World of Warships: just had a dev team that did everything wrong

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > World of Warships: just had a dev team that did everything wrong

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Carriers are pretty fun, it takes some time to get used to them, though.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2015 02:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:18

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Prav posted:

Now to be fair that's as fast as the Langley can go.

One you get the hang of it, langleys are not hard to kill with torp bombers. The independence is a lot harder though when they know you're coming.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2015 13:28

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

NTRabbit posted:

The Tatsuta cruiser is so much better than the Wakatake destroyer at every single thing it's not even funny, all it lacks is a smokescreen.

Had a 3k XP game in a wakatake. Suck it down.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2015 20:40

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:

The only upgrades I bother with are the ones that prevent my magazine from exploding 1/5th of the time. The other ones, I don't really care about because I'm a filthy casual. If you're in a ship with guns and you're going to get pounded, you might as well make yourself more durable.

Carriers need some work, balance wise. In my first carrier, I felt horribly outclassed when going against higher ships. Mostly because the carriers had much better fighters, and the ships had much better AAA. I bleed planes like crazy in those games.

Unlike other ships, better fighters on a better carrier will just annihilate langley fighters. The real problem with the langley is its really bad slowness which means it can't dodge torps.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2015 04:24

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Japanese Destroyers are the way to go against battleships. Their torps are a lot better and the guns are worthless so just be bold and be patient. I've had no problem sinking battleships and getting 2.5kxp games with my isokaze.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2015 13:12

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

NTRabbit posted:

It was a destroyer that close, not a cruiser, presumably with short range torpedoes.

It's the main batteries on battleships that annihilate cruisers incredibly fast, and at much longer ranges.

American destroyers can still be slightly out of range of most BB secondaries to fire their torps.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2015 13:46

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

BadLlama posted:

The biggest thing against Destroyers in my opinion is they really are not that much faster than the majority of other ships.

I think it'd be cool if DDs had a 30s cool down nitro boost or something, so they can actually dodge shots.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2015 21:37

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

AfroSquirrel posted:

Limit BB gun depression so that a destroyer can just come up alongside a BB and plink at it until they brush up against each other and suddenly explode

Secondaries exist though.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2015 21:40

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Gamesguy posted:

Yeah this doesn't work at all at the higher tiers. A few games ago I took on four cruisers at medium-long range in my Amagi and won.

The only time I ever survived against a battleship in my Cleveland is when they're using the Nagato which has serious accuracy deficiencies. I can put DPS out there but a battleship will still kill me waaay before I do much to him if he's aiming.

Destroyers have a better chance but their smoke isn't really good unless a battleship closes and it doesn't take much to kill one.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2015 03:02

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

JuffoWup posted:

Not exactly the same, but they do top out at 203mm. The best part is you start this experience at tier 6. The cleveland still hangs out with 152s. Not only that, but the aoba also has a quad tube on each side fitted with 10km range torps.

Yeah all the heavy cruisers in this game pack 8" guns though the Mogami has an option for 5x3 6" guns too.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2015 20:37

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Fart Car '97 posted:

Yeah the cleveland only has 152s.

12 of them.

Firing at 7.5(8.2?) rpm.

The Cleveland's firepower is really good though the 8" guns become more necessary if you want to dent BBs.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2015 22:11

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

SuperSix posted:

The only thing you're doing wrong is taking on battleships with a cruiser.

Unless you're hitting your torps you shouldn't be fighting them until you get the Cleveland and only if you have backup. 1v1 is a death sentence.

Honestly the Japanese cruiser torps aren't very good against battleships unless you're at a huge advantage somehow. The japanese heavy cruisers kinda suck.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2015 01:22

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:

It's really easy to play the handful of matches required to get up the early tiers. I can't imagine it'll be harder than the couple of hours it takes to do it in World of Tanks.

Right now, it only takes a handful of decent games to clear the early ships so

The best gameplay in World of Tanks is tier 2.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2015 12:52

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Also, the problem i've experienced with 8" guns is that they still have a really wide spread of damage and the lows are a lot rougher because you don't have the Cleveland's quick fire to even things out.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2015 13:11

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

James Garfield posted:

Because of the way torpedo detection works, longer range is normally a disadvantage. Torpedoes show up far enough away that you'll never hit anyone competent at range. Otherwise, the only thing range does is make your torpedoes proportionally easier to spot. If you launch torpedoes from 5 km, torpedoes with a 20 km range will be spotted the instant they leave your ship, but 5 km torpedoes will only show up when they're more than halfway through. None of the torpedoes in game are fast enough to make up for that disadvantage.
That said, 500 meters isn't enough range to make much difference. I'd ignore the range difference completely, and choose based on the other attributes.

Also the problem with 20km range torpedoes is that the spread is wider and at that range there will inevitably be a course/speed change that makes you miss.

Destroyers aren't really good at the high tiers for this reason. It's all about the battleships and the occasional cruiser.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2015 00:00

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Cardiac posted:

This thread is kinda interesting since I see people both from WoT and WG.
So far the game is enjoyable, probably since it is beta and no one really gives a poo poo. The game is undoubtedly less complex than WoT (3 dimensions trumphs 2), but it is nice to have a game with a somewhat slower pace.

Once it goes live things are going to get bad I fear and once the novelty wears off.
Aiming is a pretty simple mechanic if one have played arty in WoT.
Torpedoes feels too destructive, there are too many of them and the smoke screen mechanic is just waiting to be abused if it isn't already.
People are already camping, and it sometimes feel more like playing hide and seek behind large boulders. Which is what also makes the torpedoes so bad, since there is just not time to dodge in tight quarters. I don't feel like this is the game if you want a reenactment of Warspite in Narvik vs 7 German destroyers, cause that would be one dead BB.
Carriers are utterly boring, dive bombers are pretty underwhelming, torpedo bombers are kinda slow and AA in tier5 just rips the airplanes apart.
Finally, submarines in this game would have broken it.

Torpedoes are a lot weaker in the higher tiers. They, like destroyers, peak at T4-5 then they decline quickly. The Clemson is easily the best DD in the game simply because of its tier placement.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2015 17:38

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Vengarr posted:

Right now battleships are just way too strong. It's not that the DDs or cruisers are bad, its just that both of them pale to battleships. They have no real weaknesses. They're agile enough to dodge torpedoes at long and medium range, can one-shot DDs and Cruisers at medium-short range, can open fire well before anyone else, and have enough AA guns to make carrier runs treacherous. That's if you're all by yourself. If you have a cruiser with you? Haha, you're invincible to air strikes because cruisers tier 6 and up have a special ability that utterly fucks up bombers. They shotgun their bombs and torpedoes all over the place while it's active, they can't hit anything. All this while simultaneously picking off any DDs making a suicide run at you.

I'm expecting some stealth-nerfs to change this. Reduced AA effectiveness, faster torpedoes, greater DD concealment, stuff like that.

Yeah, the problem with Tier 6+ is that while some of the cruisers are pretty good, the optimal team layout is probably 12 battleships.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2015 00:10

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

xthetenth posted:

Yeah, it's not going to win a DPM race against a light cruiser but it's got good guns for laying down hurt at longer range. Also you can point your hull directly at the enemy to shield your vitals with your nose and then turn to expose your turrets when it's firing time, which is nice.

I do agree but I kinda think the 8" guns should have a bit more DPM parity to the 6" guns, mostly to help the hapless Aoba and the heavy cruisers because the Cleveland is really really good.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2015 04:14

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Perestroika posted:

I wouldn't say they're outright inferior, but they do have a different focus. Unlike most US cruisers, almost all japanese cruisers have a healthy complement of torpedoes, but in return they have somewhat less powerful main guns and AA capabilities. So basically the US cruisers are more rounded, but the japanese ones have some extra bite against battleships and inattentive cruisers.

Yes to the AA capabilities but no to the extra guns. US Cruisers generally have better firepower and better protection than Japanese cruisers. The Japanese cruisers are almost all citadel.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2015 23:23

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Zotix posted:

Do you think a game like war thunder that should have realistic modeling for the ship's as opposed to a hp model like warships will have more interesting gameplay?

Not really. To me it'd just end up being more arbitrary and random.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2015 02:28

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Ghost of Mussolini posted:

I have yet to play in a carrier, but I think that the issue is that carriers are just attacking piecemeal and not communicating with anyone. Again bringing up NF, when you would get a group of friends going or if you took part in a coordinated team/clan fight, you could agree with other carriers to all attack the same part of the enemy battle line together. If you managed to keep the enemy airstrike away, and yours went in, you'd have their battle line sailing all over the place to dodge your sides strike, while your BBs are all still sailing in line delivering their blockshots. Even if you got one enemy BB to pull out of the line, you've managed a large advantage for the time that it takes that ship to circle around and catch up to the line.

Unlike real life, carriers in these type of games do not deliver massive sorties from 100km away and wreck the entire enemy fleet without anyone ever seeing each other. In this gameplay, carriers behave like people thought they would in the 1920s, i.e. disrupting the cohesion of the enemy force, but the actual point of conflict was still going to be decided by battleships.

Also yes, bring in more crew for the ship. In Navyfield, as people are talking about, you'd have a crew member per "position", so you'd have the captain, then a gunner per turret, AA gunners for your secondaries, a comms officer, a repair team, a doctor, pilots, etc. I think WoWS would have enough of a playerbase that it wouldn't fall into a pay2win deathspiral of falling revenue like NF.

The problem with NF's crew system is that you quite literally had to pre-plan your crew from day 1 to have a decent one ready for when you get out of the cruisers.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2015 11:04

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

There's really no way to aim at anything in particular on a ship other than center mass outside secondary range, and making cruiser guns worthless against armored ships would basically make cruisers super-boring and make World of Battleships at the higher tiers even worse. Destroyer torp range scaling isn't that useful because 10km+ shots are such a crapshoot with torps and will almost never hit.

Most people's suggestions seem to be geared toward making the game more World of Battleships than it already is.

I do agree that the game doesn't have quite enough to it but I don't know if people really think through what their suggestions mean. A cruiser in a 'support' role literally does nothing but sit right beside a battleship to jack up the AA quotient and one-shot approaching DDs, not that battleships don't also one-shot DDs. The only good thing DDs do in high tiers is pop smoke.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2015 04:18

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

General Battuta posted:

I got my first night in with battleships. Battleships seem satisfying but pretty dull because their position game is so limited.

Torpedo-armed cruisers are probably the most general fun I've had with the game, since you get a wide range of movement and attack options and don't instantly explode unless a battleship sees you. I'm not convinced the game is actually getting more fun as the tier level increases.

It really doesn't. Honestly the game is probably best balanced at tier 4-5 and then it goes to hell because the gunnery gand AA get so much better overall. It's kind of like how WoT becomes a super alpha strike game at the high tiers.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2015 04:28

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Prav posted:

DDs are so samey that after some upgrades your ship doesn't even look any different.

The thing about DDs is that they peak at t4-5 because the cruisers and battleships aren't quite so good.

BBs are still the best ships in the game but not the most fun.

# ¿ Apr 8, 2015 12:52

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

The Langley fighters are awful, but the Langley is in a tier where ship AA is awful so you can take your time setting up your runs.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2015 16:45

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

drat, coming from steel ocean these ships feel sluggish as gently caress.

# ¿ Jul 28, 2016 01:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:18

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Latin Pheonix posted:

Yeah, that said though, the Pacific theatre may have proved the idea of suppressing a navy by air power. On the other hand, maybe the idea was unworkable with North Atlantic weather, or maybe the Luftwaffe didn't have the training/technology/resources to combat the Royal Navy. we'll never know, however, because that plan went out of the window once the Luftwaffe's objective shifted from destroying RAF bases to psychological warfare (which had the opposite effect).

I don't think the Nazi's plans for invading the UK were realistic, and they almost certainly would have failed, but my point is that I can sort of understand the mentality behind not trying to match the Royal Navy but rather trying to neutralise it enough for an invasion to succeed. Having a small but powerful group of surface commerce raiders ready to launch the moment an opening was spotted, even as a threat alone, would play into that mentality.

Neither navy was 'suppressed by air power' in the Pacific War in any meaningful sense. Both were able to operate under opposing air umbrellas without catastrophic losses from said aircraft.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2016 01:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > World of Warships: just had a dev team that did everything wrong