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

best example of how high tier battles work

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

338
[OGRES]
[OGRES]
Beta Testers
689 posts
21,229 battles

Un- nerf the torpedus and get those ships moving again!  :izmena:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,327 posts
3,235 battles

ya, higher tiers can be a bit of a mess these days depending on who you get. many of the 'play peak-a-boo with an island' types have failed to the top and have brought their "tactics" with them. 

 

many games go this way at all tiers these days, even in mid tiers which have a much healthier population. BBs sit back, DDs rush and cruisers mill about trying to decide what to do. generally whichever team loses a few ships or caps early starts the snowball running...

 

as a solo player all you can do is you best, try to support your team and see what happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,865
[GUTS]
[GUTS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,374 posts
29,408 battles

I can't believe you didn't do better.

What did your team do, sit back and play cards?

Must have been a draw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
153
[DANTO]
Beta Testers
218 posts
9,751 battles

we actually lost! We were outcapped. A B C. I was at A, (me, amagi, NO, and dd), rest of the team was at B and C. I and the fellowship friend managed to cap A. Rest of the team were playing around B and then came down to A..... and moreover, most of them were full hp lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,755
[RLGN]
Members
19,131 posts
35,152 battles

What I shake my head about is that people actually spent the creds and fxp to skip to T9  and 10 in the German BB line... I could actually do so myself, but why?

 

I wonder how much it would actually cost in fxp to do that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,196 posts

Un- nerf the torpedus and get those ships moving again!  :izmena:

 

You know its the backwards vision mechanics and unhistorical torpedoes that cause this mess in the first place, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
646 posts
4,235 battles

Heh ... will come a day that your division will be fighting for bases ,  trading hits with enemy ships and when you start to wonder ...

 

" wheres the backup?"

 

You realize after a brief check on minimap that your team is ALL sailing in a straight line formation at J line(bottom of the map) when the enemy already have all bases under control ... thats painful ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,608 posts

I was going to ask, who won looking at that.  You sure that's a T8-10 game?  Looks like a T1 game to me with those scores.  (And people wonder why I avoid such games now.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
338
[OGRES]
[OGRES]
Beta Testers
689 posts
21,229 battles

 

You know its the backwards vision mechanics and unhistorical torpedoes that cause this mess in the first place, right? 

 

If that were in fact true game play would have changed by now.  It boils down to a bunch of people in pixel ships afraid to lose credits being sunk that end up loosing credits anyways by not accomplishing a darn thing.  I see more competitive matches in my Fletcher when I am top tier in a 8 match then I do in a 9/10 match.  Competition>making credits in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,196 posts

If that were in fact true game play would have changed by now.  It boils down to a bunch of people in pixel ships afraid to lose credits being sunk that end up loosing credits anyways by not accomplishing a darn thing.  I see more competitive matches in my Fletcher when I am top tier in a 8 match then I do in a 9/10 match.  Competition>making credits in my opinion.

 

Think about it. What causes people to avoid pushing forward? Shells? Maybe for the cruisers... but with their lower detection, they should be fine, right? No, wait, there are ships with lower detection ratings lighting them up for the battleships. So how do you fight back? Have the battleships push forward? They can't because they're afraid of invisible death throwing torp walls that the common (window licking) battleship driver can't avoid. Its a vicious cycle that all boils down to one very simple problem. 

 

Vision. Because of the game mechanics, there are situations in which you cannot fight back. Be they stealth-firing ships you cannot catch or torpedo walls you cannot avoid. Vision and the inappropriate integration of naval technology have caused this odd passive meta. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
522 posts
4,518 battles

 

You know its the backwards vision mechanics and unhistorical torpedoes that cause this mess in the first place, right? 

 

Nope its not the torpedos that cause this,its the out of this world damage 1 BB shell can do. BB's cried to get the CV/torpedos/IJN DD's well everything that can kill them to be nerfed and got it. Welcome to the hell BaBBies created. I can 1 shell not 1 salvo 1 shell a T10 cruiser from full health to zero in my Yammy,or on a bad roll it can take me 2 or 3 shells, think a cruiser will push when they have to deal with this. A BB can tank a lot of torpedos at that tier and yet i can deal more damage in 1 salvo to a Broadside Yammy then 5 shima torps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
153
[DANTO]
Beta Testers
218 posts
9,751 battles

 

Nope its not the torpedos that cause this,its the out of this world damage 1 BB shell can do. BB's cried to get the CV/torpedos/IJN DD's well everything that can kill them to be nerfed and got it. Welcome to the hell BaBBies created. I can 1 shell not 1 salvo 1 shell a T10 cruiser from full health to zero in my Yammy,or on a bad roll it can take me 2 or 3 shells, think a cruiser will push when they have to deal with this. A BB can tank a lot of torpedos at that tier and yet i can deal more damage in 1 salvo to a Broadside Yammy then 5 shima torps.

 

in one of my matches yesterday, my Bismarck got "Detonation" medal by 1 torp in front... (before equipped with lower magazine part. And it was T6-8 match). After that I changed to lower magazine chance and haven't seen one yet. But yeah. 1 shot kill can happen even to BBs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,053
[SYN]
Members
16,027 posts
12,803 battles

 

Think about it. What causes people to avoid pushing forward? Shells? Maybe for the cruisers... but with their lower detection, they should be fine, right? No, wait, there are ships with lower detection ratings lighting them up for the battleships. So how do you fight back? Have the battleships push forward? They can't because they're afraid of invisible death throwing torp walls that the common (window licking) battleship driver can't avoid. Its a vicious cycle that all boils down to one very simple problem. 

 

Vision. Because of the game mechanics, there are situations in which you cannot fight back. Be they stealth-firing ships you cannot catch or torpedo walls you cannot avoid. Vision and the inappropriate integration of naval technology have caused this odd passive meta. 

 

It's literally the sheer number of BBs.

 

There's 7 BBs per side

Unless those 7 BBs are all waddled up into a 1km ball, there's no way you are going to deflect most of the shells by going bow-on

7BBs focus firing at a single BB will get that BB sunk FAST.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
522 posts
4,518 battles

 

in one of my matches yesterday, my Bismarck got "Detonation" medal by 1 torp in front... (before equipped with lower magazine part. And it was T6-8 match). After that I changed to lower magazine chance and haven't seen one yet. But yeah. 1 shot kill can happen even to BBs. 

 

Im not talking about detonations. A BB can 1 salvo anything in the game with no detonation or citadele hits. In all my games i been detonated 1 time by  by a torpedo, all the other detonations were by guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
983
Members
2,077 posts
14,289 battles

 

Think about it. What causes people to avoid pushing forward? Shells? Maybe for the cruisers... but with their lower detection, they should be fine, right? No, wait, there are ships with lower detection ratings lighting them up for the battleships. So how do you fight back? Have the battleships push forward? They can't because they're afraid of invisible death throwing torp walls that the common (window licking) battleship driver can't avoid. Its a vicious cycle that all boils down to one very simple problem. 

 

Vision. Because of the game mechanics, there are situations in which you cannot fight back. Be they stealth-firing ships you cannot catch or torpedo walls you cannot avoid. Vision and the inappropriate integration of naval technology have caused this odd passive meta. 

 

What are you joking? It takes over a dozen torps to sink a yamato but only one or two salvos to sink a cruiser. What you're saying is that BB are afraid to get their paint scratched mean while the cruisers that are supposed to protect the precious BB can't push cause they're afraid for their life. In low/mid tiers BB are less accurate and cruisers are more maneuverable so it's harder to delete them and guess what at those tiers cruisers push and kill destroyers so the precious battlewagons won't get their paint scratched. If you don't believe me just go back and read your own post. Cruisers are afraid to push because of BB shells, that's what you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
5,082 posts
5,575 battles

Think about it. What causes people to avoid pushing forward? Shells? Maybe for the cruisers... but with their lower detection, they should be fine, right? No, wait, there are ships with lower detection ratings lighting them up for the battleships. So how do you fight back? Have the battleships push forward? They can't because they're afraid of invisible death throwing torp walls that the common (window licking) battleship driver can't avoid. Its a vicious cycle that all boils down to one very simple problem. 

 

Vision. Because of the game mechanics, there are situations in which you cannot fight back. Be they stealth-firing ships you cannot catch or torpedo walls you cannot avoid. Vision and the inappropriate integration of naval technology have caused this odd passive meta. 

 

This is true in WoWs just as it is in WoT. Lack of vision combined with strong alpha strike potential on some ships and strong DoT potential on others is what compels players to linger in the back. Simply put, the vision mechanics as they are implemented in WoWs are pretty damn bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles

 

This is true in WoWs just as it is in WoT. Lack of vision combined with strong alpha strike potential on some ships and strong DoT potential on others is what compels players to linger in the back. Simply put, the vision mechanics as they are implemented in WoWs are pretty damn bad.

 

And how would you change it without rendering ships that currently rely on the vision mechanics to be at all useful... useless?

 

If the vision mechanics were changed so everyone could see everyone, destroyers and cruisers would cease to exist. I feel that carriers would, too. It would literally be World of Battleships as only battleships could possibly benefit from such a change.

Edited by Destroyer_Kiyoshimo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,053
[SYN]
Members
16,027 posts
12,803 battles

 

And how would you change it without rendering ships that currently rely on the vision mechanics to be at all useful... useless?

 

If the vision mechanics were changed so everyone could see everyone, destroyers and cruisers would cease to exist. I feel that carriers would, too. It would literally be World of Battleships as only battleships could possibly benefit from such a change.

 

maybe something like... double vision and blurred vision on ships you are not spotting yourself?

 

or something like -20% accuracy penalty on ships you are not spotting yourself?

 

I know there is the +3% accuracy on a locked on target, so something like the second one should be possible.

Edited by MrDeaf
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
5,082 posts
5,575 battles

And how would you change it without rendering ships that currently rely on the vision mechanics to be at all useful... useless?

 

If the vision mechanics were changed so everyone could see everyone, destroyers and cruisers would cease to exist. I feel that carriers would, too. It would literally be World of Battleships as only battleships could possibly benefit from such a change.

 

If I was designing the game from the ground up, there would be no concealment, period. I would then balance things around this fact with a certain amount of respect for historical facts but without being fixated on historical accuracy. Much like how it was done in WoWs in the first place.

 

One thing that could make DDs and CAs viable in a more realistic setting with no cloaking devices is multiple lives. Say a destroyed DD can respawn twice and a destroyed cruiser can respawn once to simulate their prolific presence in naval battles of the day.

 

There is and always was a way to design WoWs without the particularly nasty mechanic that is concealment and invisibility. Of course, now it's patently too late to change that, but I'm specifically pointing out where WG screwed up irreparably and big time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles

One thing that could make DDs and CAs viable in a more realistic setting with no cloaking devices is multiple lives. Say a destroyed DD can respawn twice and a destroyed cruiser can respawn once to simulate their prolific presence in naval battles of the day.

 

I see, so battleships can farm even more damage from free kills from a position said targets can't fight back from?

 

You see all this does is change who cannot defend against who. Battleships always have the longest range, and that makes sense. But if they can accurately target at long range, there's no point in playing anything else because cruisers and destroyers simply can't take that kind of fire. Adding multiple lives/respawns just makes it worse.

 

Frankly the idea that battleships can't defend against destroyers is utterly stupid and false anyway.

Edited by Destroyer_Kiyoshimo
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
983
Members
2,077 posts
14,289 battles

 

or something like -20% accuracy penalty on ships you are not spotting yourself?

 

I think something like this is the best option because it would make the most people happy and makes sense in the real world (artillery spotters weren't 100% accurate). BB players would be happy because indirect fire from smoke or behind islands would be less accurate and cruiser players would be happy because they would be less likely to get deleted from across the map. You could also make it work for the torpedo lead indicator by having it off by a small random amount so torping from long range or in smoke would be less accurate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
[RRN]
Members
640 posts
3,950 battles

 

If I was designing the game from the ground up, there would be no concealment, period. I would then balance things around this fact with a certain amount of respect for historical facts but without being fixated on historical accuracy. Much like how it was done in WoWs in the first place.

 

One thing that could make DDs and CAs viable in a more realistic setting with no cloaking devices is multiple lives. Say a destroyed DD can respawn twice and a destroyed cruiser can respawn once to simulate their prolific presence in naval battles of the day.

 

There is and always was a way to design WoWs without the particularly nasty mechanic that is concealment and invisibility. Of course, now it's patently too late to change that, but I'm specifically pointing out where WG screwed up irreparably and big time.

 

Concealment is actually historical, not in WOWS though here it is simplified. In real llife smokescreens, smoke from engines, smoke from burning ships, smoke from rapid fire of main and secondary guns, identification problems, haze, fog, incompetent crewmen, slow chain of command, rain squalls, communication problems, and low light conditions did mess up the ability of sailors from engaging the enemy, even radar did not make many of these hindrances go away. Having a naval game with no concealment is more ahistorical and more unrealistic the simplified vision mechanic WOWS uses.

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.

×