Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
db4100

This Is Why The Lower Tiers SUCK

79 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,229
[LWA]
Members
1,346 posts
15,553 battles

2-3 CVs per match when most of the ships have crappy if they even have AA at all.  No fighter consumables from friendly CVs to protect you from air attacks or from being spotted from above.  Hey WG when are you going to fix this crap???  At the lower tiers it is not "World of Warships" as it now more of "World of Dodge Air Attacks".  My complaining is over, here is how you fix it....get rid of CVs at tier four.   Start the CVs at tier 5 where most of the ships have mediocre AA to at least defend themselves.  

Insert sarcasm here===> it is soooo historically accurate for world war one era ships that have zero AA to have to constantly avoid air attacks......THAT NEVER HAPPENED IN HISTORY.  Dumb

 

zero AA.jpg

  • Cool 17
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,744
[CYNIC]
Members
3,053 posts
8,311 battles

There's a lot of reason lower tiers suck, the lack of AA is but a small part IMO.  The pace of the games and the ships is horrible.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,903
[RLGN]
Members
16,188 posts
28,076 battles
15 minutes ago, CV_Jeebies said:

There's a lot of reason lower tiers suck, the lack of AA is but a small part IMO.  The pace of the games and the ships is horrible.

High tier is any better?

What with so many channeling their inner Tank Destroyer...

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,630
[PVE]
Members
8,500 posts
24,586 battles
1 hour ago, db4100 said:

Insert sarcasm here===> it is soooo historically accurate for world war one era ships that have zero AA to have to constantly avoid air attacks......THAT NEVER HAPPENED IN HISTORY.  Dumb

 

zero AA.jpg

That did happen quite frequently actually.

Maybe not during WWI but many WWI ships survived that war & were still active (or were reactivated out of necessity) during WWII & they faced massive air attacks w/little to no AA unless they were retrofitted...which some never were.

In fact at the start of WWII most ships active at that time were probably left over WWI ships & even the post WWI ships had little to no AA because the impact of planes against ships wasn't a known factor (even the rudder attack on the Bismarck was considered just a lucky shot).

If you're gonna site, "historically accurate" as your reasoning in a video game at least try to be historically accurate in your examples.

Edited by IfYouSeeKhaos
  • Cool 4
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,004
[SYN]
Members
15,968 posts
12,803 battles
22 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

That did happen quite frequently actually.

Maybe not during WWI but many WWI ships survived that war & were still active (or were reactivated out of necessity) during WWII & they faced massive air attacks w/little to no AA unless they were retrofitted...which some never were.

In fact at the start of WWII most ships active at that time were probably left over WWI ships & even the post WWI ships had little to no AA because the impact of planes against ships wasn't a known factor (even the rudder attack on the Bismarck was considered just a lucky shot).

If you're gonna site, "historically accurate" as your reasoning in a video game at least try to be historically accurate in your examples.

No, that's not how it happened.

At the start of WW2, many warships had absolutely pitiful AA, because none of the navies realized how strong aircraft were.

Then as the war progressed, older warships were pressed into service (mainly destroyers), because of the threat of submarines and lack of reserve of modern destroyers to field and having to protect a massive sealane.

And then Japan entered the war, proving the effectiveness of aircraft at Pearl Harbor. After that, various navies finally decided to add more AA guns to their ships.

The Bofors 40mm AA gun, despite existing since 1934, wasn't even procured by RN and USN by 1940 and wasn't produced in large enough quantities to retro-fit onto ships until 1942.

You can see this on many A-hulls of T6~9 ships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
582
[DHO-2]
Beta Testers
1,250 posts
11,232 battles
2 hours ago, db4100 said:

2-3 CVs per match when most of the ships have crappy if they even have AA at all.  No fighter consumables from friendly CVs to protect you from air attacks or from being spotted from above.  Hey WG when are you going to fix this crap???  At the lower tiers it is not "World of Warships" as it now more of "World of Dodge Air Attacks".  My complaining is over, here is how you fix it....get rid of CVs at tier four.   Start the CVs at tier 5 where most of the ships have mediocre AA to at least defend themselves.  

Insert sarcasm here===> it is soooo historically accurate for world war one era ships that have zero AA to have to constantly avoid air attacks......THAT NEVER HAPPENED IN HISTORY.  Dumb

 

 

 

So there are 10 different nations... my last game my team had 5 nations represented and the other team had 6 nations represented.

It was like 5 civil wars happening in the same location with Italy watching.  What is the chance of US, Germany, Russia and France all deciding to have a civil war at the same time and the same place and helping  (or hindering depending on POV) the other nations? 

 

As you said THAT NEVER HAPPENED IN HISTORY.  This is an arcade game for fun.  Not a sim.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,257
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
4,315 posts

lower tiers are great (more fun than high tiers, due to a simpler game, fewer gimmicks etc) until yes... you are attacked by aircraft when you have 0 AA, and regardless historic or not, its a game... for fun...  and that ain't fun...

  • Cool 11
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,229
[LWA]
Members
1,346 posts
15,553 battles
34 minutes ago, madgiecool said:

 

So there are 10 different nations... my last game my team had 5 nations represented and the other team had 6 nations represented.

It was like 5 civil wars happening in the same location with Italy watching.  What is the chance of US, Germany, Russia and France all deciding to have a civil war at the same time and the same place and helping  (or hindering depending on POV) the other nations? 

 

As you said THAT NEVER HAPPENED IN HISTORY.  This is an arcade game for fun.  Not a sim.

 

What you said don't make sense.  These ships are accurately rendered in pixels to include how they where designed.  Ships designed before and during WW1 did not have AA included because there weren't any naval aircraft.  And, that too is included in the game.  Hell, since it is an arcade game why don't we just put two more turrets on the USS Arizona......why not, it is just an arcade game.  

The game is an arcade game, but based on historic ships.....even if they were only on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,480
[O_O]
Members
7,038 posts
17,376 battles
3 hours ago, CV_Jeebies said:

There's a lot of reason lower tiers suck...The pace of the games and the ships is horrible.

I disagree on both points.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
582
[DHO-2]
Beta Testers
1,250 posts
11,232 battles
11 minutes ago, db4100 said:

What you said don't make sense.  These ships are accurately rendered in pixels to include how they where designed.  Ships designed before and during WW1 did not have AA included because there weren't any naval aircraft.  And, that too is included in the game.  Hell, since it is an arcade game why don't we just put two more turrets on the USS Arizona......why not, it is just an arcade game.  

The game is an arcade game, but based on historic ships.....even if they were only on paper.

 

Can you give me an example of when USN ships sank other USN ships in WWII while fighting along side German Ships who were also fighting other German ships?   

Does that clarify my point?

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORCH]
Members
711 posts
18,985 battles
4 hours ago, db4100 said:

2-3 CVs per match when most of the ships have crappy if they even have AA at all. 

First, not to nit pick, but 3 CVs per match doesn't happen anymore.  It used to, and it might have been fun for the CV players, but not the rest of us.  

That said, I agree with the basic idea here.  T3/4/5 battles can be lots of fun.  Can be.  But when you suffer multiple air attacks, one after another, and don't have a single AA gun, the fun drops off quickly.  But give WG a LITTLE credit here.  Eliminating 3 CV games was a considerable improvement.  Not, perhaps, a "fix", for many, but it most certainly was an improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,837
[SIDE]
Members
4,939 posts

While I'm not entirely surprised this is a anti-CV cry post (more or less) I'm more surprised little mention was made of Torp ninjas vs battleships.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
352
[TRU]
Members
761 posts
22,725 battles
14 minutes ago, Midshipman_Hornblower said:

First, not to nit pick, but 3 CVs per match doesn't happen anymore.  It used to, and it might have been fun for the CV players, but not the rest of us.  

That said, I agree with the basic idea here.  T3/4/5 battles can be lots of fun.  Can be.  But when you suffer multiple air attacks, one after another, and don't have a single AA gun, the fun drops off quickly.  But give WG a LITTLE credit here.  Eliminating 3 CV games was a considerable improvement.  Not, perhaps, a "fix", for many, but it most certainly was an improvement.

Good point.  3 was not fun. 

Two days ago I took out my old favorite, the Clemson.  Right out of the gate I got in a knife fight with a V-170 and had both carriers attack me.  With half my health gone and having to run towards the enemy main, I figured I should try and take out one CV at least.  Totally surprised the Langley and torped/sank him as he sat behind an island.  As he sent planes after he sank, the Hosho came to his aid too and knocked out my already pitiful AA.  I soon found the Hosho running to the corner of the map and slowly killed him with guns.  Felt great.

Number of planes shot down?   Zero.  Even as a CV player myself I think this is a problem.  For over half the game I had 100% AA (yes I know it sucks on the Clem) and planes over me for a good chunk of the game.   

Two CVs per side?  Ok.  But please provide a little more AA for T3 and T4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,480
[O_O]
Members
7,038 posts
17,376 battles
18 minutes ago, thebigblue said:

While I'm not entirely surprised this is a anti-CV cry post (more or less) I'm more surprised little mention was made of Torp ninjas vs battleships.

Since WG added the "detected" alert when you are spotted, players are not nearly as helpless to avoid unseen destroyer attacks.  When you are detected in a battleship, check your minimap.  Read the islands and known ship locations. 

Surprise torpedo attacks can still happen, but most of the time such attacks now can be attributed to the battleship player ignoring clues that were available to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,257
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
4,315 posts
32 minutes ago, Midshipman_Hornblower said:

First, not to nit pick, but 3 CVs per match doesn't happen anymore.  It used to, and it might have been fun for the CV players, but not the rest of us.  

That said, I agree with the basic idea here.  T3/4/5 battles can be lots of fun.  Can be.  But when you suffer multiple air attacks, one after another, and don't have a single AA gun, the fun drops off quickly.  But give WG a LITTLE credit here.  Eliminating 3 CV games was a considerable improvement.  Not, perhaps, a "fix", for many, but it most certainly was an improvement.

 

I didn't find the removal of 3 cv matches much of an improvement, now you just see multiple cv's more often.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,257
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
4,315 posts
26 minutes ago, thebigblue said:

While I'm not entirely surprised this is a anti-CV cry post (more or less) I'm more surprised little mention was made of Torp ninjas vs battleships.

hmmm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
131 posts
7,298 battles
5 hours ago, db4100 said:

2-3 CVs per match when most of the ships have crappy if they even have AA at all.  No fighter consumables from friendly CVs to protect you from air attacks or from being spotted from above.  Hey WG when are you going to fix this crap???  At the lower tiers it is not "World of Warships" as it now more of "World of Dodge Air Attacks".  My complaining is over, here is how you fix it....get rid of CVs at tier four.   Start the CVs at tier 5 where most of the ships have mediocre AA to at least defend themselves.  

Insert sarcasm here===> it is soooo historically accurate for world war one era ships that have zero AA to have to constantly avoid air attacks......THAT NEVER HAPPENED IN HISTORY.  Dumb

 

zero AA.jpg

I don’t totally agree. Yes, multiple CVs at lower tiers are a pain when you don’t have any AA and I don’t see how it would hurt WG to add a least a minimum AA capability to the lower tier ships. On the other hand the lower tier CVs tend to be played by newer players and don’t hit as hard in general. Also, on the smaller maps I have more of a chance of getting in range of them and hitting back. Overall I like the lower tiers more than the higher tiers. Neither are bad, just different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,773
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
30,867 posts
25,982 battles

I'm fine with the situation there.  People do Low Tiers to try to Seal Club new players.  They do it with things like Konig Albert, Imperator Nikolai I, Clemson, etc.  Veteran players using low tier DDs against newbies that have zero idea what Stealth / Spotting mechanics are even like.  I see all these low tier whine threads with players having thousands of battles under their belt, complaining they can't Seal Club in peace.

 

It makes my heart warm with pride knowing someone is clubbing the clubbers.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,257
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
4,315 posts
19 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

I'm fine with the situation there.  People do Low Tiers to try to Seal Club new players.  They do it with things like Konig Albert, Imperator Nikolai I, Clemson, etc.  Veteran players using low tier DDs against newbies that have zero idea what Stealth / Spotting mechanics are even like.  I see all these low tier whine threads with players having thousands of battles under their belt, complaining they can't Seal Club in peace.

 

It makes my heart warm with pride knowing someone is clubbing the clubbers.

maybe you should look at lines they have not yet made it past tier 5 instead..  of how many battles in total...  you have a hate on for low tiers and i do not know why...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,773
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
30,867 posts
25,982 battles
17 minutes ago, SKurj said:

maybe you should look at lines they have not yet made it past tier 5 instead..  of how many battles in total...  you have a hate on for low tiers and i do not know why...  

People linger there specifically to prey on new players that have zero idea what any of the fundamentals are.  Not knowing Spotting Mechanics is the greatest deficiency of new players.  They have no idea what kind of peril they are in when that veteran player in Clemson, Isokaze, whatever are stalking them.  When they are being Detected! but have zero enemy ships in view, that should cause alarms to any non-scrub player that a DD is stalking them and a torpedo attack is on the way.  Instead, the newbies have ZERO idea what level of danger they are in.

 

You got newbies out there with their BBs that have absolutely zero idea what angling, bow on tactics are for preserving the ship, and are sailing around broadside all the time.  If they were a non-scrub player I'd deride them for such stupid mistakes, but you can't... They're new.  They don't know any better.  The newbies are still trying to play their Battleships as if they were acting out an old black and white documentary or movie, showing classic Battleship footage of them just sitting broadside firing all their guns.  Doing that in WoWS is suicide.

 

New players don't even have any idea how to setup their Minimap to give vital match information.

 

They have on idea what positioning means.

 

Etc.

 

So yes, I got problems with people hanging around down there padding their stats off new players that have absolutely zero idea of fundamental game mechanics.  Anything that makes those veteran players lives harder down there is a + in my book.

 

I've spent some time back there with a low tier ship preying on new players.  I've spent time with Tier III Bogatyr fitted with 130mm guns and a high points captain with BFT + AFT, the works, and annihilating things easily.  I hanged around there for a while with Konig Albert, did a few games with Imperator Nikolai I, etc.  I used to do silly things with Derzki rushing up to these newbies, smoke up, and using her as a torpedo turret.  It's easy.  After a while I felt dirty and I stopped hanging around down there.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,178
[INTEL]
[INTEL]
Members
7,777 posts
37,481 battles

Tough I like some of the low tier ships and play them on occasion, what I dislike the most is the almost constant two-CVs oer side rule.

Why just not one CV er side WG? Enough already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,257
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
4,315 posts

I get it sure some go down there to pad stats, but that makes zero difference... as overall stats mean nothing...  I am sure like many others, probably the majority of players have more lines they aren't even past tier 3 than lines they do...  and the way the game is done, there will always be experienced players at low tiers working up through another low tier line grind.  

 

There are just too many cv's in queue to be able to limit to 1 cv per side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
16 posts
7 battles

This is a game with airplanes in it. Any ship without an airplane consumable has no defense against air attack. AA was no solution to air attack, and up until the advent of central control was more like a morale placebo for the ship's crew. After central control it still only became a last resort for a ship's defense. So the abstractions you can use for it in game are limited and easily made excessive or impotent. There's no way you can abstract air defenses defeating air attacks by themselves credibly. It's knives defeating guns every time. It makes no sense. 

Edited by kingslapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,257
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
4,315 posts
14 minutes ago, kingslapper said:

This is a game with airplanes in it. Any ship without an airplane consumable has no defense against air attack. AA was no solution to air attack, and up until the advent of central control was more like a morale placebo for the ship's crew. After central control it still only became a last resort for a ship's defense. So the abstractions you can use for it in game are limited and easily made excessive or impotent. There's no way you can abstract air defenses defeating air attacks by themselves credibly. It's knives defeating guns every time. It makes no sense. 

it does in the long game though.... the more planes you shoot down, the less planes will be coming back after you in time due to attrition.  Changing your tactics in cv games helps too, but when almost all of the ships in the game (at low tier) have little to no AA, yeah it doesn't even matter if you change tactics...  your AA if any will be so ineffective the CV can just keep sending wave after wave and not lose any planes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×