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

Simple solution to passive play

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

370
[WOLF5]
Members
695 posts
14,209 battles

If we are to say that 'passive play' is not good for the game, we should do something to encourage players to be active. Currently XP rewards for actions are the same throughout the match, so there is no incentive to do anything sooner rather than later. In fact, it is generally better to let the other team 'yolo' and make mistakes, so therefore passive play is actually rewarded in the current meta.

How to change that? Our games are 20 minutes long. So let's divide that into four 5 minute sessions. 

  1. Session 1 = Max XP rewards for actions  (first five minutes)
  2. Session 2 = 75% XP rewards for actions  (second five minutes)
  3. Session 3 = 50% XP rewards for actions  (third five minutes)
  4. Session 4 = 25% XP rewards for actions  (final five minutes)

So, now if you wait to the end of battle to 'make your mark' you may win, but you'll be getting a smaller overall reward. If someone on your team suggests a bold plan, you would be more inclined to support it, since every five minutes of game time your rewards drop. The drive is to get into contact with the enemy and complete caps as quickly as possible. 

*(You could also adjust it so the change is 100%, 100%, 50%, and 25% since it does take some time to get to the enemy)

Just a thought...

  • Confused 2
  • Boring 2
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
856
[HRVAT]
[HRVAT]
Members
949 posts
7,741 battles

There is no hysterical laughter emote.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
900 posts
3,912 battles

While I agree with you OP I dont think anyone that matters cares about the passive gameplay.  All the evidence of ships that specialize in campy HE spam, long range snipers, CVs that force deathballs, etc... point to this being exactly on target as to the direction WG wants to take the game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,536
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
21,335 posts
11,846 battles

The best way to get rid of passive play is to get rid of bow tanking. Make taking hits through the bow punishing and hits through the broadside less punishing.

  • Cool 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
807 posts
13,366 battles
6 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The best way to get rid of passive play is to get rid of bow tanking. Make taking hits through the bow punishing and hits through the broadside less punishing.

This is a good start.

I think you also need to cut down on the gun range and accuracy. Instead of having laser beams (Russian) shooting accurately for 25 km, the game would benefit from max range of 20 km and the dispersion getting ridiculously worse above 17 km.

This might force the campers to come in closer to camp at least.

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,536
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
21,335 posts
11,846 battles
Just now, Prothall said:

This is a good start.

I think you also need to cut down on the gun range and accuracy. Instead of having laser beams (Russian) shooting accurately for 25 km, the game would benefit from max range of 20 km and the dispersion getting ridiculously worse above 17 km.

This might force the campers to come in closer to camp at least.

I don't have any real problem with range but reducing accuracy at extreme range would be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
125
Beta Testers
634 posts
1,691 battles
10 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The best way to get rid of passive play is to get rid of bow tanking. Make taking hits through the bow punishing and hits through the broadside less punishing.

This doesn't make sense, it would just replace bow tanking with....side...tanking. It wouldn't change anything other than let people do more damage while they sit full broadside. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
390
[DAKI]
Privateers, Supertester
864 posts
4,871 battles
14 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The best way to get rid of passive play is to get rid of bow tanking. Make taking hits through the bow punishing and hits through the broadside less punishing.

This is in a way, an awful idea. If a ship shows it's broadside and exposes its citadel, it should be punished. More so.

And the issue is, you really need to define "passive play". Because the defending side, always has the advantage in WoWS. (Due to how kiting works etc.). 

And even then, getting caught bow on, is a mistake more than anything. You can already very easily burn down a bow on ship, and chunk it / delete it if he attempts turns away.

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,536
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
21,335 posts
11,846 battles
Just now, Prkl8r said:

This doesn't make sense, it would just replace bow tanking with....side...tanking. It wouldn't change anything other than let people do more damage while they sit full broadside. 

It would make being on the move describable and I am talking about bow on being extremely painful and side less painful than now but not to the extent that bow on works now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
125
Beta Testers
634 posts
1,691 battles
1 minute ago, BrushWolf said:

It would make being on the move describable and I am talking about bow on being extremely painful and side less painful than now but not to the extent that bow on works now.

That would end up just being a nerf to BBs and CAs, and wouldn't really force those ships to push in because now to push in they have to "expose" their bow.

those ships would just sail back and forth on one side of the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[CSALT]
Members
1,001 posts
39 minutes ago, RevTKS said:

If we are to say that 'passive play' is not good for the game, we should do something to encourage players to be active. Currently XP rewards for actions are the same throughout the match, so there is no incentive to do anything sooner rather than later. In fact, it is generally better to let the other team 'yolo' and make mistakes, so therefore passive play is actually rewarded in the current meta.

How to change that? Our games are 20 minutes long. So let's divide that into four 5 minute sessions. 

  1. Session 1 = Max XP rewards for actions  (first five minutes)
  2. Session 2 = 75% XP rewards for actions  (second five minutes)
  3. Session 3 = 50% XP rewards for actions  (third five minutes)
  4. Session 4 = 25% XP rewards for actions  (final five minutes)

So, now if you wait to the end of battle to 'make your mark' you may win, but you'll be getting a smaller overall reward. If someone on your team suggests a bold plan, you would be more inclined to support it, since every five minutes of game time your rewards drop. The drive is to get into contact with the enemy and complete caps as quickly as possible. 

*(You could also adjust it so the change is 100%, 100%, 50%, and 25% since it does take some time to get to the enemy)

Just a thought...

If you really want aggressive play, you should go try the CIS server...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[CSALT]
Members
1,001 posts
6 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

It would make being on the move describable and I am talking about bow on being extremely painful and side less painful than now but not to the extent that bow on works now.

So they would never sail at the red fleet?  Only sail away or sideways?  I am not seeing how that would make things less passive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,042
[Y0L0]
Members
9,872 posts
13,704 battles

just  have the   map that gets smaller as time goes on with edge riding causing damage to health    .     :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,223 posts
12,937 battles

It really does not matter, you cannot change how people will play because how they play is a reflection of who they truly are, most of the people you see hiding way at the back not even in engagement range are simply cowards, spineless gits who you would never be friends with because they would leave you to die in real life if there was a real life incident.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,500
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,346 posts
10,078 battles

Or we actually address the issues that cause passive play.

Fix/Nerf/remove Radar - This is why DD's are terrified to do their job even with no CV present, or get wrecked 3 minutes in. And the "Delay" has no actual effect, because most half decent captains knew how to sucker a DD in while they hid behind a rock.

They need to give BB's a slight alpha damage nerf - Cruisers tend to hide, even when they can't abuse cover, because to do otherwise means basically a single salvo deletion. I'm not saying a cruiser parked broadside should be immune to it - it should just be a little bit harder. Most BB's could spare 10-15%, 20% on the high end, of damage and still have the ability to nuke a cruiser, just requires somewhat greater accuracy. This would also go a ways toward removing the auto overpen nonsense DD's have now given reduced damage of AP. 

IFHE needs to be removed, Fire damage reworked/fixed, DCP/Repair party overhauled, or some combination of any 2 - IFHE was added because of people crying they couldn't damage an angled BB, and shells shattered because they couldn't hit superstructure and fires weren't starting. I get the frustration there. But it was an issue at first that led to DD/CL/A getting changed because of how effective. The [edited] CV rework sort of addressed it on carriers. BB's have been unchanged to the new system and that is a problem. Because for all those touting the line "Fire damage is 100% repairable" they are oblivious to the damn math and fact it's the COMBINATION of high RoF near auto pen WITH fires. A single HE shell does max damage*0.33 when it pens successfully. A cruiser that has 2200 HE damage deals 726 per hit that succeeds. 10 shells per broadside - 7260 damage if they all land. 7 RPM - 50820 every minute. Possibly from behind the cover of a rock. Now obviously, that number is unrealistic, more realistic is say 30% hitting and penning for damage. That's 15,246 damage. Now, it's that PLUS any fires started. Lets take Colorado as the target - at 59300 HP your average fire on the ship is going to deal around 8302 if it burns fully. This is an amount equal to ONE repair part use under the best of circumstances, maybe just under. So that plus a fire is 23,548 - almost half the ships HP. Repair party takes 80 seconds to cooldown, and you can only remove that 8302 with it, unless you can disengage completely, good luck at 21 knots, in which case your second repair party can only repair HALF of the direct damage from IFHE shells, the rest is gone for good. If you can't get out of range or out of the arc, then by the time you can use repair party again even with no fires started lost another 20k HP meaning your down 35k of just over 59k. And this is one on one.

And this example is really just Helena vs Colorado - imagine using a higher tier, higher RoF cruiser or going against a lower tier BB with even fewer things to counter fires and less HP.

Either IFHE needs to go, and it be made that no superstructure save certain actual armoured parts is thick enough to stop HE so good aim is rewarded with damage, but they can't just rake the bow plating and most of the ships armour, and find some way to get fires to start consistent enough and maybe a tad less RNG to them. Or we need to nerf fire damage and all. Or we need to rework how DCP and Repair work, and likely drop the cooldowns of them lower. Or some combination of those options.

But you address that, that stops BB's camping because a Wor behind an island can just rake the ship with impunity and rip away HP. After that it's just torps to cause that which with how hard they've been nerfed, even I have to say 'Git Gud' and learn to maneuver and dodge.

And then of course everyone's favourite, the CV. These just straight up need to be fixed. lower tier ships need better AA, higher tier ships less AA power, it needs to be more normalized that x weapon has y performance, CV alpha needs to be lowered while accuracy unnerfed and in cases maybe improved a little, the ability to spot torpedoes if you are right over them should return, and a ton of other changes because they are a broken nightmarish mess that needs to be addressed. 

  • Cool 2
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
915
[WOLF5]
Members
2,385 posts
2,982 battles

It's a nice idea, but not going to work. People going to camp if they want too.

If passive play is to go, then the laser guns have to go. Play a USN ship with rainbow arcs and you have to get close. Imagine if everyone had those arcs. Things would get intense fast.

The fastest way to promote aggression would be to A) perma spot everyone, and B) remove torpedoes completely. No hiding now, and no wall of skill to worry about. Seriously, the biggest deterrent to pushing is that unspotted DD with a load of torps waiting. Remove that and a lot more people will be charging in guns blazing.

Obviously I'm aware this would royally screw up the game, especially for DDs and Cruisers, I'm not saying we should do this. But with the current mechanics, BBs are the only viable brawlers anyway, so everyone who is yelling for more aggression is really yelling for less DDs and CA/CLs. But a 7 on 7 BB only gamemode might be interesting (Ocean Epicenter of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,436 posts
10,179 battles

Youd have to nerf all damage by like 75%-80% and/or add like 500% HP increases. That is no guarantee.  You could try to make the map 10km by 10km, that's like the only guarantee to make games less passive. 

Edited by Octavian_of_Roma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,127
[SALVO]
Members
21,703 posts
22,016 battles
51 minutes ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

This is in a way, an awful idea. If a ship shows it's broadside and exposes its citadel, it should be punished. More so.

And the issue is, you really need to define "passive play". Because the defending side, always has the advantage in WoWS. (Due to how kiting works etc.). 

And even then, getting caught bow on, is a mistake more than anything. You can already very easily burn down a bow on ship, and chunk it / delete it if he attempts turns away.

You're wrong.  Your citadel is exposed  when bow (or aft) tanking.  It's only the ridiculous autobounce mechanic that protects it.  That should be removed, and require ships to have to work their forward bulkhead armor that protects the citadel from the front (or the aft bulkhead armor that protects the citadel from the rear).

Furthermore, it's silly that you think the alternative to bow tanking is broadside tanking.  The PROPER alternative is angling your armor, not to mention fire and maneuver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,127
[SALVO]
Members
21,703 posts
22,016 battles
37 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

Or we actually address the issues that cause passive play.

Fix/Nerf/remove Radar - This is why DD's are terrified to do their job even with no CV present, or get wrecked 3 minutes in. And the "Delay" has no actual effect, because most half decent captains knew how to sucker a DD in while they hid behind a rock.

They need to give BB's a slight alpha damage nerf - Cruisers tend to hide, even when they can't abuse cover, because to do otherwise means basically a single salvo deletion. I'm not saying a cruiser parked broadside should be immune to it - it should just be a little bit harder. Most BB's could spare 10-15%, 20% on the high end, of damage and still have the ability to nuke a cruiser, just requires somewhat greater accuracy. This would also go a ways toward removing the auto overpen nonsense DD's have now given reduced damage of AP. 

1. Regarding radar, all that does is address bad DD players who would already either refuse to do their job, or would try to do it, and be so bad at it that they'd be dead in the first 3-5 minutes of the battle, regardless of whether there was radar around.    There's no need to cater to bad DD players who will remain bad DD players, whether there's radar or not.

2. BBs do NOT need an alpha nerf.  Period.  A cruiser that's PARKED broadside to a BB deserves to get dev struck each and every time without exception.  A cruiser that's parked broadside to a battleship should have frigging magnets that suck in every AP shell into that citadel to guarantee that they get the punishment they so righteously deserve.  I have no pity for such a cruiser player who does that.    They are a dev strike begging to happen.

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
87 posts
6,868 battles

What is this cesspool of heresy? Remove torpedoes? Allow the game to be less punishing? 

If we let the game be lax, the standards for improvement will be more lax, therefore, the quality of the player-base will be lower. People also tend to forget there is something called “angling”. Not bow on, not full side, using your armor in order to make shots bounce. 

Despite me being a cruiser player, I don't dislike the idea of punishing torps or shells. They will eventually make me perform better, and to learn from my mistakes. What OP proposes is unreasonable for me (as most of what everyone says in here) because it is hard to implement, and it panders to the lowest echelons of the player-base, which is what WG has been doing and also is what is currently destroying the game from the inside out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,734 posts
2,514 battles
1 hour ago, RevTKS said:

If we are to say that 'passive play' is not good for the game, we should do something to encourage players to be active. Currently XP rewards for actions are the same throughout the match, so there is no incentive to do anything sooner rather than later. In fact, it is generally better to let the other team 'yolo' and make mistakes, so therefore passive play is actually rewarded in the current meta.

How to change that? Our games are 20 minutes long. So let's divide that into four 5 minute sessions. 

  1. Session 1 = Max XP rewards for actions  (first five minutes)
  2. Session 2 = 75% XP rewards for actions  (second five minutes)
  3. Session 3 = 50% XP rewards for actions  (third five minutes)
  4. Session 4 = 25% XP rewards for actions  (final five minutes)

So, now if you wait to the end of battle to 'make your mark' you may win, but you'll be getting a smaller overall reward. If someone on your team suggests a bold plan, you would be more inclined to support it, since every five minutes of game time your rewards drop. The drive is to get into contact with the enemy and complete caps as quickly as possible. 

*(You could also adjust it so the change is 100%, 100%, 50%, and 25% since it does take some time to get to the enemy)

Just a thought...

I suggested a similar thing, for DDs anyhow except I'd probably give it a bonus rather than diminishing rewards.

But the BEST way to address hiding / passiveness, is to reduce accuracy when there is no direct spotting, and to reduce it further when there is no direct line of sight (hiding behind islands all round).

That way, if you want to hide, you can't put in accurate shots, thus are rendered less effective and you gain less rewards for your passive play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
120
Beta Testers
567 posts
6,189 battles

This is never going to happen.  'Better' players all play passively, punishing impatient players or those who make a slight mistake.  If you want a fast-paced brawl, play Co-Op or lower tiers where your opponents aren't frightened of getting their paint scratched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[DWIND]
Beta Testers
50 posts
7,463 battles

The only way to stop passive play is to fix MM. Passive play is a defensive measure by weaker ships fighting against higher tier ships. Higher tier ships can stomp lower tier ships hands down. I didn't say I have the solution, only that as long as 2 tiers lower fight 2 tiers higher, people will look for ways to mitigate the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
390
[DAKI]
Privateers, Supertester
864 posts
4,871 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

You're wrong.  Your citadel is exposed  when bow (or aft) tanking.  It's only the ridiculous autobounce mechanic that protects it.  That should be removed, and require ships to have to work their forward bulkhead armor that protects the citadel from the front (or the aft bulkhead armor that protects the citadel from the rear).

Furthermore, it's silly that you think the alternative to bow tanking is broadside tanking.  The PROPER alternative is angling your armor, not to mention fire and maneuver.

Only somewhat true. Most modern battleships had relatively heavy protection around and behind the bow bulkheads so while you could penetrate the bow, the citadel was still normally just as safe. The real killer was plunging fire until deck armour increased.

There is nothing wrong with auto bounce, in this arcade game. I'm sorry that it disappoints you, personally, I find it fine.

The fact you claim I think bow tanking is a good idea, however, says a lot about you, however. Please note, I said. Bow tanking is bad. I don't do it. It's very easy to farm a ship that tries to bow tank. A good safe position would be angled, away, so your armor can bounce shells, while you have plenty of room to kite and reposition.

Edited by Kaga_Kai_Ni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,052
[NMKJT]
Members
3,767 posts
3 hours ago, RevTKS said:

If we are to say that 'passive play' is not good for the game, we should do something to encourage players to be active. Currently XP rewards for actions are the same throughout the match, so there is no incentive to do anything sooner rather than later. In fact, it is generally better to let the other team 'yolo' and make mistakes, so therefore passive play is actually rewarded in the current meta.

How to change that? Our games are 20 minutes long. So let's divide that into four 5 minute sessions. 

  1. Session 1 = Max XP rewards for actions  (first five minutes)
  2. Session 2 = 75% XP rewards for actions  (second five minutes)
  3. Session 3 = 50% XP rewards for actions  (third five minutes)
  4. Session 4 = 25% XP rewards for actions  (final five minutes)

So, now if you wait to the end of battle to 'make your mark' you may win, but you'll be getting a smaller overall reward. If someone on your team suggests a bold plan, you would be more inclined to support it, since every five minutes of game time your rewards drop. The drive is to get into contact with the enemy and complete caps as quickly as possible. 

*(You could also adjust it so the change is 100%, 100%, 50%, and 25% since it does take some time to get to the enemy)

Just a thought...

Rewarding people for yolo'ing and dying in the first 5 minutes will not produce the results you desire. The first step to eliminate passive play is to address seal clubbing. People learn to be passive early on when they are aggressive and get blapped by experienced players. So they learn to stay back. There are players with thousands of T1 matches. Start with that.  

Edited by Wombatmetal
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×