Frustration level... over 9000???

[ScarredJosh]

Hello forum! I was just wondering what everyone thought was going to be the most frustrating part of WoWS. We all know the pains of being killed by invisible tanks or being one shot by arty at the start of a game, but what do you think will make your blood boil in this game?

 

   As an added question, what do you think WG could do to fix the issue that you fear? Is it fixable? Is it just something you are going to have to live with to play WoWS?

 

   I personally think torps will be one of the issues that will frustrate me. In Navyfield, we all know of the dreaded torp wall. The spotting system sometimes didnt let you see the incoming death fish until they were so close that you could no longer avoid them. I would say the spotting system itselfis the only way to fix this problem. A few added seconds to manouver could be key. On the other hand, maybe there could be a skill or perk that makes your torpedos harder to spot? Who knows!!

 

   I cant wait to see all your posts. And as always, happy gaming to you all.

[Windhover118]

Certain elements of the game itself are frustrating but what always gets my blood boiling are the people using XVM who announce that the team is going to lose. This also includes a subcatagory of people who rush off and die in the first minute then spend the rest of the game saying how their team was full of teribads. I suspect we will get alot of those kinds of people.

[ramp4ge]

At least there won't be submarines.

 

That's hands down the most frustrating part of NF and NF2.

 

The most annoying/frustrating part is probably going to be CVs. It's going to be artillery all over again, but at least you can shoot down planes..

[Windhover118]

ramp4ge, on 15 February 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

At least there won't be submarines.

That's hands down the most frustrating part of NF and NF2.

The most annoying/frustrating part is probably going to be CVs. It's going to be artillery all over again, but at least you can shoot down planes..

and potentially dodge bombs and torpedoes so it wont be as bad as artillery in the sense that it wont feel like the finger of god slamming down on you.

[NGTM_1R]

Getting picked off by battleship gunnery beyond your view range. The answer to that? The RNG, dispersion, so that battleships aren't likely to drop a salvo on a destroyer at range without at least granting the destroyer a big hint they'd better maneuver right now.

[brian333]

I think the most frustrating part will be the learning curve.

 

Many players used to Navyfield will think a DD's torp spread is unstoppable, but will fire them beyond the range of effective hits, wasting them and having to wait for reload while under the guns of the enemy fleet. Or worse, thinking the game is 'balanced' they will try to engage in completely unsuitable duels for their ship. (For the record, a DD should never duel anything, even another DD.)

 

Then there will be the players who have no clue what their class of ship does in a fleet battle, and they will treat it like a battleship. "But the New Orleans class CA suxxorz because I get pwnt every time!"

 

And of course, the BB captain who has no clue what a DD can do, mostly because he spent ten minutes in one, got sunk, and decided he needed to go heavy line. He will be the guy who screams "Nerf the DD! They is OP!"

 

Finally, there will be the carrier captain who sends wave after wave of aircraft to take on intact battleships, and by the time the battleship has been stripped of supporting ships and has significant damage to it's AA batteries, the carrier is out of bombers. Or worse, the carrier captain who has no clue that his position offers him the best overview of the battlefield, and that he can and should lead his fleetmates in the battle. Of course, this is the guy who will never have played a cruiser or DD, and so he will have no clue what they are all about, because all he wants is to spam death from above on helpless prey, never realizing that he too must be a part of the team coordinated effort.

 

Frustrations will abound, but I think it will be the lack of a cohesive team structure based on a common understanding of the roles each ship is intended to play which creates the most frustration. These players will continue to think in terms of one ship vs. one ship, and they will forever be relegated to short mediocre matches at best which are won or lost based on luck.

 

When a DD captain learns he is a pack hunter and forms packs by instinct, when a cruiser skipper learns he is the Swiss Army Knife of naval battle, when the BB learns that his primary role is to reduce the ability of the other BB to fight back and not to waste his efforts on DD's and cruisers, when the carrier captain realizes he isn't in the game for the quick kill, and when each part of the team realizes what their part in the overall actions of the fleet will be long before the countdown hits 00, then the game will get fun.

[PhilJD_NA]

brian333, on 15 February 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

When a DD captain learns he is a pack hunter and forms packs by instinct, when a cruiser skipper learns he is the Swiss Army Knife of naval battle, when the BB learns that his primary role is to reduce the ability of the other BB to fight back and not to waste his efforts on DD's and cruisers, when the carrier captain realizes he isn't in the game for the quick kill, and when each part of the team realizes what their part in the overall actions of the fleet will be long before the countdown hits 00, then the game will get fun.

- It'll be a long wait for that to happen other than in the equivalent clan wars for those clans that actually play and practice as a team :)

For me.. most frustrating part..waiting to play the game itself :) Other than that, no doubt I will find out what frustrates me most once I've played a few times (but a good guess will be the other players in pub matches).

[piplnr65656]

ScarredJosh, on 15 February 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

Hello forum! I was just wondering what everyone thought was going to be the most frustrating part of WoWS.

The wait.

[Shevla13]

Top Tier aircraft- it was confirmed that each higher tier the carrier gets the better their aircraft are. When I am bottom of my team tier wise in a DD, I will be very frustrated if those top tier planes from the top CV on the other team are (For all intense and purposes) invincible. Solution: Make any ship capable of shooting down any plane. (Within reason.)

[brian333]

If the carrier is going after your DD while the enemy has capitals you have encountered a fail carrier captain. Let him, and take as many of his squadrons as you can while you're at it.

[Wunderwaffen1945]

Teamkilling with torpedos......p

[Super_Dreadnought]

Seeing lazy braindead window licking idiots posting "How I R downlaod gaem" threads is proving to be the most frustrating thing in WoWs for me right now......as you might be able to tell from the tone of this post.

[Lazar_Lyusternik]

Definitely carriers. Launch planes and run away at the same time.

[Krieg]

We'll have torpedos without submarines. A bit ironic yes?  :Smile_ohmy:

[Super_Dreadnought]

Krieg, on 16 February 2013 - 12:33 AM, said:

We'll have torpedos without submarines. A bit ironic yes?  :Smile_ohmy:

No, I don't think so.

[NGTM_1R]

Krieg, on 16 February 2013 - 12:33 AM, said:

We'll have torpedos without submarines. A bit ironic yes?  :Smile_ohmy:

Considering they were originally surface-launched anyways, no not really?

[Battleship_Unknown2]

Lazar_Kaganovich, on 16 February 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

Definitely carriers. Launch planes and run away at the same time.

Yeah, generally speaking I'd be just fine and dandy if they up and announced tomorrow that they changed their minds, and carriers didn't really 'fit in' with the game. The 1-2 players who, at this point, would be so upset they'd never play would be more than balanced out by the fact that fleets could be arranged in more traditional formations without having to constantly worry about screening for enemy aircraft, or shielding allied flattops. There would also be a merciful uptick in realism, as IRL the presence of 1-2 large carriers in an enemy force would pretty much wipe out a similar enemy armada from hundreds of miles off, provided they won the initial aerial duel. There would be little, if any, opportunity for the battleships and battlecruisers to do much more than sit there and look pretty as the bombs came in.

Honestly, the inclusion of carriers forces all tactics in WoWS to in some way bend to them. Like instead of using my destroyers and light cruisers as proper pickets, now I have to devote a significant number of them to hovering around the CVs to throw up AA screens, as an unescorted carrier will be a dead carrier; now the line of battle can be ravaged and overwhelmed by antagonists completely out of gunfire range... it's just boring. It's part of why, for non carrier/DD types, WWII was a boring war. There just wasn't a lot of action -- particularly in the Pacific theater -- for anyone else.

For once -- just once -- in human history, it would be nice to see a game that was WWI centric instead of myopically focused on WWII. It's like game makers don't even want to acknowledge that WWI existed. As it stands, that was the far more interesting of the two world wars, if only for the simple reason that, for a while there, it could have gone either way. Few, if any, such risks ever existed in WWII.

[ramp4ge]

PrincessRoyal, on 16 February 2013 - 12:53 AM, said:

For once -- just once -- in human history, it would be nice to see a game that was WWI centric instead of myopically focused on WWII. It's like game makers don't even want to acknowledge that WWI existed. As it stands, that was the far more interesting of the two world wars, if only for the simple reason that, for a while there, it could have gone either way. Few, if any, such risks ever existed in WWII.

Distant Guns.

[Battleship_Unknown2]

ramp4ge, on 16 February 2013 - 02:47 AM, said:

Distant Guns.

Too indy for my tastes. Plus, their horrible anti-pirating restrictions and horrendous customer service have apparently driven many customers up a wall. I wouldn't touch anything Storm Eagle Studios produced with a ten foot pole.

[Windhover118]

PrincessRoyal, on 16 February 2013 - 12:53 AM, said:

Yeah, generally speaking I'd be just fine and dandy if they up and announced tomorrow that they changed their minds, and carriers didn't really 'fit in' with the game. The 1-2 players who, at this point, would be so upset they'd never play would be more than balanced out by the fact that fleets could be arranged in more traditional formations without having to constantly worry about screening for enemy aircraft, or shielding allied flattops. There would also be a merciful uptick in realism, as IRL the presence of 1-2 large carriers in an enemy force would pretty much wipe out a similar enemy armada from hundreds of miles off, provided they won the initial aerial duel. There would be little, if any, opportunity for the battleships and battlecruisers to do much more than sit there and look pretty as the bombs came in.

Honestly, the inclusion of carriers forces all tactics in WoWS to in some way bend to them. Like instead of using my destroyers and light cruisers as proper pickets, now I have to devote a significant number of them to hovering around the CVs to throw up AA screens, as an unescorted carrier will be a dead carrier; now the line of battle can be ravaged and overwhelmed by antagonists completely out of gunfire range... it's just boring. It's part of why, for non carrier/DD types, WWII was a boring war. There just wasn't a lot of action -- particularly in the Pacific theater -- for anyone else.

For once -- just once -- in human history, it would be nice to see a game that was WWI centric instead of myopically focused on WWII. It's like game makers don't even want to acknowledge that WWI existed. As it stands, that was the far more interesting of the two world wars, if only for the simple reason that, for a while there, it could have gone either way. Few, if any, such risks ever existed in WWII.

Most of the early ships are going to be WWI era ships so WWI style battles will be the norm is low tier battles where carriers wont be a major threat. We probably wont see carriers start to gain power until around tier 5. In this game I suspect we will see a transission similar to the one that happened in real life where carriers go from fleet support to a vital fleet asset but given the size of the map and the small amount of carriers in any given match, they most likely wont be the dominating force they were in real life. We will probably see battles more akin to the Solomon Islands Campaign or Leyte Gulf then Midway or the Philippines Sea.

[Battleship_Unknown2]

Windhover118, on 16 February 2013 - 03:07 AM, said:

Most of the early ships are going to be WWI era ships so WWI style battles will be the norm is low tier battles where carriers wont be a major threat. We probably wont see carriers start to gain power until around tier 5. In this game I suspect we will see a transission similar to the one that happened in real life where carriers go from fleet support to a vital fleet asset but given the size of the map and the small amount of carriers in any given match, they most likely wont be the dominating force they were in real life. We will probably see battles more akin to the Solomon Islands Campaign or Leyte Gulf then Midway or the Philippines Sea.

Will we be unable to use the lower tier ships in any battle? That would suck. I'm really banking on permanently sticking with WWI german BCs if I can. It would be a shame if I never got to use one to unrealistically take potshots at a Yamato.  :biggrin:

[Windhover118]

PrincessRoyal, on 16 February 2013 - 03:10 AM, said:

Will we be unable to use the lower tier ships in any battle? That would suck. I'm really banking on permanently sticking with WWI german BCs if I can. It would be a shame if I never got to use one to unrealistically take potshots at a Yamato.  :biggrin:

Thats kind of interesting if you think about it. In WoT, tier 1 and II tanks have no chance of damaging high tier heavies but in this game, a Dreadnought with its 12" guns could probably do atleast some damage to tier X battleships.

[ramp4ge]

Pretty much every ship in NF2 up until the mid-60s is WWI-era or before..

 

 

[Battleship_Unknown2]

Windhover118, on 16 February 2013 - 04:06 AM, said:

Thats kind of interesting if you think about it. In WoT, tier 1 and II tanks have no chance of damaging high tier heavies but in this game, a Dreadnought with its 12" guns could probably do atleast some damage to tier X battleships.

Yup, definitely true. And, certainly, there were plenty of WWI era dreadnoughts still floating around doing damage in WWII (some modernized a lot, some not much at all).

If Hiei's loss to what basically amounted to massed 5" batteries shelling her upperworks into oblivion proves anything, it's that you don't have to sink a BB to kill it -- just smash its ability to continue fighting. In that sense, say, a Moltke with 10 x 11" guns might not have much hope of sinking an Iowa, but under the right circumstances might be able to reduce its fighting value to 0. That example is even more relevant because Scharnhorst and Gniesenau will definitely be WWII era ships (and likely decently high on the German tech tree), but were only armed with 9 x 11" guns themselves. They, too, would have virtually no chance of sinking a late-generation BB with gunfire, but could cripple one just fine, particularly if they were fighting at close-range and at night.

Part of the fun of this game, for me, is the what if's. If every battle pits realistic, same-era opponents against one another, much of that fun will be removed. But I want to see how a 'off the shelf' 1916 Queen Elizabeth stands up to a South Dakota, or a French Normandie class deals with a Yamato. And since we'll definitely see a bunch of modernized U.S. WWI-era dreadnoughts fighting against their Japanese WWII counterparts, IMO the entire thing should be left wide open. Just assign each ship a 'fighting value,' and then put a cap on a team's total numerical strength. Things could then sort themselves out rather naturally, but still remain technically balanced.

ramp4ge, on 16 February 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:

Pretty much every ship in NF2 up until the mid-60s is WWI-era or before..

When is that coming out in non-beta release? It's just the Japanese beta that's out right now, right?

[Azumazi]

PrincessRoyal, on 16 February 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:

Yup, definitely true. And, certainly, there were plenty of WWI era dreadnoughts still floating around doing damage in WWII (some modernized a lot, some not much at all).

If Hiei's loss to what basically amounted to massed 5" batteries shelling her upperworks into oblivion proves anything, it's that you don't have to sink a BB to kill it -- just smash its ability to continue fighting. In that sense, say, a Moltke with 10 x 11" guns might not have much hope of sinking an Iowa, but under the right circumstances might be able to reduce its fighting value to 0. That example is even more relevant because Scharnhorst and Gniesenau will definitely be WWII era ships (and likely decently high on the German tech tree), but were only armed with 9 x 11" guns themselves. They, too, would have virtually no chance of sinking a late-generation BB with gunfire, but could cripple one just fine, particularly if they were fighting at close-range and at night.

Part of the fun of this game, for me, is the what if's. If every battle pits realistic, same-era opponents against one another, much of that fun will be removed. But I want to see how a 'off the shelf' 1916 Queen Elizabeth stands up to a South Dakota, or a French Normandie class deals with a Yamato. And since we'll definitely see a bunch of modernized U.S. WWI-era dreadnoughts fighting against their Japanese WWII counterparts, IMO the entire thing should be left wide open. Just assign each ship a 'fighting value,' and then put a cap on a team's total numerical strength. Things could then sort themselves out rather naturally, but still remain technically balanced.



When is that coming out in non-beta release? It's just the Japanese beta that's out right now, right?

That's exactly what I'm hoping for to be honest. Especially since when the game first starts I have a feeling we will have low population like WoT did at first. On NA I remember frequent nights at release of having around 3-4k people online, which means a lot of tier 5's in tier 8 games. The MM just had to dump them into the game. Now in Tanks, they were FOOD!. As we already said, in Ships...that's a different story because even the Queen Lizzy could punch 300mm of belt armor at 18km and 72mm of deck. That's a 1916 ship, and to be fair most superstructures didn't have that kind of armor so it would probably rip into some modern ships.

I have a feeling tiers aren't going to be nearly as bad in WoWS as it is in WoT due to the technology changes weren't nearly as drastic.