Anti camping measures, discuss.

[X15]

 

So here's what I want to see happen, and what I think will help:

1. Make repair costs lower at high tiers, or similar to point 6, make brawling to the death profitable.

2. Cause plunging fire to take effect outside of 18 km or so, think of it as auto overmatch. 

3. Buff BB agility and in some cases stealth (fuso, izumo)

4. Return IJN torps to pre nerf state. 

5. Make cruisers hit a little harder.

6. Award tanking.

7. Fix CVs, in the make them scary but not OP sense. (although this is a whole new level for "can o' worms")

A penny for your thoughts.

EDIT: per comments, point 1 has been changed entirety. Was radar not seeing through islands (which is impossible)

[saagri]

Make CV Dive Bombers decrease dispersion based on speed.

[TheDreadnought]

I like the plunging fire overmatch rule.  I think that would go a long way to discourage bow camping.

[Vinidoanker]

Reduce repair and service cost for TX ships, I will brawl all day with my Yamato if get repair discount back.. But 300k service if sink , that sucks..

 

[TTK_Aegis]

 

So here's what I want to see happen, and what I think will help:

1. Make radar last longer, but not see through islands.

2. Cause plunging fire to take effect outside of 18 km or so, think of it as auto overmatch.

3. Buff BB agility and in some cases stealth (fuso, izumo)

4. Return IJN torps to pre nerf state. 

5. Make cruisers hit a little harder.

6. Award tanking.

7. Fix CVs, in the make them scary but not OP sense. (although this is a whole new level for "can o' worms")

A penny for your thoughts.

 

1) Not going to happen. WG has stated that seeing through islands is a game engine limitation, and more recently stated there are no plans for the massive overhaul needed to enable islands blocking radar/hydro.

 

2) You'd also need to reign in BB range and/or eliminate spotter planes. Would it really be fair for people who moved up and are fighting on the other side of the map to be overmatched by BB shells just because they're farther away? Plus this would encourage BBs with dominant range (Yamato) to hunt from max range where they can shoot from with near impunity.

 

3) BB agility isn't that much of an issue so long as you WASD. I'm not sure low agility is what people are afraid of when they camp the back row. I could be wrong though. I'm actually pretty good at dodging torps in a BB, so my perspective likely isn't the same as others who aren't good at it.

 

4) No argument here. Bring on the survival mini game!

 

5) Not sure if hitting harder is the answer but I agree cruisers need help in higher tiers.

 

6) Pretty sure this is actually being added in the next update. Didn't they mention something about reward for damage received? 

 

7) High tier CVs are scary. I /really/ don't like seeing a Tier 10 CV in a match, because good crossdrops aren't something a BB can avoid with reliability. I'd rather see 5 Shimakaze on the other team than one Hak. Guess that speaks to the current state of IJN torps too though.

[mohawkdriver]

Leave radar alone.  Everything else sounds okay.

[TTK_Aegis]

Reduce repair and service cost for TX ships, I will brawl all day with my Yamato if get repair discount back.. But 300k service if sink , that sucks..

 

 

Amen. Yamato is fun as heck to get in and fight with, but sinking in her is a straight up punishment for playing the way they apparently want us to play. 

[Lillehuntrix]

OK, thanks for the penny (take one, leave one).  I don't play BBs that much, and only at lowish tiers.  I've played dds and cruisers to T7, which means the highest I've seen is T9.  So take this as a mid-tier, average-ish, (mostly) non-BB players' perspective.

 

1. Maybe/yes - I don't know about the duration change, radar is challenging enough as it is.  But I think even cruisers think the ability of radar and hydro to see through islands is a bit ridiculous.

 

2. No opinion - I've seen mixed takes on whether plunging fire is actually a thing in this game, because ranges are truncated rather than compressed, or something like that.

 

3. Go have a look at survivability rates for CAs and BBs, tiers 3-8.  You can look at two weeks to cover the current meta; you can look at all time.  You can look at NA or RU, if you want to capture the supposed brawling meta there.  In all cases, BBs are considerably ahead, at some tiers ridiculously so (15-17% difference in average survivability or the like, last time I did this exercise myself).  Now you may argue that BBs should have a natural advantage in survivability, as CVs do for obvious reasons, because BBs have more health, heals, etc.  My radical self wants to question that - if the advantages of maneuverability that CAs and DDs have really offset BB advantages, then this metric should be about equal.  But even if you accept some "natural" BB advantage here, then how much is too much? And I think it is an important metric - the best we have (along with xp) for comparing BETWEEN ship types (because of balanced MM, Win Rate is not the right stat here), and one that correlates fairly well to player enjoyment (or, "fun," as some call it).

 

So with this in mind, I have a hard time accepting that BBs as a type need any sort of buff relative to other classes, at least in mid-tiers.  T 9-10 you might have a point (look at Zao, Moskva, etc.).  Individual ships at other tiers, you might have a point.  But overall, I can't agree.

 

4. I'm not sure which pre-nerf state you speak of...  I do agree that in general IJN DDs need some help, and that they should have the best torp options of all DDs.  Some of the new lines might be fun, but it does not seem like a buff overall.

 

5. Mid-tier CAs do need some help, but I'm not sure if this is the way to go.  I would start, simply, with fewer BBs on the board - a MM limit of 4 per side.  Let us see what that does.

 

6. Yes!  Having said that I don't think BBs need buffs, they do need carrots!  It seems that the new patch will add xp for spotting, but not for "potential damage," i.e. shells fired at you, i.e. tanking or otherwise occupying everyone's attention.  If a BB who was willing to be in the thick of it knew that that would bring xp and credits (or for that matter a DD or CA kiting at range and drawing a lot of fire), that might encourage engagement rather than camping/sniping.

 

7.  Yes, I think, although I haven't played them enough to see it from the other side.

 

 

[Fedge_123]

Remove camo bonus and reduce dispersion when firing on stationary or slow moving battleships - that will get people moving!

[Lillehuntrix]

 

1) Not going to happen. WG has stated that seeing through islands is a game engine limitation, and more recently stated there are no plans for the massive overhaul needed to enable islands blocking radar/hydro.

 

2) You'd also need to reign in BB range and/or eliminate spotter planes. Would it really be fair for people who moved up and are fighting on the other side of the map to be overmatched by BB shells just because they're farther away? Plus this would encourage BBs with dominant range (Yamato) to hunt from max range where they can shoot from with near impunity.

 

3) BB agility isn't that much of an issue so long as you WASD. I'm not sure low agility is what people are afraid of when they camp the back row. I could be wrong though. I'm actually pretty good at dodging torps in a BB, so my perspective likely isn't the same as others who aren't good at it.

 

4) No argument here. Bring on the survival mini game!

 

5) Not sure if hitting harder is the answer but I agree cruisers need help in higher tiers.

 

6) Pretty sure this is actually being added in the next update. Didn't they mention something about reward for damage received? 

 

7) High tier CVs are scary. I /really/ don't like seeing a Tier 10 CV in a match, because good crossdrops aren't something a BB can avoid with reliability. I'd rather see 5 Shimakaze on the other team than one Hak. Guess that speaks to the current state of IJN torps too though.

 

On radar: TTK_Aegis, I'll take your word for this, certainly with respect to what WG has stated, but it does strike me as a bit strange.  If normal spotting can be programmed to allow ships to be concealed behind islands, how is it that that effect cannot be applied to radar?  I'm not a programmer, but once you have figured out the first (a challenge, I'm sure), the second seems trivial.

[Hyyena]

8. Nerf the AA from bbs (at high tiers), making they a easy targer for cvs (as they suppose be), make they move with cruisers. 

 

Back to basic "you need move with your team or you will die"

 

9. Buff the cruisers to take less cidadels hit so easy. 

[VTAdmiral]

In a board game called "Leviathans" which focuses on (aerial) naval combat, there are two kinds of hit dice that determine damage when one ship fires at another.

 

Red dice are used when the target ship has moved this turn. They generally have lower numbers.

 

Black dice are used when the target ship has not moved this turn. They have higher numbers on almost every side.

 

Ships that don't move (IE, engine disabled, player feels they are in a tactical position, ship is boxed in by torpedoes) are penalized by being easier to hit and taking more damage per hit.

 

Maybe WoWS can learn something from this pretty-great board game as a way to deal with camping, rather than gutting the functional armor out of ships and nerfing close range/closing battleship aggression out of the game and effectively reinforcing long range camping as the go-to playstyle.

[Naughtius_Maximus]

Rather than all of those suggestions. Every major camping issue can be addressed (very well even) by nerfing everyone's guns.

[Terrible_Turtle]

Rather than all of those suggestions. Every major camping issue can be addressed (very well even) by nerfing everyone's guns.

 

It will just prolong the duration of each match as it takes longer to sink ships.

[Naughtius_Maximus]

 

It will just prolong the duration of each match as it takes longer to sink ships.

 

For the people still sitting 17km and sniping, yes.

 

For everyone else it's more of a return to tiers 4-6.

[VTAdmiral]

 

For the people still sitting 17km and sniping, yes.

 

For everyone else it's more of a return to tiers 4-6.

 

Kongo in tier 5 has 20km range. So does Fuso in tier 6. Nagato goes to 21.

 

Your point has no point because long ranges of high tiers already exist in the tiers you want high tier to be like.

[Captain_Dilbert]

There is little doubt in my mind that one of the biggest issues that WG needs to address is the high occurance of massive strikes from main batteries, such as:

 

1) how easy it is for BBs (especially if they are 1-2 tiers higher...think Nagato vs Omaha) to delete CAs, even when angled

2) how easy it is for BB's to do 20K+ damage to broadside BBs

3) how higher tier CAs can citadel BBs when broadside

 

The basic point is that in a battle with ~8 BBs/CAs per side it is not possible to engage in battles of <15km and maintain an angle that will keep you alive.  So if I'm in my Myoko on Trap and fighting DDs that are trying to cap C...and then a BB from somewhere south of B either deletes me outright or does 20K+ damage.  So my only option is to constantly keep an island on one side to protect me...which means I'm basically camping or I sail up to A/B and over to 4/5 line and camp there to deal with the C cap.  And not only have I had this issue in a Myoko but also in both my NC and Amagi.

[Naughtius_Maximus]

 

Kongo in tier 5 has 20km range. So does Fuso in tier 6. Nagato goes to 21.

 

Your point has no point because long ranges of high tiers already exist in the tiers you want high tier to be like.

 

I mean.....you could spend the entire game outside of 17km in Kongo or Fuso.

 

Why do something so unproductive?

[10T0nHammer]

I think a good counter to camping is that ships that are moving slower than 10kts for over 10-30 seconds get a -30-50% dispersion bonus. This will make enemies shooting at these ships fire more accurate salvos at any range and any ship type found camping. BBs can hurt each other pretty well at ranges over 18km but do not have the accuracy to actually land shells. If they are going to camp, it should come with a downside. Being max range bow on shouldn't be rewarded with immortality

 

 

Sounds counter intuitive. I would suggest the opposite... although it achieves the same result. 

 

If a ship is moving slowly, incoming shells get a dispersion buff. 

 

This increases the effectiveness of ships firing at a stationary target. I honestly don't think a ship should get a debuff just because they're moving slowly. 

 

I worded it poorly but that is basically what I meant to say. Ships not moving are easier to hit because your guns get a dispersion buff

[Terrible_Turtle]

For the people still sitting 17km and sniping, yes.

 

It depends on your definition of "nerf". If you're simply talking about increased dispersion at range, you're correct. If you're talking about reduced damage, then you're incorrect. Even at brawling range, it will take longer to sink ships if you're dealing less damage than before.

 

Naughtius_Maximus, on 21 September 2016 - 09:02 AM, said:

For everyone else it's more of a return to tiers 4-6.

 

This is what I don't understand. Why do people want more of the same? If you enjoy brawling, play lower tiers. If we make high tier a brawl-fest like T4-T6, we're essentially getting reskinned versions of lower tiers ships and thus less variety in gameplay. Tier 10 isn't necessarily the quintessential tier. If you prefer the pace and play style of lower tiers, keep playing them. 

[Terrible_Turtle]

I think a good counter to camping is that ships that are moving slower than 10kts for over 10-30 seconds get a -30-50% dispersion bonus. 

 

Sounds counter intuitive. I would suggest the opposite... although it achieves the same result. 

 

If a ship is moving slowly, incoming shells get a dispersion buff. 

 

This increases the effectiveness of ships firing at a stationary target. I honestly don't think a ship should get a debuff just because they're moving slowly. 

[VTAdmiral]

 

I mean.....you could spend the entire game outside of 17km in Kongo or Fuso.

 

Why do something so unproductive?

 

I don't. I also don't in my Yamato. Your point never made sense to me as anything other than "nerf for nerf's sake" and it's a bandaid fix at best, about the same as this armor change. It won't really change anything until ships are actively punished for moving slowly or standing still.

 

Having them take more damage via increased enemy accuracy on slow/stationary targets is a good way to do this.

 

It also, gasp, promotes team play by giving you bonus damage for shooting at an enemy whose engine has been disabled by someone else (or yourself).

 

 

Sounds counter intuitive. I would suggest the opposite... although it achieves the same result. 

 

If a ship is moving slowly, incoming shells get a dispersion buff. 

 

This increases the effectiveness of ships firing at a stationary target. I honestly don't think a ship should get a debuff just because they're moving slowly. 

 

That's exactly what I and 10Ton have been saying.

 

When you shoot at a stationary ship your guns are more accurate. I think I see where you might have misunderstood 10Ton though, the wording was kinda vague.

[Captain_Dilbert]

I think a good counter to camping is that ships that are moving slower than 10kts for over 10-30 seconds get a -30-50% dispersion bonus. This will make enemies shooting at these ships fire more accurate salvos at any range and any ship type found camping. BBs can hurt each other pretty well at ranges over 18km but do not have the accuracy to actually land shells. If they are going to camp, it should come with a downside. Being max range bow on shouldn't be rewarded with immortality

 

Except that if you are a BB you should always be varying speed...you know, those elusive WASD hacks...besides the issue needs to be solved in a way that does not make it easier to kill ships, but rather helps ships survive at closer ranges (or make it less painful if they get sunk).

[VTAdmiral]

 

Except that if you are a BB you should always be varying speed...you know, those elusive WASD hacks...besides the issue needs to be solved in a way that does not make it easier to kill ships, but rather helps ships survive at closer ranges (or make it less painful if they get sunk).

 

I vary speed and course a lot and only drop below 10 knots when I hit something or a torpedo takes out my engine.

 

A better choice might be "below 1/4th engine power" which, conveniently, also gives people an aiming bonus against border-sliders.

[10T0nHammer]

 

Sounds counter intuitive. I would suggest the opposite... although it achieves the same result. 

 

If a ship is moving slowly, incoming shells get a dispersion buff. 

 

This increases the effectiveness of ships firing at a stationary target. I honestly don't think a ship should get a debuff just because they're moving slowly. 

 

I worded it poorly but that is basically what I meant to say. Ships not moving are easier to hit because your guns get a dispersion buff

 

That's exactly what I and 10Ton have been saying.

 

When you shoot at a stationary ship your guns are more accurate. I think I see where you might have misunderstood 10Ton though, the wording was kinda vague.

^

 

Haven't fully woken up yet