondaries must, by default, have inaccurate main guns. (This could also be true of cruisers as well, though obviously on a lesser scale since most cruisers have far fewer secondaries than most battleships.)  "Good" secondaries do not have to all be good in the same way.  Ships with larger, 6" secondaries might hit harder, while ships with smaller secondaries might be more dependent on fire starting.

IMO, the fact of the matter is that when you're in a ship like a North Carolina and you see an enemy tier 8 BB with good secondaries, like a Bismarck, Tirpitz, or Massachusetts, the smart thing to do is to stay out of secondary range so that you can deny those strong secondary ships the advantage of those secondaries.  But if ALL battleships had strong secondaries (in one form or another, and scaled for their tier), this reason for holding the range open would go away.

Note that this doesn't force ships into secondary range, but it does encourage them to do so.

(I'll write a different post on passive game play in general.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,769
[SALVO]
Members
24,197 posts
24,546 battles
41 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

Radar made Cruisers and BBs camp less, and improved DD survival rates by making the more cautious. 

Torpedo Soup was lessened to decrease camping.

Smoke firing by 203mm gunned ships and above was implemented to decrease camping.

OWSF was removed to decrease camping.

The game is less campy than ever. The problem is that players play at max range. BBs do it because they can, Cruisers do it to avoid BB fire, and DDs do it to avoid Cruisers.

Regarding your radar comments, I think that there's truth on both sides.  Radar can give heavies a reason to push into the enemy, but at the same time, radar can cause DDs to fear pushing forward.  Ditto for hydro, now that I think of it.  So, it's a double edged sword.    Without either, perhaps both sides don't push forward out of fear of DDs.  Or either side could choose to push forward.  A lot might depend on the quality of their DD screen.

Regardless, the OP didn't suggest eliminating radar.  He suggested requiring radar (and I assume hydro) to be Line of Sight only.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
215
[DOG]
Members
933 posts
10,809 battles

Well, they are introducing a new version of random matches called "arms race."  It will definitely punish teams that camp in the rear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,841
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

As long as the game has Exp and Credits as a Motivator for advancement and reward I expect Passive play will always be here.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
650
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,357 posts
6,780 battles
14 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I'm sorry, but this isn't a binary thing.  Furthermore what far, far too many people call "aggressive play", I call recklessly aggressive game play.  I prefer smart, cautious aggression.  Hanging back when that's the smart play.  And pushing forward when that's the smart play.  But overall, I prefer playing SMART over being blindly aggressive or blindly passive.

When I say Aggressive, I mean playing good and smart. The Overly Aggressive is just part of the Much More. There are multiple ways to play. I just list the main ones I see. It's also a given that when you have enemy intel, you can be as aggressive or as passive as you want as long as you know where the enemy is because you can see them push or retreat. Being overly aggressive with no enemy intel means a potential loss but being overly passive when the enemy is being aggressive will also be a loss because that passive side gets push back further and further and further until they are in a corner.

I have seen these situations happen too many times when I play Iowa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
650
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,357 posts
6,780 battles
1 minute ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

As long as the game has Exp and Credits as a Motivator for advancement and reward I expect Passive play will always be here.

Yep, just like how WG added in Services Fees no matter how little damage you have in order to encourage more... Dynamic Play... only for nothing to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,769
[SALVO]
Members
24,197 posts
24,546 battles
48 minutes ago, FlakKnight said:

Well part of the problem is the disparity in ranges as you get up in tiers.  At 2-4 everyone has too be pretty close to be effective, so things are balanced by that fact (e.g. torps don't go as fast, have insane damage or range).  By 8-10 closing to under 10K is a risk that doesn't really provide any reward for most ships, and often puts you at extreme risk.  This combined with using map terrain to mitigate the range issue, leads to very passive play as people become tethered to certain areas due to the extreme risk posed by advancing for most of the early match.  By the end, there's fewer ships on the same size map.

There's some truth to what you're saying here, Flak.   This isn't like WoT, where the speed of some tanks and distances involved often allow tanks to close the distance to the enemy rather quickly and with comparative little risk, at least in the right situations.  In WoWS, the combination of ship speeds and distances involved always cause those ships to take a pretty considerable amount of time to close a decent distance.  And if you're spotted, you may come under fire the entire way, unless you're in a situation where you can either remain unspotted or masked by terrain.

I won't say that being able to get to close range at high tiers isn't worth the risk.  Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.  I will say that I think that far too many people are far too much in love with the idea that brawling is oh-so fun.  It's like they're adrenaline junkies.  To me, unless you have one of those rare situations where you can close to under 10km unspotted or at least protected from enemy fire, and are then in a situation where you can wreak incredible havoc (say, in a Des Moines at point blank range of a 2-3 cruisers showing you their broadsides), I tend to be of the belief that it's better to stay at a more moderate range, somewhere in the 12-15km range.  For one thing, at that range, you're outside of the range of most BB or cruiser launched torpedoes.  Also, you're at a range where you have a half decent chance of angling your hull to bounce shots, while keeping your guns on target.  That's not as easy to do at point blank range.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,769
[SALVO]
Members
24,197 posts
24,546 battles
12 minutes ago, Vangm94 said:

Yep, just like how WG added in Services Fees no matter how little damage you have in order to encourage more... Dynamic Play... only for nothing to change.

 

Vang, the problem is that "dynamic play" does not equal "smart play".  The fact is that there are some ships where passive play is very much the smart thing to do.  Ships like the soft skinned USN and RN CLs.  Hell, for that matter, just about all cruisers in one way or another.  Cruisers don't have the armor to stand up to battleship levels of firepower, and nor should they.  Mind you, I love more dynamic game play.  I often don't have the patience for playing ships that require too passive a play style.  I prefer ships that have more of a "fire and maneuver" or "shoot and scoot" play style.  I will also say that I tend to love playing torpedo boat DDs that are played as the stealthy hunter.  They do require patience, but it's not a sitting still kind of patience, so it's much easier for me to deal with.

Regarding the service fee thing, you're not wrong, but IMO and I said so at the time, it was too late for it to make a difference.  Players had already had their playing habits engrained too deeply for the change to the service fee to overcome those deeply engrained habits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
650
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,357 posts
6,780 battles
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

 

Vang, the problem is that "dynamic play" does not equal "smart play".  The fact is that there are some ships where passive play is very much the smart thing to do.  Ships like the soft skinned USN and RN CLs.  Hell, for that matter, just about all cruisers in one way or another.  Cruisers don't have the armor to stand up to battleship levels of firepower, and nor should they.  Mind you, I love more dynamic game play.  I often don't have the patience for playing ships that require too passive a play style.  I prefer ships that have more of a "fire and maneuver" or "shoot and scoot" play style.  I will also say that I tend to love playing torpedo boat DDs that are played as the stealthy hunter.  They do require patience, but it's not a sitting still kind of patience, so it's much easier for me to deal with.

Regarding the service fee thing, you're not wrong, but IMO and I said so at the time, it was too late for it to make a difference.  Players had already had their playing habits engrained too deeply for the change to the service fee to overcome those deeply engrained habits.

When I say Dynamic Play, I mean when passive tactics are not that noticeable. Cruisers have their own issues so I will let them do what they want. Destroyers have their own issues, I will let them do what they want. I should've been a bit more precise about this. It's the Tier IX Passive Battleship tactics that piss me off because when you play a different ship type or your own Battleship and you need Battleship support, they are stuck behind a island or running away or almost always in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

I can take my Richelieu and get some support and give some support to my allies but for some reason if I take Iowa, I can give support to my allies but I will be the only Battleship there. It can't be helped in the end. My Iowa and my Musashi both stay in reserve while I take out my Richelieu to play at Tier IX+ instead. Iowa isn't bad, I just suck with her but it's also because I am always alone. Musashi I do suck with her. It's just my... low tier mentality fighting against the crap known as Tier IX+.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
116
[C-1]
Members
438 posts
8,687 battles

I know the perfect way to get rid of camping.

Get rid of islands completely. Open Ocean map every time! XD

Weed out the weak ones.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,769
[SALVO]
Members
24,197 posts
24,546 battles
4 minutes ago, Levits said:

I know the perfect way to get rid of camping.

Get rid of islands completely. Open Ocean map every time! XD

Weed out the weak ones.

While I love the Ocean map, camping doesn't automatically equate to hiding behind islands.

I'd love to see more extremely open maps.  Maybe even fewer and lower islands than on the Okinawa map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43
[FORGV]
Members
543 posts
9,291 battles

WarGaming - If we have to deal with so much radar, how bout a way to counter it?

We need RADAR JAMMERS :Smile_glasses:

  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×