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

Connecting the dots: WG is trying to slow down the pace of high-tier gameplay

79 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,407
[-K-]
Members
4,957 posts
16,247 battles

Speculation time!

Claim: The design direction of several recent ships and mechanics changes, point to a concerted effort by WG to slow down and smooth out damage in high-tier play.

  • Evidence 1: Low burst, high-caliber on big guns. Recent ship releases have trended toward larger-caliber weapons that deal damage more consistently, but with fewer barrels, yielding a smaller best-case alpha strike. This smooths damage over time. Examples:
    • Georgia (6 barrels, 94500 theoretical alpha) vs. Iowa (9 barrels, 121500 theoretical alpha)
    • Ohio vs. Montana (see Georgia vs. Iowa)
    • Siegfried (6 barrels, 69600 alpha) vs. Alaska (9 barrels, 80100 alpha)
  • Evidence 2a: IFHE changes to small guns. The redesign to IFHE forces small-caliber ships to choose between alpha damage and fires vs. battleships (IFHE announced in testing costs half your fire chance instead of a flat 2 percentage points). This represents a significant DPM loss for 100mm-155mm gunboats that relied on IFHE, slowing their damage, which was already smooth and non-bursty.
  • Evidence 2b: Elimination of full damage saturation. Fully-saturated portions of ships used to take zero damage, but now take 10% instead. The main impact of this change is that battleship superstructures don't stop giving damage, and a BB can be killed entirely through superstructure pens. This pulls UP damage for some ships, but its larger effect is to allow for consistent damage against BBs even when their ends can't be penned.
  • Evidence 2c: Here come the dakkabotes. Friesland is a destroyer with four 120mm barrels and no torpedoes. French DDs have decent torpedoes, but emphasize small-caliber gunboating. Three high-tier CLs are currently in testing (Bayard VIII, Colbert X, Smolensk X). In context of the other changes to small-caliber weaponry, this means that three ships with consistent but medium damage are being added, rather than three ultra high-DPM flamethrowers.
  • Evidence 3: Survivable ship designs. Recently-released and upcoming ships are all significantly tanky compared to the previous norm.
    • Siegfried's high freeboard is covered entirely in 90mm armor and also has a turtleback; it also has a large HP pool
    • Georgia released with Massachusetts short-cooldown heal
    • RU BB line has extremely thick armor including HE immunity in many places (e.g. Kremlin 60mm center deck); huge HP pool
    • French DDs are specifically designed so that their midsections saturate more easily, and begin taking half-damage sooner; huge HP pool for DDs
  • Evidence 4: AA sequential shootdown. This massively smoothed out the pace of plane loss, which used to be all-or-nothing due to the way random damage spreading occurred over a squadron. The resulting increase in plane losses also discourages repeated strikes on a target in favor of opportunistic single or double runs, so that the CV has planes left by the end of the game. The ultimate effect of this change was to temper CV damage by smoothing plane losses so that CVs more easily run out by the end.

I don't recall whether WG has specifically said they want to do something about the pace or consistency of damage at the high tiers, but taking a step back, it does seem like that's the general picture. Or not. Maybe I've missed something?

  • Cool 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,477
[DEV_X]
Supertester
2,204 posts
20,698 battles

I feel like the higher tier gameplay is already pretty slow. I've heard it enough on posts here about people not liking the campy higher tier meta as well.

Seems odd to slow it down unless their intention is to make taking damage a little less "scary" for many players. Thus, perhaps pushing for a slightly more aggressive meta..maybe? I personally  believe there is a huge fear of taking any damage in this game; probably due to the snowballing effect it has, and its lead to the NA server being the least aggressive in playstyle.

I dont know though. I mean game developers do things to influence the meta to change with directly stating their intent. 

Edited by Skuggsja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
403
[A-D-F]
Members
1,182 posts
5,512 battles

Slowing down tier 8, 9, and 10 gameplay slower than it is now? Yikes. We might have to rename high tier the "World of Snails" if that trend happens.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,116
[WOLFG]
Members
6,918 posts
4,963 battles

Maybe they are reducing quick damage to larger vessels, but ships like Friesland and the high tier CLs are not making live any easier for cruisers and DDs.

Maybe as Skuggsja suggests, this may be to prevent quick burn downs on BBs to encourage more agressive play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,407
[-K-]
Members
4,957 posts
16,247 battles
15 minutes ago, Skuggsja said:

Seems odd to slow it down unless their intention is to make taking damage a little less "scary" for many players.

10 minutes ago, daVinci761st said:

Slowing down tier 8, 9, and 10 gameplay slower than it is now? Yikes.

I think the idea is as Skuggsja suggested. Making damage slower and less spiky means that risky plays (or just plain mistakes) are less punishing -- you're still going to get whacked really hard, but you're less likely to get outright one-shot, and you may even be able to get behind cover or go dark. This could help players to feel a little bit more comfortable with the idea of going on offense... or at worst, live slightly longer when yoloing.

Edit: I guess I didn't make that distinction very clear in the thread title. Slowed damage really could swing either way in terms of overall match pacing.

Edited by Edgecase
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,389
[CRMSN]
Members
8,805 posts
9,670 battles

Let's be honest: Does anyone really, truly believe WG really knows what they're doing? The last 2 years have felt like this: "Hey, I have an idea, ya'll watch this!", except in the Russian equivalent. I'm not saying that's what's going on, I'm saying that's how it feels, to me.

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,366
[WORX]
Members
6,358 posts
16,150 battles

High tier games are about as slow as Canadian molasses... 

At issue is OP premiums VS regular tech tree.

Tier 9 and 10 ships are so OP, tier 8 ships are just gun fodder to them.

The whole high tier experience  as a whole, is a disaster. Its not getting better, its getting unbearable compared to high tier games of 2017.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,407
[-K-]
Members
4,957 posts
16,247 battles
3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

At issue is OP premiums VS regular tech tree.

Tier 9 and 10 ships are so OP, tier 8 ships are just gun fodder to them.

Premium vs. Tech Tree is a separate distinction from T8 vs. T9/T10. Which did you mean?

Edited by Edgecase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,322
[ARGSY]
Members
15,087 posts
9,812 battles
3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

At issue is OP premiums VS regular tech tree.

Garbage. Victim thinking. Try again.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,366
[WORX]
Members
6,358 posts
16,150 battles
8 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Garbage. Victim thinking. Try again.

So is thinking that pineapple pizza is somehow good for society when its destroying the masterpiece that is Pizza ... At least WG agrees Pineapple on Pizza is a crime...

As always i'll wait for the rest to come to the same conclusion when high tier premiums top the boards vs a fleet with non premium ships...

I'll wait when brainless Secondaries ships melt small ships. If this what you want in the game that already has balance problems, and no activity of new players at tiers 1 and 2...

I see an unsustainable situation... Death from thousands of cuts... You already have a lot of cuts why no get more? Oh well... WOWs was fun while it lasted... Some of us will ride this show until the wheels come off.

Others already jumped ship and new guys are far less to keep the game going for the long term.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,084 posts
1 hour ago, Edgecase said:

I don't recall whether WG has specifically said they want to do something about the pace or consistency of damage at the high tiers, but taking a step back, it does seem like that's the general picture.

well, there is a problem in your quite interesting premise. The IFHE nerf as announced, applies to T6-10 CLs' IFHE and bow plating. Thus, T6-8 CL will be as nerfed as T9-10, actually they may be more because of the decrease of bow plating. So your premise might fit the T9-10 CL nerf but not the T6-8. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,366
[WORX]
Members
6,358 posts
16,150 battles
22 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

Premium vs. Tech Tree is a separate distinction from T8 vs. T9/T10. Which did you mean? 

MM doesn't care so as long as there is +/-2 MM, The only one who is separating the distinction is you... 

If you see a high tier match a lot of premiums ships VS your fleet of just tech ships.... Dont blame MM for the steam rolled loss.

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
692
[-TDF-]
Beta Testers
1,142 posts
4,464 battles
7 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

So is thinking that pineapple pizza is somehow good for society when its destroying the masterpiece that is Pizza ... At least WG agrees Pineapple on Pizza is a crime...

As always i'll wait for the rest to come to the same conclusion when high tier premiums top the boards vs a fleet with non premium ships...

I'll wait when brainless Secondaries ships melt small ships. If this what you want in the game that already has balance problems, and no activity of new players at tiers 1 and 2...

I see an unsustainable situation... Death from thousands of cuts... You already have a lot of cuts why no get more? Oh well... WOWs was fun while it lasted... Some of us will ride this show until the wheels come off.

Others already jumped ship and new guys are far less to keep the game going for the long term.

Not sure what your on... Secondary ships only work in small match situations liked ranked or Yoloing in randoms. I've never had an issue with a Mass or Tirpitz because I've HE shelled all there secondaries into nothing by the time they get into range. Secondaries are fun for memes but not reliable at all.

Besides the Belfast, Kutuzov, GC, Kami's and Nikolai very few premiums are blatantly OP/Better then there tech trees. Fiji can easily rekt a Belfast for that matter as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,153
[GWG]
Supertester
22,777 posts
12,773 battles
1 hour ago, Edgecase said:
  • Evidence 2a: IFHE changes to small guns. The redesign to IFHE forces small-caliber ships to choose between alpha damage and fires vs. battleships (IFHE announced in testing costs half your fire chance instead of a flat 2 percentage points). This represents a significant DPM loss for 100mm-155mm gunboats that relied on IFHE, slowing their damage, which was already smooth and non-bursty.

The IFHE change is long overdue. I said that the fire chance loss was far too small for the armor penetration gain when IFHE was put into the game. IFHE became a no brainer for DD's and CL's, you not only gain damage but your fire chance is hardly impacted at all so you still get fire damage. For ships with five inch and under guns the IFHE and Demolition Expert decision will instead of being why not both will become an either or choice.

  • Cool 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,407
[-K-]
Members
4,957 posts
16,247 battles
8 minutes ago, loco_max said:

So your premise might fit the T9-10 CL nerf but not the T6-8.

The trend noted in the original post is only high tier, generally meaning T8-T10. Mid-tier (5-7) has its own set of issues that are pretty separate, and I haven't seen a consistent pattern there yet.

 

8 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:
34 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

Premium vs. Tech Tree is a separate distinction from T8 vs. T9/T10. Which did you mean? 

MM doesn't care so as long as there is +/-2 MM, The only one who is separating the distinction is you... 

If you see a high tier match a lot of premiums ships VS your fleet of just tech ships.... Dont blame MM for the steam rolled loss.

You seem to be very committed to the idea that premium = more powerful. At high tiers, that's quite untrue. They run the gamut from strong (Stalingrad) to really weak (Azuma), just like tech tree ships (examples: strong - Kremlin, Henri / weak - Hindenburg, Gearing). The OP was also about both tech tree and premium ships, so I'm really not sure what connection you're trying to make to the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,366
[WORX]
Members
6,358 posts
16,150 battles
11 minutes ago, Stand_Alone97 said:

I've never had an issue with a Mass or Tirpitz because I've HE shelled all there secondaries into nothing by the time they get into range. Secondaries are fun for memes but not reliable at all.

Wait until they're buffed... Some people disagree with you... I want to avoid (especially in high tier play)

The PTS Alsac.... Her secondaries melted tier 10 cruisers and small ships.

I also want to avoid the only tactic to small ships who (purposely or not) only option is to run. Since secondaries are brainless, %50 Dmg occurring without firing a main battery shot...

No TY... DMG should be done by the player... NOT by the BOT secondaries.

Any DMG may by secondaries should NOT be counted as DMG the same as BOT AA plane DMG is not counted.

Edited by Navalpride33
  • Confused 3
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,389
[KRAK]
Members
3,386 posts
19,206 battles
1 hour ago, Edgecase said:

Speculation time!

Claim: The design direction of several recent ships and mechanics changes, point to a concerted effort by WG to slow down and smooth out damage in high-tier play.

  • Evidence 1: Low burst, high-caliber on big guns. Recent ship releases have trended toward larger-caliber weapons that deal damage more consistently, but with fewer barrels, yielding a smaller best-case alpha strike. This smooths damage over time. Examples:
    • Georgia (6 barrels, 94500 theoretical alpha) vs. Iowa (9 barrels, 121500 theoretical alpha)
    • Ohio vs. Montana (see Georgia vs. Iowa)
    • Siegfried (6 barrels, 69600 alpha) vs. Alaska (9 barrels, 80100 alpha)
  • Evidence 2a: IFHE changes to small guns. The redesign to IFHE forces small-caliber ships to choose between alpha damage and fires vs. battleships (IFHE announced in testing costs half your fire chance instead of a flat 2 percentage points). This represents a significant DPM loss for 100mm-155mm gunboats that relied on IFHE, slowing their damage, which was already smooth and non-bursty.
  • Evidence 2b: Elimination of full damage saturation. Fully-saturated portions of ships used to take zero damage, but now take 10% instead. The main impact of this change is that battleship superstructures don't stop giving damage, and a BB can be killed entirely through superstructure pens. This pulls UP damage for some ships, but its larger effect is to allow for consistent damage against BBs even when their ends can't be penned.
  • Evidence 2c: Here come the dakkabotes. Friesland is a destroyer with four 120mm barrels and no torpedoes. French DDs have decent torpedoes, but emphasize small-caliber gunboating. Three high-tier CLs are currently in testing (Bayard VIII, Colbert X, Smolensk X). In context of the other changes to small-caliber weaponry, this means that three ships with consistent but medium damage are being added, rather than three ultra high-DPM flamethrowers.
  • Evidence 3: Survivable ship designs. Recently-released and upcoming ships are all significantly tanky compared to the previous norm.
    • Siegfried's high freeboard is covered entirely in 90mm armor and also has a turtleback; it also has a large HP pool
    • Georgia released with Massachusetts short-cooldown heal
    • RU BB line has extremely thick armor including HE immunity in many places (e.g. Kremlin 60mm center deck); huge HP pool
    • French DDs are specifically designed so that their midsections saturate more easily, and begin taking half-damage sooner; huge HP pool for DDs
  • Evidence 4: AA sequential shootdown. This massively smoothed out the pace of plane loss, which used to be all-or-nothing due to the way random damage spreading occurred over a squadron. The resulting increase in plane losses also discourages repeated strikes on a target in favor of opportunistic single or double runs, so that the CV has planes left by the end of the game. The ultimate effect of this change was to temper CV damage by smoothing plane losses so that CVs more easily run out by the end.

I don't recall whether WG has specifically said they want to do something about the pace or consistency of damage at the high tiers, but taking a step back, it does seem like that's the general picture. Or not. Maybe I've missed something?

Why would they want to slow it down now when they did everything possible to make the matches as short as possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
516
[POP]
Members
1,518 posts
18,623 battles

    I follow your reasoning and add that it could actually speed games up in the end. If people feel they are less likely to be deleted or focus melted quite as fast they may be more willing to push and it may actually open up more mobility and opportunities for players who look for positioning to still get those heavy strikes through citadel damage and torp alpha. WG has been looking at more ways to stop the camping meta and all that … if the assumption is correct this could be one of the options they feel they have left.

    If I am being honest I feel like some of this is simply because of player base complaint, some of it is based on ships that have been asked for and the rest is just them jiggling stuff around to try to make it workable in game the way they want it to be or become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,095
[INTEL]
Members
11,329 posts
31,775 battles
1 minute ago, Vaffu said:

Why would they want to slow it down now when they did everything possible to make the matches as short as possible?

Pretty much this. It doesn't look to me like they want to slow it down. It looks like they want to increase damage and ensure that ships die even faster. Introducing more high ROF ships into the high tiers is going to make the high tiers even faster and less playable. 

The one strong argument you have is the mooted IFHE change. But IFHE makes cruisers strong in every tier, and some cruisers, like Kutuzov, OP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
674
[WOLF9]
Members
4,204 posts
42 minutes ago, daVinci761st said:

Slowing down tier 8, 9, and 10 gameplay slower than it is now? Yikes. We might have to rename high tier the "World of Snails" if that trend happens.

  About the only place where hi tier gameplay might need some brakes applied is in Co-op.   As you say- high tier pvp is slow enough.  (It's why many of us don't bother with it.)  

  Most of the issue with pve has to do with the flood of missions that award ships and other desireable goodies that are doable in Co-op,  And the continued large population of DD players that don't want to deal with CV's.    If they were really interested in fixing that, they could do it by simply adjusting bot behavior so they aren't so helpless vs aggressive DD/CL tactics- or simply adjust mission parameters so that they're just as, or easier, to do in Random.  ( Like the campaign that led to Halsey.   I did it all in co-op, but it took a LOT of grinding to just repeat the same 2 steps over and over again.)  

  But many have been asking for those mission changes for YEARS, so...   We all know what missions based on fires, floods, kills, etc do to the general quality of play- I've been reading threads about it since I joined, lol.

  The no CV haven thing will be coming to an end shortly when AI CV's get re-introduced.

  I'll grant to the OP that WG really does seem to be making a concerted effort to bring something different to the table, and not just the same old ship types in new wrappers.   That can't be easy to do, with as many ships as we already have, and the relatively limited options imposed by the game itself.    How many different ways can you package a 3x3 or 4x3 BB at tier 10, before we can no longer tell them apart?  (or shell out time and money to get them)   How many flavors of pewpew do we really want?

  Whether or not there is an ulterior movie there, I can't say.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,083
[ADR]
Members
4,447 posts
15,465 battles
11 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The IFHE change is long overdue. I said that the fire chance loss was far too small for the armor penetration gain when IFHE was put into the game. IFHE became a no brainer for DD's and CL's, you not only gain damage but your fire chance is hardly impacted at all so you still get fire damage. For ships with five inch and under guns the IFHE and Demolition Expert decision will instead of being why not both will become an either or choice.

You can say that, but  WG keeps adding in ships with so much deck armor small caliber guns can't do Anything to them but fire damage.  HE is a double-edged sword, all the light ships suffer greatly from it where these Newer BBs are nearly immune to it (it really started with the German BB line).   The balance between Ships is so very fragile when they have So many BBs in the game that can delete ships too frequently. That resulted in a very campy game meta. No one wants to come out and become targeted.  On the other side, you have BBs who won't come out because WG keeps adding in Fire spitting machine guns who do mediocre damage vs their biggest threat, but will be obliterated if they come out of cover and are targeted.

 

To me, I see them needing to make Citadel hits MUCH harder to achieve.  we already have an enhanced targeting system that makes shell accuracy far greater than it really should be, but who wants to play a game where you are missing more than you hit?   but if citadels were harder to hit on the lighter ships, people become less afraid to move.  BBs are too powerful for the game as it is. their shells even on 33% damage can nearly obliterate a cruiser or DD in 1 salvo. Where as the cruisers and DDs (not counting good torping) have to struggle for a while to whittle down a BB.  now take into account most matches are 5 BBs per side, usually who's left..  a few cruisers or a DD struggling to fight off several BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,084 posts
21 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The IFHE change is long overdue. I said that the fire chance loss was far too small for the armor penetration gain when IFHE was put into the game. IFHE became a no brainer for DD's and CL's, you not only gain damage but your fire chance is hardly impacted at all so you still get fire damage. For ships with five inch and under guns the IFHE and Demolition Expert decision will instead of being why not both will become an either or choice.

right, but minus 50% less fires chances looks quite an impressive nerf (25-fold less fire chances)...was the IFHE so off balance? I might be wrong, but I do not remember seen such an announced nerf ever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,098
[PEED2]
Beta Testers
4,786 posts
13,811 battles

slow down more?! what?

They dont wanna try slow down  the game, they want make the bbs more invunerable and hard to die in potato hands, the slow of the game is a consequence of this.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×