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

promoting close range combat through upgrades

52 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
468 posts
4,399 battles

The game specialy at high tiers has become very stagnant with most ships   siting at the edge of their gun range or hidding behind some island, Big part of the problem is that offence has outclassed defence.

  BBs are afraid of HE/fires that that dont give a dam about angling, Cruisers are afraid of big AP that can overmatch and dev struck them and DDs live and die by their concealment in battles filled with CVs and radar, On top of this guns have very long range for the size of the maps and are quite accurate too, now Add that ships are not exactly agile things that can dodge stuff from close range and any attemp to fight at close range is a suicide.

that is why i belive the game could use modules that encourage ships to close the gap say:

slot 1: armored: +15mm to deck, bow and superstructure armor, 50% increaced health of main, secondary, torpedos and AA mounts, 10% reduced fire duration, 20% increaced main guns dispersion

slot 2: ambush: -20% to detectability radius, time of  detectability penalty after firing reduced by 25%, Main guns and torpedos -25% max range

slor 5 radio jamming: enemy ships cant relay your position to their allys, your allys cant relay enemy positions to you

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
578
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
868 posts
2,737 battles

I like the idea, especially the understanding that the problem with blowouts is the lack of defence vs offence these days.  I'd like to see WG play with these concepts.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts

increase the chance for ocean to come up in rotation and ensure it has cyclone ....

 

or add fog banks etc....

change spotting mechanics so you cannot fire on anything you don't have LOS...

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
578
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
868 posts
2,737 battles

I'd love to see ocean more!  Though I'd settle for radar being LOS, I don't by the "can't make it work" [edited] by Wargaming. 

Edited by Snarky_Wombat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
157
[_BDA_]
Members
306 posts
4,834 battles

Offense is always the go-to in war games.  Back in the day I played FASA's Battletech miniatures.  When they added the Clans to the game, all that resulted was increased lethality because the game mechanics did not support increased defensive ability.  Game balance took a big hit, much as long range gunnery with increased accuracy and damage does here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,260
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,119 posts
4,088 battles

The only way players are going to engage at close range is if you make it impossible for them to fight at long range. As long as we have BBs and CLs that can wreck people across the map close range fighting will be minimal.

Also, are you sure you want constant close range combat? That removes all strategy from the game. I’m not saying it should be a camp fest, those are indeed boring. But I think the game needs more depth than a constant cyclone brawl would give it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,916
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,103 posts
19,201 battles
49 minutes ago, Snarky_Wombat said:

I'd like to see WG play with these concepts.

WG likes to see quick matches, which this will NOT promote.

47 minutes ago, SKurj said:

change spotting mechanics so you cannot fire on anything you don't have LOS...

You'd need to change the firing arcs on over half the ships in the game to accomplish that.

47 minutes ago, Snarky_Wombat said:

Though I'd settle for radar being LOS, I don't by the "can't make it work" [edited] by Wargaming. 

For some reason they want it that way, which is why it works off the guaranteed detection mechanic rather than the line of sight mechanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts
5 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

Also, are you sure you want constant close range combat? That removes all strategy from the game. I’m not saying it should be a camp fest, those are indeed boring. But I think the game needs more depth than a constant cyclone brawl would give it.

i disagree, would just lead to different strategies...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts
Just now, Umikami said:

You'd need to change the firing arcs on over half the ships in the game to accomplish that.

if you don't have LOS how will you aim at something you cannot see..  sorry I should have specified that...  if you do not have LOS the target is not rendered to you.. perhaps only on minimap...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,916
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,103 posts
19,201 battles
4 minutes ago, SKurj said:

if you don't have LOS how will you aim at something you cannot see..  sorry I should have specified that...  if you do not have LOS the target is not rendered to you.. perhaps only on minimap...

Just because I don't have LOS doesn't mean none of my team mates don't; it's the same principle used that allows ships to fire from smoke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts
2 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Just because I don't have LOS doesn't mean none of my team mates don't; it's the same principle used that allows ships to fire from smoke.

it was a suggestion... changing spotting mechanics so the enemy ship is not rendered on your client if your client does not have LOS (regardless if teammates do).  instead of the fantasy of real time live and visual updates of an enemy ship you have no LOS on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
468 posts
4,399 battles
1 hour ago, AJTP89 said:

The only way players are going to engage at close range is if you make it impossible for them to fight at long range. As long as we have BBs and CLs that can wreck people across the map close range fighting will be minimal.

Also, are you sure you want constant close range combat? That removes all strategy from the game. I’m not saying it should be a camp fest, those are indeed boring. But I think the game needs more depth than a constant cyclone brawl would give it.

The whole problem right now is that there is no reason  to go for a close range combat, this modules reward geting closer, those who still want to fight from range can still do it with traditional builds.

 

Edited by pepe_trueno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,260
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,119 posts
4,088 battles
55 minutes ago, pepe_trueno said:

The whole problem right now is that there is no reason  to go for a close range combat, this modules reward geting closer, those who still want to fight from range can still do it with traditional builds.

 

No, those modules won't prevent you from getting nuked. Lets take a look:

3 hours ago, pepe_trueno said:

slot 1: armored: +15mm to deck, bow and superstructure armor, 50% increaced health of main, secondary, torpedos and AA mounts, 10% reduced fire duration, 20% increaced main guns dispersion

OK, so now you have some overmatch protection, maybe a bit more HE resistance. High tier warships are still going to melt you, it just might take a minute or two longer. Also, all they have to do is back off, you do less damage, and get melted from range.

3 hours ago, pepe_trueno said:

slot 2: ambush: -20% to detectability radius, time of  detectability penalty after firing reduced by 25%, Main guns and torpedos -25% max range

This one is inconsistent. You want people to get close, so you increase concealment? That encourages people to stay a long range. Moreover, by reducing the gun range, you force people to get in closer so concealment is useless. The detection penalty reduction is also useless, as if you're closer then you're probably spotted anyway. As engagement range closes, detection becomes much less important. This module just gimps your main battery with zero benefit.

3 hours ago, pepe_trueno said:

slor 5 radio jamming: enemy ships cant relay your position to their allys, your allys cant relay enemy positions to you

This is gamebreaking. It removes all teamwork and strategy from the game. Not to mention just puts you at a disadvantage. "Oh cool, a cruiser all alone, let's get him. Ah crap, there were two BBs and a DD with him that I couldn't see, guess I'm dead now. One of the fundamental mechanics of the game is the teamspotting, remove that and you might as well be fighting one vs one. 

I agree that there's a problem with long range camping. But this isn't the way to fix it. All these can be countered by simply not using the modules. This only works if everyone takes the modules, which means you're better off fixing every ship base.

2 hours ago, SKurj said:

i disagree, would just lead to different strategies...  

Yes, charging in and taking the least while doing the most before you die. Angle properly, maybe a bit of decent steering, and DPM, DPM, and more DPM. Exciting for a bit, but when every game is like that it's going to get old fast. 

What gives the game depth is the use of concealment, cover, different ship abilities, positioning, support, spotting, etc to get into a good position to be able to damage the enemy. Distill that down to close short engagements around the cap and most strategy goes out the window. The long term dedicated players are attracted by the complexity of the game. Kill that and you kill the playerbase. WG wants to shift to the brawling style. What they don't realize is most of their playerbase doesn't. There are plenty of fast paced shooter games out there that are way better than WOWS. The niche that WG has found is the slower paced strategy game will a lot of combat in it. Try and change that, and you lose the thing that makes the game unique.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the long range camping spam meta is good. It's not. But we need to focus more on getting players to fight for objectives, know how to position well, and take advantages to openings to get in close and personal. Does that mean reducing the long range abilities of a lot of ships? Probably. But let's not confuse that with shifting the main strategy being to get into sword fighting distance. We already know what winning strategies are. They're not the sit back and snipe, camp smoke and spam that we all hate seeing. And it's not the YOLO the cap with secondaries blazing. It's well positioned ships, each with a different role, angling for an advantage, and then pouncing on opportunities. The few players who understand that are who truly win games. IMO that's what makes the game fun, not only the close in encounter, but the often several minutes of positioning that led to that encounter and allowed it to be successful. WOWS requires patience and some strategic thought. We know what works, WG needs to design the game to encourage that play. No need to reinvent the wheel, just convincing people to use it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,916
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,103 posts
19,201 battles
2 hours ago, SKurj said:

it was a suggestion... changing spotting mechanics so the enemy ship is not rendered on your client if your client does not have LOS (regardless if teammates do).  instead of the fantasy of real time live and visual updates of an enemy ship you have no LOS on.

totally different game which takes longer; which WG doesn't want. They want short matches so you can play more of them and buy more goodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,281
[ALL41]
Beta Testers
2,174 posts
9,416 battles
4 hours ago, pepe_trueno said:

The game specialy at high tiers has become very stagnant with most ships   siting at the edge of their gun range or hidding behind some island, Big part of the problem is that offence has outclassed defence.

  BBs are afraid of HE/fires that that dont give a dam about angling, Cruisers are afraid of big AP that can overmatch and dev struck them and DDs live and die by their concealment in battles filled with CVs and radar, On top of this guns have very long range for the size of the maps and are quite accurate too, now Add that ships are not exactly agile things that can dodge stuff from close range and any attemp to fight at close range is a suicide.

that is why i belive the game could use modules that encourage ships to close the gap say:

slot 1: armored: +15mm to deck, bow and superstructure armor, 50% increaced health of main, secondary, torpedos and AA mounts, 10% reduced fire duration, 20% increaced main guns dispersion

slot 2: ambush: -20% to detectability radius, time of  detectability penalty after firing reduced by 25%, Main guns and torpedos -25% max range

slor 5 radio jamming: enemy ships cant relay your position to their allys, your allys cant relay enemy positions to you

1 and 2 would literally make a few ships, mainly soviet ones, idiotically OP. 

5 is an excellent idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts
6 minutes ago, Umikami said:

totally different game which takes longer; which WG doesn't want. They want short matches so you can play more of them and buy more goodies.

 

This is just a "what if" discussion with ideas to promote close combat, but feel free to inject any objections you want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,799
[WORX]
Members
10,648 posts
18,555 battles
4 hours ago, pepe_trueno said:

The game specialy at high tiers has become very stagnant with most ships   siting at the edge of their gun range or hidding behind some island, Big part of the problem is that offence has outclassed defence.

  BBs are afraid of HE/fires that that dont give a dam about angling, Cruisers are afraid of big AP that can overmatch and dev struck them and DDs live and die by their concealment in battles filled with CVs and radar, On top of this guns have very long range for the size of the maps and are quite accurate too, now Add that ships are not exactly agile things that can dodge stuff from close range and any attemp to fight at close range is a suicide.

that is why i belive the game could use modules that encourage ships to close the gap say:

slot 1: armored: +15mm to deck, bow and superstructure armor, 50% increaced health of main, secondary, torpedos and AA mounts, 10% reduced fire duration, 20% increaced main guns dispersion

slot 2: ambush: -20% to detectability radius, time of  detectability penalty after firing reduced by 25%, Main guns and torpedos -25% max range

slor 5 radio jamming: enemy ships cant relay your position to their allys, your allys cant relay enemy positions to you

This is the reason passive play exist...

Power creep of offensive capabilities exacerbates the problem, not solve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,103
[SOV]
Members
4,621 posts
3 hours ago, Umikami said:

Just because I don't have LOS doesn't mean none of my team mates don't; it's the same principle used that allows ships to fire from smoke.

The tears of the DD would rise and drown the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts
22 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

This is the reason passive play exist...

Power creep of offensive capabilities exacerbates the problem, not solve it.

not relevant to the discussion.. and all of the ops proposals are more defensive and intended as an idea to promote closer ranged engagements.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,799
[WORX]
Members
10,648 posts
18,555 battles
Just now, SKurj said:

not relevant to the discussion.. and all of the ops proposals are more defensive and intended as an idea to promote closer ranged engagements.  

440155640_Peanutjeff.gif.5fa78686c86e80966e08baef657fb198.gif

 

Its ok if you dont see the big picture...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts
Just now, Navalpride33 said:

Its ok if you dont see the big picture...

Not about the 'big picture' if you have something you would like to add that is on topic go right ahead... 

 

What do you think might promote players to come to closer ranges to battle it out?

 

Lets say at tier 6...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,799
[WORX]
Members
10,648 posts
18,555 battles
1 minute ago, SKurj said:

Not about the 'big picture' if you have something you would like to add that is on topic go right ahead... 

 

What do you think might promote players to come to closer ranges to battle it out?

 

Lets say at tier 6...

 

 

Rules boundaries and limitations of all ordnance/threats faced/armor value and any other ships caractoristics... Its not going to happen...

As I stated earlier, as long as we consume/crave over capable ships... The more, passive the play will become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts
3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Rules boundaries and limitations of all ordnance/threats faced/armor value and any other ships caractoristics... Its not going to happen...

As I stated earlier, as long as we consume/crave over capable ships... The more, passive the play will become.

off topic yet again, nvm

 

let me guess a downvote?  let me go check..  yup i was right.

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
170
[FDK]
Members
1,251 posts
4 hours ago, pepe_trueno said:

The game specialy at high tiers has become very stagnant with most ships   siting at the edge of their gun range or hidding behind some island, Big part of the problem is that offence has outclassed defence.

  BBs are afraid of HE/fires that that dont give a dam about angling, Cruisers are afraid of big AP that can overmatch and dev struck them and DDs live and die by their concealment in battles filled with CVs and radar, On top of this guns have very long range for the size of the maps and are quite accurate too, now Add that ships are not exactly agile things that can dodge stuff from close range and any attemp to fight at close range is a suicide.

that is why i belive the game could use modules that encourage ships to close the gap say:

slot 1: armored: +15mm to deck, bow and superstructure armor, 50% increaced health of main, secondary, torpedos and AA mounts, 10% reduced fire duration, 20% increaced main guns dispersion

slot 2: ambush: -20% to detectability radius, time of  detectability penalty after firing reduced by 25%, Main guns and torpedos -25% max range

slor 5 radio jamming: enemy ships cant relay your position to their allys, your allys cant relay enemy positions to you

No.

 

I'd rather buff Damage Control System Modification 1 and 2 with the follow: (Bolds state the new additions).

Damage Control System Modification 1:  -3% to the risk of flooding when torpedoes hit the torpedo protection, -5% to the risk of fire,  plus  2% to flooding recovery time, 3% to time of fire extinguishing.

Damage Control System Modification 2:  15% to flooding recovery time, 15% to time of fire extinguishing, plus -5% to the risk of flooding when torpedoes hit the torpedo protection, -7% to the risk of fire.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,103
[SOV]
Members
4,621 posts

How can you push when there is a Smolnick, a Mino, Huragumo, all t9 and t10 DD have a fireing rate of 3-5 sec.  

Torps that run 80 knots and almost every DD has 10 plus torps ever 2 min.

The designed of having guns that have basiclt dont have reload, torp soup you cant push in.

As an edit.  If I get close in my crusier and rhere is a Russian BB by to the crusier.

Edited by jags_domain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×