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

Quality of Life and Balancing Ideas

128 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
22 posts
5,804 battles

Theres alot of issues prevalent that are causing many players to get frustrated with WoWs.

I feel that the following changes could be beneficial to the game as a whole.


1- +1/-1 Matchmaking.  Another 30 sec in que for better balance is not an issue.  This would allow WG to tune individual boats better than they are now.

2- Individual VS. Division ques (random battles).  Allow Divisions to have up to 5 players, but have them que into separate games.  

3- Radar and Hydro through islands- Fix this. Radar users shouldnt be able to sit behind cover, and spam radar without any risk. I know this is an issue thats been rehashed time and again, but it needs to be fixed.  Also a shared cool down, or add additional time to a radar lockout after use when users are attempting to chain them.

4- Radio Location/RPF- Remove or rework.  This talent is very prevalent at high tiers, and can negate a DD's concealment, beyond line of sight of the user.

5- Detonation Rework-  Instead of an insta-death, how about the detonation destroys the hit turret, player looses 25% base hp.  Make the RNG side of it not quite so punitive. 

There are more, but these are glaring issues that could be fixed relatively easy, and stop alot of the griping (mine included).  

Edited by Content_Insanity
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 3
  • Bad 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,367
[SYN]
Members
4,549 posts
11,437 battles

Ya, so that storm that's about to hit Taiwan.  A real doozy, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
144
[SF-E]
Members
354 posts
9,823 battles
16 minutes ago, Content_Insanity said:

Theres alot of issues prevalent that are causing many players to get frustrated with WoWs.

I feel that the following changes could be beneficial to the game as a whole.


1- +1/-1 Matchmaking.  Another 30 sec in que for better balance is not an issue.  This would allow WG to tune individual boats better than they are now.

2- Individual VS. Division ques (random battles).  Allow Divisions to have up to 5 players, but have them que into separate games.  

3- Radar and Hydro through islands- Fix this. Radar users shouldnt be able to sit behind cover, and spam radar without any risk. I know this is an issue thats been rehashed time and again, but it needs to be fixed.  Also a shared cool down, or add additional time to a radar lockout after use when users are attempting to chain them.

4- Radio Location/RPF- Remove or rework.  This talent is very prevalent at high tiers, and can negate a DD's concealment, beyond line of sight of the user.

5- Detonation Rework-  Instead of an insta-death, how about the detonation destroys the hit turret, player looses 25% base hp.  Make the RNG side of it not quite so punitive. 

There are more, but these are glaring issues that could be fixed relatively easy, and stop alot of the griping (mine included).  

 

I honestly think your suggestion would lead to a less dynamic (fun) experience.

 

Matchmaking: Forget queue time, how much fun is it to carry a tier X match while in a tier VIII ship. Nothing better than showing up the mighty tier X with superior play.

Detonation rework: The solution is to use a detonation flag. I've personally been in a lot of matches where a detonation allowed for a significant swing in the battle. These pivotal points are a lot of fun and prevent a complete roll by the other team.

 

Division queues with large numbers of players are called Clan Battles...

RPF is fine.

 

Radar through islands, you have a point. Of your suggestions, I agree with this one.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,367
[SYN]
Members
4,549 posts
11,437 battles

Way to derail the thread, Lou...  :Smile_sceptic:

 

/jk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
326 posts
31 battles
20 minutes ago, Content_Insanity said:

Theres alot of issues prevalent that are causing many players to get frustrated with WoWs.

I feel that the following changes could be beneficial to the game as a whole.


1- +1/-1 Matchmaking.  Another 30 sec in que for better balance is not an issue.  This would allow WG to tune individual boats better than they are now.

2- Individual VS. Division ques (random battles).  Allow Divisions to have up to 5 players, but have them que into separate games.  

3- Radar and Hydro through islands- Fix this. Radar users shouldnt be able to sit behind cover, and spam radar without any risk. I know this is an issue thats been rehashed time and again, but it needs to be fixed.  Also a shared cool down, or add additional time to a radar lockout after use when users are attempting to chain them.

4- Radio Location/RPF- Remove or rework.  This talent is very prevalent at high tiers, and can negate a DD's concealment, beyond line of sight of the user.

5- Detonation Rework-  Instead of an insta-death, how about the detonation destroys the hit turret, player looses 25% base hp.  Make the RNG side of it not quite so punitive. 

There are more, but these are glaring issues that could be fixed relatively easy, and stop alot of the griping (mine included).  

#1 Yes I love that idea, so does EVERYONE else who plays the game. Unfortunately it is Wargamings policy to determine what their consumers want and do the exact opposite. 

#2 Heck no on that one, if you don't like getting worked by divisions get some friends. Catering an online multiplayer game to the anti social solo yolo player KILLS the game every time it is tried. 

#3 Yeas I love that idea but see the response to #1 to see why it will never happen.

#4 Yea, I would also add in get rid of the detected mechanic....the ONLY way you should know if you are detected or not is by incoming ordinance. 

#5 Heck no on this one, detonations are NOT a problem, they are so rare that complaining about them borders on insanity. Ship explode in naval combat....GET OVER IT!

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,273
[PVE]
Members
9,803 posts
7,492 battles
2 minutes ago, Theokolese said:

#1 Yes I love that idea, so does EVERYONE else who plays the game. Unfortunately it is Wargamings policy to determine what their consumers want and do the exact opposite. 

Incorrect. I like +2/-2 MM when I play PvP. Many others like +2/-2 MM as well.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,732
[TBW]
Members
6,410 posts
12,057 battles
22 minutes ago, Content_Insanity said:

1- +1/-1 Matchmaking.  Another 30 sec in que for better balance is not an issue.  This would allow WG to tune individual boats better than they are now.

Just another MM thread. They have heard what people think already. With a 1+/- MM tier 8 would be OP.

24 minutes ago, Content_Insanity said:

2- Individual VS. Division ques (random battles).  Allow Divisions to have up to 5 players, but have them que into separate games. 

So basically solo.

25 minutes ago, Content_Insanity said:

3- Radar and Hydro through islands- Fix this. Radar users shouldnt be able to sit behind cover, and spam radar without any risk. I know this is an issue thats been rehashed time and again, but it needs to be fixed.  Also a shared cool down, or add additional time to a radar lockout after use when users are attempting to chain them.

I think they are working on radar, let's see what they come up with.

26 minutes ago, Content_Insanity said:

4- Radio Location/RPF- Remove or rework.  This talent is very prevalent at high tiers, and can negate a DD's concealment, beyond line of sight of the user.

Radio is really not a problem at all.

6 minutes ago, _Big_Lou_ said:

5- Detonation Rework-  Instead of an insta-death, how about the detonation destroys the hit turret, player looses 25% base hp.  Make the RNG side of it not quite so punitive

Again not a problem and wouldn't the Hood liked, to have only had a disabled turret.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,376
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,447 posts
3,875 battles
1 minute ago, Sovereigndawg said:

Just another MM thread. They have heard what people think already. With a 1+/- MM tier 8 would be OP.

I'd like to see your data on this, as tier 8 ships are balanced to encounter tiers 6-10, so narrowing that to tiers 7-9 should have virtually no effect.

 

Especially since tier 8s are so terrible against tier 10s ("But I do great in T8!" Trust me it's the player, not the ship)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,131
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,433 posts
9,572 battles

1) Hell no

2) Maybe 

3) Sure if practicable

4) No

5) No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,732
[TBW]
Members
6,410 posts
12,057 battles
2 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

I'd like to see your data on this, as tier 8 ships are balanced to encounter tiers 6-10, so narrowing that to tiers 7-9 should have virtually no effect.

I have no data, only mind extrapolation. If tier 8 doesn't see tier 10 and because most tier 9's are only more expensive tier 8's, as I see it. Tier 8 then becomes mostly OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,376
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,447 posts
3,875 battles
1 minute ago, Sovereigndawg said:

I have no data, only mind extrapolation. If tier 8 doesn't see tier 10 and because most tier 9's are only more expensive tier 8's, as I see it. Tier 8 then becomes mostly OP.

Amagi does not become stronger vs Nagato just because it no longer encounters Yamato.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,732
[TBW]
Members
6,410 posts
12,057 battles
2 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Amagi does not become stronger vs Nagato just because it no longer encounters Yamato.

Or Gearing, Montana, Hindenburg etc... , not taking tier 10 damage anymore is pretty OP. Not that I am against a 2 tier MM, I have suggested it in the past and agree it should be tried but there would be some ramifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,376
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,447 posts
3,875 battles
1 minute ago, Sovereigndawg said:

Or Gearing, Montana, Hindenburg etc... , not taking tier 10 damage anymore is pretty OP. Not that I am against a 2 tier MM, I have suggested it in the past and agree it should be tried but there would be some ramifications.

None of this makes Tier 8 stronger vs tier 7. Or even tier 8 or tier 9, though. It makes them OP vs tier 10 I guess. Because tier 10 can no longer damage them. But that's because tier 10 no longer encounters them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[KRAK]
Members
1,298 posts
13,750 battles
49 minutes ago, Content_Insanity said:

Theres alot of issues prevalent that are causing many players to get frustrated with WoWs.

I feel that the following changes could be beneficial to the game as a whole.


1- +1/-1 Matchmaking.  Another 30 sec in que for better balance is not an issue.  This would allow WG to tune individual boats better than they are now.

2- Individual VS. Division ques (random battles).  Allow Divisions to have up to 5 players, but have them que into separate games.  

3- Radar and Hydro through islands- Fix this. Radar users shouldnt be able to sit behind cover, and spam radar without any risk. I know this is an issue thats been rehashed time and again, but it needs to be fixed.  Also a shared cool down, or add additional time to a radar lockout after use when users are attempting to chain them.

4- Radio Location/RPF- Remove or rework.  This talent is very prevalent at high tiers, and can negate a DD's concealment, beyond line of sight of the user.

5- Detonation Rework-  Instead of an insta-death, how about the detonation destroys the hit turret, player looses 25% base hp.  Make the RNG side of it not quite so punitive. 

There are more, but these are glaring issues that could be fixed relatively easy, and stop alot of the griping (mine included).  

There is no reason whatsoever to have the MM a +1/-1 it is absolutely fine as it is. I see T8 ships do very well in T10 matches. The issue is your play not the MM.

5 man divisions are too decisive for what is supposed to be random teams.

Radar and hydro are not that big of a deal you just need to adjust your play style.

RPF is also fine it only gives a general location it is not like it lights up your ship.

Detonations I could kind of agree with except they do not need to reduce the damage just reduce the frequency of detonations as they happen way too often.

 

What you are asking for is the removal of many of the ways in which you die.  W

Why not just ask for 1000 mm armor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,732
[TBW]
Members
6,410 posts
12,057 battles
1 minute ago, KiyoSenkan said:

None of this makes Tier 8 stronger vs tier 7. Or even tier 8 or tier 9, though. It makes them OP vs tier 10 I guess. Because tier 10 can no longer damage them. But that's because tier 10 no longer encounters them.

I don't think that yo will look at it quite like me, but when uptiered they will only be playing against tier 9 and they have been balanced to be able to play against tier 10's. When playing tier 7 they will be top tier so nothing changes there really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,376
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,447 posts
3,875 battles
1 minute ago, Sovereigndawg said:

I don't think that yo will look at it quite like me, but when uptiered they will only be playing against tier 9 and they have been balanced to be able to play against tier 10's. When playing tier 7 they will be top tier so nothing changes there really.

Nothing changes vs tier 9 either, though. That's where the logic falls apart- Tier 8 is already balanced with tier 9 in mind. Tier 9 is balanced with tier 10 in mind and therefore will still be stronger than tier 8

 

Many T9s are straight upgrades after all, Izumo basically has Yamato's armor, Amagi does not, as an example. Fletcher is 100% better than Benson. Iowa is an improved North Carolina, etc. You seem to be running on the logic that tier 8 was balanced to be competitive vs tier 10 (It isn't) and that tier 9 is not any better than tier 8 (It is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,741
Members
18,282 posts
5,224 battles
38 minutes ago, Theokolese said:

#1 Yes I love that idea, so does EVERYONE else who plays the game.

That's untrue. Many are against it, or, like myself, ambivalent.

38 minutes ago, Theokolese said:

 Yea, I would also add in get rid of the detected mechanic....the ONLY way you should know if you are detected or not is by incoming ordinance. 

One of, if not the biggest, complaints in this game is "moronic teammates". Again, I'm ambivalent about this, (I played a lot of WoT without having Sixth Sense) but it seems to me that removing artificial awareness from players that need it is not likely to produce anything but a decline in teammate quality.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,732
[TBW]
Members
6,410 posts
12,057 battles
6 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Tier 9 is balanced with tier 10 in mind and therefore will still be stronger than tier 8

So you don't think tier 8 or any other tiers stats would change with a different MM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,741
Members
18,282 posts
5,224 battles
2 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

So you don't think tier 8 or any other tiers stats would change with a different MM?

I do, but it depends on what you consider OP.

If you consider a ship's performance within an individual match to be OP, then nothing would change.

The aforementioned Amagi would be no more powerful against the ships it faces than it is now. You wouldn't suddenly get a crop of people saying, "Ever since we got +/-1 MM, I've been getting sunk more often by Amagi, pls nerf".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,741
Members
18,282 posts
5,224 battles
3 minutes ago, Roadster311 said:

I like bourbon

Might as well take some good Canadian rye and mix it with Mississippi river water.....:cap_haloween:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,265
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,804 posts
15,278 battles
35 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

With a 1+/- MM tier 8 would be OP.

While I really have few complaints about 2+/2- MM, I would love to hear how you came to this conclusion. In fact, I even bought extra popcorn.

27 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

I have no data, only mind extrapolation. If tier 8 doesn't see tier 10 and because most tier 9's are only more expensive tier 8's, as I see it. Tier 8 then becomes mostly OP.

Yes; and by that I really mean what the hell are you talking about?

18 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

not taking tier 10 damage anymore is pretty OP.

and since it would happen to both sides at the same time it really wouldn't be OP at all now would it?

12 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

I don't think that yo will look at it quite like me, but when uptiered they will only be playing against tier 9 and they have been balanced to be able to play against tier 10's

Ships are balanced against ships in their own tier, and since both sides will be only playing against tier 9, again, it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever.

4 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

So you don't think tier 8 or any other tiers stats would change with a different MM?

Not by any significant margin, no, as both teams will have the same advantages.

6 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

removing artificial awareness from players that need it is not likely to produce anything but a decline in teammate quality.

Removing artificial awareness from players who aren't good enough to survive without it or are just too lazy to pay attention would be a huge buff for any ship which relies on stealth; you know the ones, the ones the BB players constantly complain about.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,239
[WOLF3]
Members
6,473 posts
2,422 battles
  1. No.  Your added queue time is a guess.  And, among other things, uniform fleets is unrealistic.
  2. No.  What would you do, have a 5-man division wait until more divisions totaling 7 players showed?  This would be, effectively, the outlawing of divisions.
  3. No.  It doesn't need to be fixed.  Take the issue elsewhere, where it has been beaten to death, resurrected, stoned, resuscitated, and killed some more until EVERYONE IS SICK OF IT.
  4. No.  It's not prevalent.  (Citation? if you insist that it is.)  Also not OP.  "There's a ship over there."  Terrible! /s
  5. No.  [You die a lot, don't you?  And just hate it.  'Fess up.]

 

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.

×