Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Formous

So if we could change the Meta, Should we? And other things.

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

366
[XXX]
Members
581 posts
1,532 battles

Well how should I put it. I see a lot of people talk about bow tanking, camping, and so on, and as time goes and I have learned far more about naval  design philosophy, I realize, as nearly all of you have, that right now, matches become stale and stagnant thanks to the island camping meta. We can talk all day about pen angles and more, but I am a  cv player, and so am graced witha  fairly wide map view of things, and I find it near impossible to ignore how campy the game can be at times. I see the same ship types in the same places game after game, destroyer, cruiser, battleship, doesn't matter.  DD and CV are a little more fluid, given one is meant to sneak around and the other is a scared chicken running for it's life with a bullseye on it's back, sometimes literally on it's ship, but as time goes, I have to wonder.

 

If we could change the Meta of bow tanking, Should we, and could we? If we could directly incentivize that the best firing and tanking angles was to be parallel to the target, and get rid of the World of Tanks vibe, Would that serve the game better? In my opinion, yes. The BB who is firing max range, but is forced into moving at varying speeds to throw off the beads drawn on him, as he moves around the map, the Cruiser skipping island to island rather then being in predictable situations, would I think greatly contribute to the variety of games. Right now, I often see Squares of Doom, that is, 2-4 BB or cruisers or a mix of the two hiding so close together you'd think it was a dock yard.  Or a pizza party between the crews.  They do this because the game actively punishes moving into the open, being moving, and showing your sides to the enemy, when the reality is the opposite.  Sitting ships were going to be dead ships, usually to planes or submarine combat, though we all know planes are really not able to do a damn thing to 2 ships anymore without overly special tactics.

 

What I would love to see is cruiser and battleship formations driving around the map, firing at each other, without a overly high need to use islands for cover because their sides are unrealistically vulnerable.  I feel that aside from changing how armor works on a hit to the bow and a hit from the side, I feel the game needs new kinds of objectives and versions of play. There is roughly 2 kinds of games in this game. Capture the zone, and...king of the hill capture the zone.  Not much else. If we are starving for content, make some new games already.

New PVE scenarios comes to mind. How about changing the Capture mode to a form of Island capture. In that you get close enough to land LSTs and other such craft. Obviously we are not transport ships, but I can believe it is more a real objective then what we have. 

How about Assassination? One player, same class each side, is elected to be the Admiral, and their ship is significantly buffed armor and damage wise. The game is about finding and killing this man, but no one ship can just kill the Admiral (looking at you DDs) in a single half salvo.  All allied vessels have a respawn timer around a minute or more to prevent zerg rushing, since that'd just see the idiots dead and the team hurt more then if 1 guy died.

Assault perhaps? We saw this demo'd somewhat recently. This was a awesome idea for a game mode. Can we please get some actual development here on the mode. I would like to see a semi balanced version sooner rather then later.  A year and a half to get this mode working is lazy.

Historical battles? Why not make some maps related to real naval engagements. The battle of Iron Bottom Sound comes to mind, as do a few other engagements in the pacific and atlantic theater.  Asymetry can be fun

 

Battle variation? Lets get MORE storms going. Let's add some heavy waves to upset aiming, make the ships ROLL during typhoons and hurricanes such that you have to time your shots and make things unstable.  Ironically, I'd play BBs more if the seas were not always calm.  If Wargaming wants to keep people interested and ships are not doing enough for content, and they will run out of ships eventually, then seriously, play with your systems and make more vivid and chaotic battles. Storms and waves are just one thing that can happen.  Some of the modes, like the DD torpedo beats mode I hear were greatly enjoyed. There is no harm in doing more of this either.

 

Ship costumes. Okay, I get it. perma camo is a money maker, but why not sell more wierd variations? For example, that lex steampunk skin was awesome, though I regret not getting it last year.  Why not add more of these skins? All you have to do is add a Check mark in the graphics menu so people can just see standard camos instead of these special ones. If I saw more ships with skulls on them, It would be cool. More so if they were firing skulls at my planes.

How about cross events? Perhaps a small cross over event with Warhammer 40k. If I could get my Audacious Wyverns to look like Imperial bombers, I would be over the moon, or my Hak and her planes to look like a Ork Cruiser and it's Fighta-bombas.  Full skin swaps would be even cooler, with a unique model. Its all the same ship under, but if I could have new cool skins to play with, I'd buy it.

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
284 posts
4,672 battles

They would also need to change accuracy so only a few percent of shells ever hit the target.

Due to game mechanics players who go broadside get severely punished.  

Heavy waves would be cool but I'm pretty sure that's an engine limitation . The waves you see now are flat

Edited by Arlensauce93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,465
Members
6,152 posts
9,801 battles

Meta would change if spotted enemy ships only render if no island between you and target.

However, certain cruisers would quickly become port queens if that happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,788
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,343 posts
19,593 battles

Nearly three years ago, WG tried to get rid of the bow tank/camp meta by getting rid of bow tanking itself on high-tier battleships. It didn't work. In fact, it only made the problem worse. When they lost the ability to bow tank, players responded by camping even farther back.

Today, three years later, I'd say two things about the supposed bow-tank meta:

  • Bow tanking is already a pretty bad idea due to the proliferation of HE spam in the game. A bow-tanking battleship is a burning battleship. If anything, we're in a butt-tanking meta today, where ships face outward so that they can run away once they lose too much health.
    • Of course, this only matters to players who realize it's the case. Most players do not. This is part of a larger point that you can't necessarily influence the behavior of an imperfectly rational agent (i.e. a human player) by mechanically changing the rational best choice.
  • I have never heard a solution to bow tanking that does not induce a huge number of side effects. I'd be very interested if there were such a thing, but for now, it seems like some kind of mythical beast.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,433 posts
14,165 battles
9 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

Nearly three years ago, WG tried to get rid of the bow tank/camp meta by getting rid of bow tanking itself on high-tier battleships. It didn't work. In fact, it only made the problem worse. When they lost the ability to bow tank, players responded by camping even farther back.

Today, three years later, I'd say two things about the supposed bow-tank meta:

  • Bow tanking is already a pretty bad idea due to the proliferation of HE spam in the game. A bow-tanking battleship is a burning battleship. If anything, we're in a butt-tanking meta today, where ships face outward so that they can run away once they lose too much health.
    • Of course, this only matters to players who realize it's the case. Most players do not. This is part of a larger point that you can't necessarily influence the behavior of an imperfectly rational agent (i.e. a human player) by mechanically changing the rational best choice.
  • I have never heard a solution to bow tanking that does not induce a huge number of side effects. I'd be very interested if there were such a thing, but for now, it seems like some kind of mythical beast.

The problem there was they only punished being bow on without providing a benefit for being broadside. If they had reduced damage through the broadside by a fairly large factor at the same time it would have promoted being on the move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,709
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
3,569 posts
11,184 battles
47 minutes ago, Formous said:

They do this because the game actively punishes moving into the open, being moving, and showing your sides to the enemy, when the reality is the opposite

Maybe they could make the guns less accurate and the armor schemes a little better for showing broadside . Make citadels harder to hit so ships could have prolonged close up battles without getting deleted so quickly . Somehow make it more fun to brawl . Maybe better armor for DDs but less damage for there torpedoes . Then they might have to make more than one torp run to take you out but they have the extra armor to last longer in a fight  . As it is now you can't stick your big toe in the water without it getting bitten off . Everyone is scared of everyone else it would be nice to have a fight where at least it would last a little while before you got deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
441
[K0]
Members
1,755 posts
8,159 battles

Aiming is the biggest mechanic that holds the meta in place, followed by concealment and then armor/health. It only takes a few rounds of othergame naval to see how radically different things could be if simply landing hits was more difficult. I don't know if WoWS would be better or worse with more complex aiming mechanics, but I guarantee that the playerbase would vehemently reject any such changes.

Edited by Flashtirade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,000 posts
4,522 battles

A good meta change would be to either nerf accuracy or nerf shell flight time. 

The former would be difficult to implement given how many people just like to point and click. The second would be much easier to implement and more difficult to protest against. You'll still have your accuracy. Whether you have the same hit rate at 15km with 15 sec flight time is a different story.

That's really the goal though, to lower hit rates, make it less punishing to be broadside. In reality ships used all their guns in battle to maximize their chances of hitting the enemy. We've just made hitting the enemy so easy it's better to prioritize minimizing the ship profile than utilizing the rear 33-50% of your firepower.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,148
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,904 posts
8,457 battles

No point in a cruiser sailing in formation with a BB. Cruisers generally dont have enough armor to take hits and depend on concealment or maneuverability. No decent player is going to shoot the broadside BB when a broadside CA is right next to the BB. Trying to play almost any cruiser like a dumb BB is going to result in a dead CA very quickly. 

 

If you want to reduce slow bow in or island camping add currents, just like in real life ships would have to maintain a minimum speed to stay on course. 

 

 To change from a bow in to a broadside meta WG would have to change how damage is inflicted. Right now HP represents how functional a ship is. This means that the area with the most critical functions of the ship (i.e. the citadel) is the place where the damage can be done the best. Its not historically inaccurate that taking shells through the belt is bad for ships because it was. There is a reason why designers put belts on the sides of the ship and ignoring that fact is innane. Wg would have to change it so that systems being destroyed results in loss of ship ability and damage is changed to something else for example being the amount of sections compromised. So instead when a ship showing its broadside eats a bunch of AP in the citadel it looses a significant ability to maneuver instead of losing HP while shells traveling the length of the interior of the ship. It would significantly diminish the arcade nature of this game because WG wants players to be active as much as possible and a colorado wallowing along at a couple knots because he took a bunch of citadels would probably not be a lot of fun. 

 

When people ask for WG to get rid of punishing broadsides its easy to assume people just dont want to be punished for making mistakes. Which is exactly what people are asking for unless the broadside is replaced by something else. But keep in mind, taking damage is bad, sailing broadside makes you an easier target, so you take more hits. Unless the hits are worse from another direction people are going to angle to avoid taking hits. And yes angling armor makes it harder for shells to penetrate which means that they do less damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,289
[SALVO]
Members
24,837 posts
25,918 battles
2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

The problem there was they only punished being bow on without providing a benefit for being broadside. If they had reduced damage through the broadside by a fairly large factor at the same time it would have promoted being on the move.

To me, the problem is that there are too many people whose thinking is binary.  They only imagine being perfectly bow on or perfectly broadside.  Heaven forbid that they try angling their ships, whether at long range sniping or when trying to close on the enemy.  If you want to close on the enemy, just angle your damned ship and its forward bulkhead citadel armor!!!    I swear, too many players of this game have no imagination when it comes to adapting to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,763 posts
93 battles

Easy solution is make Ocean map more prevalent. And by Ocean, I mean reducing the current Ocean map size to 3/5 or 3/4 its size to discourage camping at the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,289
[SALVO]
Members
24,837 posts
25,918 battles
3 hours ago, Formous said:

 

What I would love to see is cruiser and battleship formations driving around the map, firing at each other, without a overly high need to use islands for cover because their sides are unrealistically vulnerable.  I feel that aside from changing how armor works on a hit to the bow and a hit from the side, I feel the game needs new kinds of objectives and versions of play. There is roughly 2 kinds of games in this game. Capture the zone, and...king of the hill capture the zone.  Not much else. If we are starving for content, make some new games already.

New PVE scenarios comes to mind. How about changing the Capture mode to a form of Island capture. In that you get close enough to land LSTs and other such craft. Obviously we are not transport ships, but I can believe it is more a real objective then what we have. 

How about Assassination? One player, same class each side, is elected to be the Admiral, and their ship is significantly buffed armor and damage wise. The game is about finding and killing this man, but no one ship can just kill the Admiral (looking at you DDs) in a single half salvo.  All allied vessels have a respawn timer around a minute or more to prevent zerg rushing, since that'd just see the idiots dead and the team hurt more then if 1 guy died.

Assault perhaps? We saw this demo'd somewhat recently. This was a awesome idea for a game mode. Can we please get some actual development here on the mode. I would like to see a semi balanced version sooner rather then later.  A year and a half to get this mode working is lazy.

Historical battles? Why not make some maps related to real naval engagements. The battle of Iron Bottom Sound comes to mind, as do a few other engagements in the pacific and atlantic theater.  Asymetry can be fun

 

Battle variation? Lets get MORE storms going. Let's add some heavy waves to upset aiming, make the ships ROLL during typhoons and hurricanes such that you have to time your shots and make things unstable.  Ironically, I'd play BBs more if the seas were not always calm.  If Wargaming wants to keep people interested and ships are not doing enough for content, and they will run out of ships eventually, then seriously, play with your systems and make more vivid and chaotic battles. Storms and waves are just one thing that can happen.  Some of the modes, like the DD torpedo beats mode I hear were greatly enjoyed. There is no harm in doing more of this either.

 

Ship costumes. Okay, I get it. perma camo is a money maker, but why not sell more wierd variations? For example, that lex steampunk skin was awesome, though I regret not getting it last year.  Why not add more of these skins? All you have to do is add a Check mark in the graphics menu so people can just see standard camos instead of these special ones. If I saw more ships with skulls on them, It would be cool. More so if they were firing skulls at my planes.

How about cross events? Perhaps a small cross over event with Warhammer 40k. If I could get my Audacious Wyverns to look like Imperial bombers, I would be over the moon, or my Hak and her planes to look like a Ork Cruiser and it's Fighta-bombas.  Full skin swaps would be even cooler, with a unique model. Its all the same ship under, but if I could have new cool skins to play with, I'd buy it.

 

In no particular order...

 

Assault mode would be fine by me.

Weather.  WG decided long ago that heavy seas that reduced accuracy was a bad idea because all it did was make everyone's accuracy worse with the only real result being to length battles for no good reason.  I wouldn't mind heavy seas that was nothing more than a visual effect though.

 

Weird camos.  God no.  Every second wasted on those is a waste of time that would be vastly better spent on good, proper, historically themed content!!!  I already hate these god damned April Fools and Halloween events without adding more of them!!!

 

Modes, whether PVE or not, where you're trying to escort "real" landing craft to capture an island or maybe defend an actual harbor and its facilities may sound like a good idea, but they're really not.  Real naval battles to do those things wouldn't happen in those ways.  You wouldn't try to forcibly push your landing ships through an active defense of enemy naval ships.  The attacking fleet would attempt to destroy the defending fleet or at least force them to retire before bringing the landing ships anywhere near weapons range of enemy warships.  Ditto for a harbor defense.  You would NOT defend your harbor by just waiting for the enemy to come into weapons range of your shore facilities.  You'd intercept them well outside of weapons range.  And if you're in a situation like with the Newport Station scenario, any attacker whose goals included  destroying shore facilities would start bombarding them the instant they were in gun range, or better yet inside range of any carrier aircraft. 

Now I know someone will say that this is just a game, and it feels more real to have those landing ships or whatever.  But I disagree.  It feels far less real to me to try to do something I know is complete and utter bovine fecal matter.  I'd much rather use conceptual capture points because they don't ask me to believe the unbelievable.   And if anything, capturing a conceptual "base" represents defeating the enemy and clearing the way for the ground invasion, for example.

 

As for the "Assassination" idea, no.  Just no.  :Smile_facepalm:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,289
[SALVO]
Members
24,837 posts
25,918 battles
6 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

Easy solution is make Ocean map more prevalent. And by Ocean, I mean reducing the current Ocean map size to 3/5 or 3/4 its size to discourage camping at the back.

There should be different versions of the Ocean map for different tier groupings.  The current Ocean map is actually a bit small for battle tier 9+.  But I would love to see at least one more Ocean map version, sized for, say, battle tier 5-7 or maybe 5-6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,763 posts
93 battles
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

There should be different versions of the Ocean map for different tier groupings.  The current Ocean map is actually a bit small for battle tier 9+.  But I would love to see at least one more Ocean map version, sized for, say, battle tier 5-7 or maybe 5-6.

I agree. 
Players have been too used to island-camping that they don't know how to play in open water anymore. 
 

Making Ocean more prevalent will give players a completely different meta that they will have to learn how to operate in, which is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,256 posts
4,322 battles
4 hours ago, Edgecase said:

Nearly three years ago, WG tried to get rid of the bow tank/camp meta by getting rid of bow tanking itself on high-tier battleships. It didn't work. In fact, it only made the problem worse. When they lost the ability to bow tank, players responded by camping even farther back.

Today, three years later, I'd say two things about the supposed bow-tank meta:

  • Bow tanking is already a pretty bad idea due to the proliferation of HE spam in the game. A bow-tanking battleship is a burning battleship. If anything, we're in a butt-tanking meta today, where ships face outward so that they can run away once they lose too much health.
    • Of course, this only matters to players who realize it's the case. Most players do not. This is part of a larger point that you can't necessarily influence the behavior of an imperfectly rational agent (i.e. a human player) by mechanically changing the rational best choice.
  • I have never heard a solution to bow tanking that does not induce a huge number of side effects. I'd be very interested if there were such a thing, but for now, it seems like some kind of mythical beast.

I was pro bow armor nerf, there was a long thread in general discussing it at the time. 

I feel now though that it's "You have no armor" feel of the current iteration of HE/ifhe that's causing the camping and the current 'bow camping" is really a "Stealth/HE" meta and most contemporary BB players are just taking the path of least resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,808
[WORX]
Members
10,705 posts
18,577 battles
  • Stop selling OP/over capable ships
  • Stop discriminating against ordnance both land and sea.
  • Nerf the unrealistic high tier main gun accuracy
  • Nerf AP/shell characteristics, OR buff ships acceleration.
  • Stop making parts of a ship armor immune to any ordnance it faces in the -+2MM...
  • Lift the citadel of all high tier BBs...
  • Dont buff mindless Secondary builds 
  • Remove the rework  CVs, there in game role/contribuiton is incompatible/worthless to the fleet.

Just  few things to start with...

Edited by Navalpride33
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NEXT]
Members
3 posts
1,266 battles

Give me the open sea and large waves! I don't remember seeing that many islands in WWII films. That will change the game to bare knuckle brawls and then we'll see who has the best Captains. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
469 posts
4,399 battles
On 8/13/2019 at 9:47 PM, Pytheas said:

I think we should add monsters to the game that spawn in random places and attack anyone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
182 posts
2,817 battles
On 8/13/2019 at 2:34 PM, Edgecase said:

Nearly three years ago, WG tried to get rid of the bow tank/camp meta by getting rid of bow tanking itself on high-tier battleships. It didn't work. In fact, it only made the problem worse. When they lost the ability to bow tank, players responded by camping even farther back.

So WG's attempted solution was to reduce BBs' 32mm bow armor to 28mm, which can be overmatched by guns larger than 400.4mm.  It appears to me that the problem was they tried to punish bow tanking, but didn't have any other mechanics in place for damage mitigation, so all angles are punished.  Naturally, the only defence left is to make the enemy miss more so the lack of armor isn't as big a problem.  Thus, staying far enough away that dispersion makes hits unlikely.

On 8/13/2019 at 2:34 PM, Edgecase said:

I have never heard a solution to bow tanking that does not induce a huge number of side effects. I'd be very interested if there were such a thing, but for now, it seems like some kind of mythical beast.

I have some thoughts on this that I've had parts of written down for a while.  I wouldn't be surprised if others have already suggested any of this.

The dispersion ellipse should be narrower horizontally, but longer vertically.
This would make pointing your bow toward or away from enemies the worst angle for making shells miss.
This alone won't solve bow tanking, but now there is some incentive to be broadside.  This change could be made alone, but probably won't feel good to players, since there is no optimal solution: you can be broadside and have armor that doesn't stop citadel hits, relying on RNG to not get hit, or bow/stern tank and take more hits, hoping your armor mitigates enough.

Now armor needs to work when broadside, but how?
Historically, ships were designed around immunity zones, and WG's own videos even talk about them.  In game, however they don't seem to work.
I believe the reason for this is that the ballistics calculations have no distance compression, while ships have artificially restricted firing ranges.  Ships are forced to be closer than where their immunity zones begin.

The natural solution would appear to be to rescale the ballistics calculations to make immunity zones exist at closer ranges.  Armor models probably need to be adjusted too.
I don't know if this will work or not, but if it does, then we can adjust autobounce/overmatch mechanics or armor to make ships take citadel hits through the bow/stern, and at long range, through deck armor.
With all of these changes in place, I think players will quickly learn to not point their bow directly at enemy ships, but getting players to know their immunity zones may be a problem.

I believe the complaint about bow tanking is more about stagnant gameplay than bow tanking itself.
If players are forced to not show their broadside to the enemy, their movement is effectively restricted to moving closer to the enemy, moving away, or not moving.  Often, moving closer is suicide, moving away takes you out of the action, leaving not moving the only viable option.
If players only need to avoid pointing their bow/stern at the enemy, that allows options for movement in other directions.
Making being broadside better than being bow in restores mobility to the game.

Crossfire will still be one of the most effective tactics.  Getting to a position where you can fire shells through the bow or stern of an enemy ship should be similarly punishing as being broadside is now.  In addition, plunging fire will be more dangerous.

I've mostly approached this thinking from a BB perspective, so it's likely there are side effects I haven't anticipated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,788
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,343 posts
19,593 battles
5 hours ago, Pseudovector said:

I've mostly approached this thinking from a BB perspective, so it's likely there are side effects I haven't anticipated.

That was my first thought. Cruisers already suffer overmatch in the bow and stern from BB caliber shells, and also amidships at most tiers. Giving battleships the ability to land more shells on target, with few or none being stopped by armor, will be a hugely detrimental side effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,486
[CAST]
Members
4,997 posts
3,513 battles

Nope, for two reasons:

1) Armor penetration is actually real math. Even in the real world, more thinly armored ships were highly encouraged to sail at an angle to reduce the odds of getting their machine spaces wrecked.

2) Wargaming actually DID try and change the camping meta by proposing a change to battleship plating so that it would ALWAYS take full pen damage (or citadels) from all BBs they went up against even when well angled. The player base reacted VERY negatively to this idea and Wargaming themselves noticed that BB's started taking very excessive damage and could be taken out quite quickly.

Note: This game is a very intelligent (the game is intelligent, not necessarily some players) arcade shooter that rewards positioning and angling. What you're proposing will turn the game into a pure RNG fest where two fleets just keep firing at each other in open water while broadside and rolling the dice to see which shells hit hardest. This would KILL the game. Kill it hard. It's a very very bad idea. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
182 posts
2,817 battles
18 hours ago, Edgecase said:

That was my first thought. Cruisers already suffer overmatch in the bow and stern from BB caliber shells, and also amidships at most tiers. Giving battleships the ability to land more shells on target, with few or none being stopped by armor, will be a hugely detrimental side effect.

I did briefly consider DD/CL/CA, but decided my post was long enough already.

I don't think cruisers would be worse off than now.  As you said, most already suffer overmatch by most BB shells they'll see.  They depend more on island cover, concealment, or dodging to survive (ie not getting hit), rather than armor, and this would still be the case.
Nothing I suggested should significantly increase hit rates.  My intention with the dispersion changes is that it gives roughly the same probability of hitting as now.

DDs will similarly be similarly hard to hit as now, just with broadside being safer than bow in, rather than the reverse which we seem to have now.  This should actually benefit them, as being broadside is now optimal for both making shots miss and making AP overpen.  This might apply to cruisers too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×