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

Are Lines Becoming Too Uniform?

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

699
[NGA]
Members
2,008 posts
12,594 battles

One of the things that appealed to me when getting into World of Warships was the fact that some ships were fun to play even after one had finished grinding through them. My dockyard is full of ships that I enjoyed playing for various reasons. However, I have felt that a lot of recent lines seem to lack those "WOW!" ships that provide a style of gameplay that deviates slightly from the line standard and provides a unique style of play. This is probably most apparent in the CV lines where their RTS counterparts could once give a unique loadout of planes, now for the most part there is nothing to set individual carriers apart from one another. Now it just seems like the sole goal of grinding a line is to get to the tier X. Does anyone else feel this way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,015
[USA-N]
Members
785 posts
12,322 battles

My view is that the game has become too big, too detailed in too many ways, and that this excess of detail has obscured what "works" and what needs more thought.

I am no game theory expert, but I know a bunch of half finished ideas when I see them stuffed into a software product. Now, half finished ideas are not "good" or "bad". Most often, there is something truly good and interesting about every idea, because that it how it got started as a project. However, most ideas need refinement in order to become solid game design concepts that work in harmony with other game mechanics. If time is not allocated to that refinement, and new ideas are brought in before old ones are properly refined....... then you get a bug mess of half baked ideas.

And that is never pretty.

WOWS is like chess, if someone was being paid to change the rules every month, and you started each game with random pieces on both teams. It would still be an interesting game, but it would be weird. Sometimes it would work like chess, often it would be a ROFLstomp in favour of the team that got 4 queens, 2 kings and 8 knights.

WOWS is not that old. It's development pace is relentless. This has created the mother load of half finished ideas.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
900 posts
14,552 battles

My problem with this game is the exact opposite of yours. I feel there is too much spread in abilities between ships with all of the damn gimmicks.

When I played this game, there were certain rules you could DEPEND on. BBs firing every 30 seconds (ish). DDs depending on torpedoes to do much of their damage, cruisers having guns that were 205 mm or smaller, etc.

 

Now DDs are dakka dakka boats, light cruisers are the same, BBs are firing every 10 seconds with adrenalin rush and reload booster, ships that are called "cruisers" are really BBs, DDs that can go over 50 knots? Really? etc. etc. etc.

Stealth used to be so important in this game, now it is useless. Free situational awareness, radar, long range hydro, CVs and RPF have made it almost nothing.

Torpedoes used to be feared, now between detection from outer space, torpedo bulges and the flooding nerf, they are an inconvenience most of the time.

This isn't my game anymore. It used to be so much fun.

Edited by Prothall
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,211
[PELTS]
Beta Testers
4,968 posts
15,349 battles

> 10,266 battles

Things start be a bit uniform after a time...

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,004
[SYN]
Members
15,971 posts
12,803 battles
1 hour ago, SidTheBlade said:

My view is that the game has become too big, too detailed in too many ways, and that this excess of detail has obscured what "works" and what needs more thought.

IMO, it's more like WG wanted to keep things simple by using as few game mechanics as possible, but this has come around to bite them in the [edited].

There isn't enough depth to the game and as a consequence, there are very few things WG can tweak between the lines.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,691
[SALVO]
Members
26,321 posts
30,384 battles
1 hour ago, Prothall said:

My problem with this game is the exact opposite of yours. I feel there is too much spread in abilities between ships with all of the damn gimmicks.

When I played this game, there were certain rules you could DEPEND on. BBs firing every 30 seconds (ish). DDs depending on torpedoes to do much of their damage, cruisers having guns that were 205 mm or smaller, etc.

Now DDs are dakka dakka boats, light cruisers are the same, BBs are firing every 10 seconds with adrenalin rush and reload booster, ships that are called "cruisers" are really BBs, DDs that can go over 50 knots? Really? etc. etc. etc.

Stealth used to be so important in this game, now it is useless. Free situational awareness, radar, long range hydro, CVs and RPF have made it almost nothing.

Torpedoes used to be feared, now between detection from outer space, torpedo bulges and the flooding nerf, they are an inconvenience most of the time.

This isn't my game anymore. It used to be so much fun.

Prothall, while I sympathize with some of your general thoughts here, there are some issues I have.  Let me throw out some of my thoughts, some in disagreement and some i9n agreement.

1. Supercruisers are not battleships.  They just aren't.  In real life, ship types weren't  as cut and dried as destroyer, cruiser, battleship, and aircraft carrier.  Ship types were more of an analog scale, rather than a digital one.  Also, in WW2 supercruisers filled a gap that didn't exist in WW1.  In WW1, battlecruisers were the same size and tonnage as battleships. 

What really differentiated a BC from a BB was how much of the ship's overall tonnage was dedicated to engines and boilers vs. the tonnage dedicated towards armor and main battery.  BCs tended to give up some armor (and sometimes main battery tonnage) for more tonnage in engines and boilers so that they could have better speed.

However, in post WW1 BBs, particularly those build in the 30's onward, BB tonnage increased greatly, while heavy cruiser tonnage increased fairly slowly.  CA tonnages didn't increase that much because navies needed lots of cruisers, not smaller number of more powerful cruisers.

 

2. Skills and consumable gimmicks.  I am not fond at all of skill that are grossly unrealistic.  Adrenaline Rush is one such skill.  If anything, reload rates should go down as battles progress, not the reverse (through AR).  Loaders are still human beings and they get tired.  So, if anything, any degree of adrenaline involved here could be the excuse for why loaders maintain a constant RoF throughout a battle, but AR, IMO, goes too far.

I also don't like reload boosters, particularly gun RBs.  They're just too damned cheesy for my taste.  Torp reload boosters would be less objectionable if the period of time it took to completed the boosted reload wasn't so short.

Regrading stealth, I agree that it stinks that it's been so devalued by the existence of so many anti-stealth things.  I don't mind CV planes from a spotting perspective, largely because they have to get pretty damned close to spot you.  Of course, if you're on a cap, it's a lot easier for them to find you since they generally know where you are, i.e. the cap.  But if you're in open water and you've never been spotted and you haven't yet launched any torps, and you're not radio located, it takes a lot of luck or time to find such a DD.  I know, because I've been there and had to do that from both sides of the search.

I wish that WG would cut down on the number of anti-stealth (pretty much anti DD stealth) tools in the game.  Remove the free sit awareness, remove Radio Location.  And create a new level 4 skill that combined situational awareness with priority target (and removing PT from level 1).

 

I'm going to limit my reply to this because otherwise I could go on and on and on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,689
[PVE]
Members
20,164 posts
13,059 battles
3 hours ago, Crucis said:

I wish that WG would cut down on the number of anti-stealth (pretty much anti DD stealth) tools in the game.  Remove the free sit awareness, remove Radio Location.  And create a new level 4 skill that combined situational awareness with priority target (and removing PT from level 1).

Oof, that would be harsh on newbies and below average players. I would combine SA and PT into a 1pt skill instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,319
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
4,428 posts
12,692 battles
5 hours ago, Prothall said:

My problem with this game is the exact opposite of yours. I feel there is too much spread in abilities between ships with all of the damn gimmicks.

 When I played this game, there were certain rules you could DEPEND on. BBs firing every 30 seconds (ish). DDs depending on torpedoes to do much of their damage, cruisers having guns that were 205 mm or smaller, etc.

 

Now DDs are dakka dakka boats, light cruisers are the same, BBs are firing every 10 seconds with adrenalin rush and reload booster, ships that are called "cruisers" are really BBs, DDs that can go over 50 knots? Really? etc. etc. etc.

Stealth used to be so important in this game, now it is useless. Free situational awareness, radar, long range hydro, CVs and RPF have made it almost nothing.

Torpedoes used to be feared, now between detection from outer space, torpedo bulges and the flooding nerf, they are an inconvenience most of the time.

This isn't my game anymore. It used to be so much fun.

I definitely can understand what you saying . I have been playing for a little over 3 years now but things have to evolve I feel to keep the game interesting  . It would get pretty boring if the basic rules you are talking about never changed if every  BB took 30 sec to reload if every torpedo crippled a ship if no CA had over 205 mm guns and so on .

After a while that might get pretty boring . I for one like a lot of the changes in the game I like the diversity in each ship line . I like that you can play a BB that can brawl , or a BB that is a slow big gunned sniper , a torp DD or gun boat DD ,  heavy cruiser or light cruiser .

Is every thing perfect no as we see every day on the forums people complain about CVs  , detection , spotting , RNG , MM you name it we complain .

But all in all I'm still having lots of fun maybe they do need to slow down a little bit with the gimmicks . Also I would love to see them work on a lot of new maps retire some of the old ones where people just go to the same spots every game and know them like the back of there hand . That might help with stagnant game play we see a lot of now especially at higher tiers .

 

Edited by clammboy
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
993
[KAPPA]
Members
3,126 posts
9,284 battles
1 minute ago, Kizarvexis said:

Oof, that would be harsh on newbies and below average players. I would combine SA and PT into a 1pt skill instead.

Not to mention making few of the 1 point skills left actually be all that compelling... You'd basically just have expert loader and the thing that reduces disable chance, and that's about it due to so many 1 point skills being CV oriented. It's already a struggle at times to spend excess points on a commander, and having effectively one single 1 point skill you don't auto-grab would make this that much worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,689
[PVE]
Members
20,164 posts
13,059 battles
5 minutes ago, Shoggoth_pinup said:

Not to mention making few of the 1 point skills left actually be all that compelling... You'd basically just have expert loader and the thing that reduces disable chance, and that's about it due to so many 1 point skills being CV oriented. It's already a struggle at times to spend excess points on a commander, and having effectively one single 1 point skill you don't auto-grab would make this that much worse.

There are people who like Incoming Fire Alert to warn them of that guy that likes long range shooting. DCF is at least another fighter to put up to shoot down planes. You just have to put up the fighters at the right time, so that it is active when the planes arrive and that can be tricky if you are busy. Yeah, not as useful as PT, PM, or EL, but something at least.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
993
[KAPPA]
Members
3,126 posts
9,284 battles
20 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

There are people who like Incoming Fire Alert to warn them of that guy that likes long range shooting. DCF is at least another fighter to put up to shoot down planes. You just have to put up the fighters at the right time, so that it is active when the planes arrive and that can be tricky if you are busy. Yeah, not as useful as PT, PM, or EL, but something at least.

 

If you have a fighter. That's the issue. It's a great skill, but only if you can use it. Much like reducing lost modules is great if you need it but not if you don't. Likewise, ships with super short reload times don't get much gain from expert loader. But PT is a more flexible skill, in that it works for most ships.

That's what I'm getting at. They're all great skills, but not when you're in ships that can't use them or don't get much from having them, not so much. Not only that, but Expert Loader really does need the 75% version to really be useful, as otherwise it's nice to have but usually just nice to have.

Edited by Shoggoth_pinup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,689
[PVE]
Members
20,164 posts
13,059 battles
3 minutes ago, Shoggoth_pinup said:

If you have a fighter. That's the issue. It's a great skill, but only if you can use it. Much like reducing lost modules is great if you need it but not if you don't. Likewise, ships with super short reload times don't get much gain from expert loader. But PT is a more flexible skill, in that it works for most ships.

That's what I'm getting at. They're all great skills, but not when you're in ships that can't use them or don't get much from having them, not so much. Not only that, but Expert Loader really does need the 75% version to really be useful, as otherwise it's nice to have but usually just nice to have.

There are lots of skills like that. JoaT is not really useful if all you have is DCP. DE is useless on RN CLs and Italian cruisers. IFHE was not needed on lots of ships and now on even more. SE is not that big a deal on a BB. Etc, etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
695
[UN1]
Members
1,386 posts
4,491 battles
6 hours ago, JediMasterDraco said:

One of the things that appealed to me when getting into World of Warships was the fact that some ships were fun to play even after one had finished grinding through them. My dockyard is full of ships that I enjoyed playing for various reasons. However, I have felt that a lot of recent lines seem to lack those "WOW!" ships that provide a style of gameplay that deviates slightly from the line standard and provides a unique style of play. This is probably most apparent in the CV lines where their RTS counterparts could once give a unique loadout of planes, now for the most part there is nothing to set individual carriers apart from one another. Now it just seems like the sole goal of grinding a line is to get to the tier X. Does anyone else feel this way?

There's a balance to it.  Like you, I like lines where each ship is a little bit more unique, but I have to appreciate lines that are more uniform.

  • German BB's are unique.  The Konig and Bayern play like dreadnoughts, the Bismarck and FdG are very similar, the Kurfurst is her own territory, and the Gneisenau is just a frenetic mess.  This leads to overall poor player performance because players are having to learn a new ship every tier.
  • Japanese BB's, and to a slightly less extent, Russian BB's are more uniform.  What you learn at T5 applies to T10, so players skill grows (hopefully).  Unfortunately, once you get yourself a Sinop, you have a Kremlin, 'cause they're literally the same ship lol. 

So I getcha.  I think from a game perspective, uniform lines are more successful and easier to balance.  On the other hand, more unique lines are more popular because they tend to be more real-steel-based. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
699
[NGA]
Members
2,008 posts
12,594 battles
1 hour ago, Ranari said:

There's a balance to it.  Like you, I like lines where each ship is a little bit more unique, but I have to appreciate lines that are more uniform.

  • German BB's are unique.  The Konig and Bayern play like dreadnoughts, the Bismarck and FdG are very similar, the Kurfurst is her own territory, and the Gneisenau is just a frenetic mess.  This leads to overall poor player performance because players are having to learn a new ship every tier.
  • Japanese BB's, and to a slightly less extent, Russian BB's are more uniform.  What you learn at T5 applies to T10, so players skill grows (hopefully).  Unfortunately, once you get yourself a Sinop, you have a Kremlin, 'cause they're literally the same ship lol. 

So I getcha.  I think from a game perspective, uniform lines are more successful and easier to balance.  On the other hand, more unique lines are more popular because they tend to be more real-steel-based. 

I'd sort of say it's kind of the reverse. All the German BBs tend to depend on getting in your face and brawling at close range. By contrast, the Japanese tends to either prefer weight of fire (Fuso and Amagi) or precision (supposedly Nagato and Yamato). I'd also say that unique lines are preferable because they offer a changing gameplay experience. I mean, would you rather play four hundred games in one ship or a hundred games each in four ships that are similar, but each with slight differences? It's one of the reasons I tend to skip the tier IX grinds because they are usually either just a small improvement over the tier VIII or an inferior version of the tier X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,691
[SALVO]
Members
26,321 posts
30,384 battles
8 hours ago, Kizarvexis said:

There are people who like Incoming Fire Alert to warn them of that guy that likes long range shooting. DCF is at least another fighter to put up to shoot down planes. You just have to put up the fighters at the right time, so that it is active when the planes arrive and that can be tricky if you are busy. Yeah, not as useful as PT, PM, or EL, but something at least.

 

IFA is a very useful skill to have for kiting cruisers. Kiting BBs just don't have the nimbleness to make use of IFA.  I suppose that kiting gunboat DDs like the Khab could use IFA, but there are only so many skill points available.  IFA seems perfect for long range kiting cruisers.

And personally, I think that IFA is a hell of a lot more useful than EL.  I personally hate EL as a skill for many reasons.

 

9 hours ago, Kizarvexis said:

Oof, that would be harsh on newbies and below average players. I would combine SA and PT into a 1pt skill instead.

Too bad.  I think that the value one gets from PT and would get from a combined SA/PT skill far exceeds the current cost of those skills, and should be a 4 point skill as I described earlier.  I'm sick and tired of how there are so freaking many anti-DD stealth tools, as well as how damn cheap they are.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,691
[SALVO]
Members
26,321 posts
30,384 battles
8 hours ago, Kizarvexis said:

There are lots of skills like that. JoaT is not really useful if all you have is DCP. DE is useless on RN CLs and Italian cruisers. IFHE was not needed on lots of ships and now on even more. SE is not that big a deal on a BB. Etc, etc, etc.

For what it's worth, having a line where certain skills have zero effect can be a blessing, because it means that you can look at other skills you might not otherwise consider.

Look at it this way (and before the recent IFHE change), some ships almost NEEDED to take IFHE.  That was 4 out of your 19 points spoken for.  Heck, as a DD, you usually have another 10 already spoken for (i.e. PT, LS, SE, CE), so that now comes to 14 out of 19 spoken for, leaving only 5 points to use.  But when you have a line without HE, all thought of taking IFHE and/or DE changes the entire equation.  And as much as those lines might have us complaining about some aspects of the lines, I think that the change to the skill selection equation is a definite silver lining for those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,689
[PVE]
Members
20,164 posts
13,059 battles
17 minutes ago, Crucis said:

For what it's worth, having a line where certain skills have zero effect can be a blessing, because it means that you can look at other skills you might not otherwise consider.

Look at it this way (and before the recent IFHE change), some ships almost NEEDED to take IFHE.  That was 4 out of your 19 points spoken for.  Heck, as a DD, you usually have another 10 already spoken for (i.e. PT, LS, SE, CE), so that now comes to 14 out of 19 spoken for, leaving only 5 points to use.  But when you have a line without HE, all thought of taking IFHE and/or DE changes the entire equation.  And as much as those lines might have us complaining about some aspects of the lines, I think that the change to the skill selection equation is a definite silver lining for those lines.

Very true.

The benefit I didn't expect for keeping all my ships, is that now that I am in T7-T9 for most lines, I have lots of captains. Especially since I'm trying to get all the T6+ ships to have 10 or more points. So I have enough Cmdrs that I can set one for IFHE where it is of minimal benefit, just so I can use it in my premiums if I want to. Or any type of skill. Especially in the lower tiers as a non-maximized Cmdr is not a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
695
[UN1]
Members
1,386 posts
4,491 battles
23 hours ago, JediMasterDraco said:

I'd sort of say it's kind of the reverse. All the German BBs tend to depend on getting in your face and brawling at close range. By contrast, the Japanese tends to either prefer weight of fire (Fuso and Amagi) or precision (supposedly Nagato and Yamato). I'd also say that unique lines are preferable because they offer a changing gameplay experience. I mean, would you rather play four hundred games in one ship or a hundred games each in four ships that are similar, but each with slight differences? It's one of the reasons I tend to skip the tier IX grinds because they are usually either just a small improvement over the tier VIII or an inferior version of the tier X.

Yes, German ships are built to be in-your-face, but some of the later tiers struggle to perform in the mid-range where that "standard battleship playstyle" can exist.  I mean, the Gneisenau is a very different ship than the Bayern and the Bismarck and accomplishes its CQC ability in a very different manner.  Japanese ships vary between shell weight, but stay consistent in just being accurate, long-range hard hitting gunners.  If you're a decent marksman, you'll rock the Japanese line.

To your point though, the Sinop is the same as the Vladivostok, which is the same as the Soyuz, which is the same as the Kremlin rofl.  I mean, it's all the same ship!  I loved the Sinop and the Soyuz, but by the time I got to the Kremlin, I was bored and went on to leveling another line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
552
[CDOH]
Members
911 posts
8,510 battles

IMHO tech tree ships  are simply not as good as premium, Coal and steel ships. Not in all cases.    Why would you play a Wooster when you can play a Smolensk.   Why would you play a gearing when you could play a Somers.   Why would you play and NC when there is a MASSA.  Why play Alsace when you could play a JB.  Why play Yamato when you could play Musashi in tier 9.  Why would you play heavy cruisers when there are super cruisers. Tech tree ships are subject to the nerfbat, Henri.   Tech tree ships need to be more competitive to make them more attractive to grind.  Once you get the META tech tree ships there is little incentive to grind lines that have fallen behind.  I agree tech tree ships need something to make them more compelling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
699
[NGA]
Members
2,008 posts
12,594 battles
3 hours ago, Rothgar_57 said:

Why would you play a Wooster when you can play a Smolensk.

Warchester tends to be a much better team-support ship thanks to its radar and Def AA. Assuming Wargaming develops a brain and reverts CVs back to the RTS format, it'll grow even more valuable in this role.

3 hours ago, Rothgar_57 said:

Why would you play a gearing when you could play a Somers.

Gearing has 2k more HP, better DPM with her guns (with a higher fire chance), flexibility in torpedo choice and a slightly faster reload, and better concealment with the unique upgrade. Also Somers has practically no AA.

3 hours ago, Rothgar_57 said:

Why would you play and NC when there is a MASSA.

Better question, why play an NC at all after grinding through it. I'd honestly rate NC as the worst of the tech tree tier VIII BBs, save perhaps Monarch.

3 hours ago, Rothgar_57 said:

Why play Alsace when you could play a JB.

Great alpha. Plus I notice playing a ship with slightly more scattered accuracy can be useful if your aim is off or the enemy is maneuvering hard to avoid you since an accurate ship will put the shells right where you aim them while an inaccurate on could deviate enough to score a hit. Of course I could be a little bias since the first time I took Alsace out I came within a hairsbreadth of a Kraken.

3 hours ago, Rothgar_57 said:

Why play Yamato when you could play Musashi in tier 9.

I'll admit you may have a point on this one, though I will point out that Yammy has better AA while facing the same carriers.

3 hours ago, Rothgar_57 said:

Why would you play heavy cruisers when there are super cruisers.

As someone who plays Stalingrad in Clan Battles, I can say that super cruisers tend to rely on having a good team to cover your flanks because they tend to be more vulnerable to a side attack and less able to compensate. A Moskva or DM can also out DPM a Stalingrad in an HE bow-tanking match (though this is partially dependent on DC management and RNG's fire rolls).

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.

×