Storm

Internet Boats - SEA edition

191 posts in this topic

I'm yet to conclude whether the issues people raise in here about boots are the sort that can be balanced out or are simply intrinsic to the game design... ie will be a love em or leave em issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, there are a number of factors that concern me about the game.

First is the manual torp drop from CV's. OK; it has a high-ish skill ceiling, but it is brokenly OP when done right.

My other complaint is the need by the developers to make different nations' ships different for the sake of the game. Why do Jap DD's have to have such slow gun traverse? Because they get awesome torp range. So to differentiate the US DD's, we'll give them excellent gun traverse and meh torp range.

I just think that the changes for the sake of balance are a little bit extreme. I think more effort could have been made in more subtle ways to differentiate the different nations ships. I understand the need to make something different( with its own playstyle ), less, all nations are the same but just look different but i think again; that these differences could have been a bit more subtle. For example give US DD's more HP to compensate for the reduced torp range rather than completely gimp the Jap DD's gun handling.

It's only beta; but it seems that these issues are being re-implemented with each patch rather than being addressed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got to the Mahan (tier 7) on the US DD tree. Great guns, but detection happens at about 8.4 km from memory. Gun range is 12ish kms, you CANNOT shoot at max range without being detected. Torps have a range of 4.5km but do have speed. Unless the enemy CA or BB is a complete potato, torp runs are usually fatal. I sold it and focused on the Jap DD tree for now,

of which I have the Hatsuhara (tier 7). You finally get workable guns, 9.4km range and on the upgrade hull you have 2 twin turrets. The primary weapon is still the torpedo, 10 km range @ low 60s knots. The thing with this is that detection on the Hatsu is 6.4 km, so you can close and launch at CPA (for me, about 6.6km if I wanna stay invisibru) a double spread and disengage without being lit, continue to track the enemy and repeat in just over a minute.

However, a single plane will completely stuff this up, they will spot you at about 3km if you have AA turned off, and if you can't turn out of their view range you end up getting shepherded away from your targets, I usually survive this but if I can't close to torp range I am combat ineffective.

My Minekaze (42k dpg and 1254 av XP) has double the average damage of my Hatsuhara, (21k dpg and 1130 av XP) which I can put down to better players at higher tiers, more Cruisers and the effect of CVs.

 

Ultimately, US DDs after the Nicholas are an exercise in frustration, I will return to the line later but as it is now, they are little more than under gunned low HP cruisers. Japanese DDs are great if you can get through undetected, you may hit a potato Cruiser but I generally target BBs or may do a really close range torp run on an undefended CV, once I am lit I start spamming HE as well.

 

Win rate - lol, if you want win rate, play Cruisers in a division. Otherwise, enjoy the ride of the asia server amusement park.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they need to do more work with the HE mechanic, fires have been an issue with the game since alpha, and have only got worse in the recent patches. The US Cruiser DPM spam means that coming within cruiser range is an invitation to burn. Its partly a repair crew problem, not splitting repairs between module damage, flooding and fire is causing a lot of grief for BB players as their long repair cooldowns mean that they often have to just let fires burn because the next few salvoes will just start a fire again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm yet to conclude whether the issues people raise in here about boots are the sort that can be balanced out or are simply intrinsic to the game design... ie will be a love em or leave em issue.

Well, the pace of the game is definitely something you have to learn to not mind, and more depth can always be added (though we are talking about WG, I don't have high hopes), most of the issues are just balance, but the main issue is, how are you supposed to balance carriers without ruining it for those who play it and those who don't? They are an RTS mechanic shoehorned into a third-person shooter, are awfully boring when the planes are just flying across the map or rearming (which is the what most carrier gameplay consists of), but are then absurdly powerful for those who understand how to use manual drop.

Their inclusions into the game seems to just be "well carriers were really important during WWII, so therefore they should be in the game", which seems ok until you think about how they just about made every other type of ship redundant in naval combat, they're basically impossible to balance, and this is all compounded by the way the load outs and mm work currently, playing a low tier ship? Too bad for you, no AA because "historical", enemy carrier is a tier 8 FREEDOM carrier up against a friendly tier 6 Japanese carrier? GG enemy gets aerial supremacy without having to try. They simply aren't good for the game, I would have thought WG would learn from arty, but clearly not, except this time there's a huge reward for having half a brain to go with your minimum risk, instead of hoping you get a good RNG roll (I will admit that the skill floor/ceiling for carriers is much better than arty in terms of punishing bads and rewarding skill, however being able to quite literally decide you're going to end someone while being on the other side of the map is very obviously broken).

/Rant

Also I'm not really understanding why everyone thinks cruisers are best for winning, they aren't the medium tanks of boats, for the most part they have a low skill ceiling (especially true for US cruisers, low tiers excepted) because AP is useless most of the time (it's only good when cruisers are sailing with their broadside exposed), and their survivability is trash, in comparison with battleships it's much harder to project influence on how the battle is progressing as they aren't stealthy/mobile enough to safely cap and have to rely on battleships to push, otherwise they just die really quickly, not to mention battleships have much more damage output potential, on top of their huge HP/armour advantage (even with fire it takes ages to kill a battleship, the same is not true for when the battleship can into aiming with AP).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion that things have to be both historically accurate (ish) and balanced is always going to limit how games are developed. I sense that it has hamstrung a number of games in this genre to an extent the pure fantasy games don't have to deal with. The WT community seems to favour historic accuracy as an idea and that has resulted in a fairly poorly balanced game. I think WG actually do a reasonable job (when they get around to it) with balancing WoT. It's how they pad out content that can be rather underwhelming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The carrier question is a bit more annoying than arty. They were so vital and iconic to the war in the Pacific that you can't really make a WWII based naval warfare game without them.

 

That said, they are still trying to balance them more. Based on some anecdotes, they used to be more fun with balanced loadouts, but those appear to have mostly vanished until you get to higher tiers so that could use work. The other thing that's not fun is torpedo bombers from the other side. I would say leave them baseline as effective as they are now, but make them extra susceptible to whatever AA fire is around and break up their launch spread if the target focus fires them. Thus for the carrier it becomes a bigger risk for the reward rather than lol you're dead and I only lost 1 plane.

Oh and MM giving one side a clear carrier advantage is much worse than one side getting an arty advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and MM giving one side a clear carrier advantage is much worse than one side getting an arty advantage.

Side note regarding WG's MM... have such issues been prevalent enough over there to get WG's attention on the matter?

I gave up making note of the MM fk ups yesterday. Things like 4 extra Xs shouldn't happen. Even 1 extra could be fixed by just making one dude wait a bit longer. Naturally nothing is 'easy' but you'd think they could at least attempt to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MM has been fucked as long as I've been playing either game. Seems in their haste to put together matches quickly and cheaply (in terms on computing needed on their end) everything ends up unbalanced a significant amount of the time. No WG, 20% variability in MM weight is not an acceptable number especially when there are easy and cheap ways to prevent that.

 

For CVs, making dive bombers better and torp planes worse would also be good. Dive bombers seem to be there as scouts and fighter distractions most of the time for all the good they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it when someone drops torps 300m away from my broadside from a squad of planes.

Makes the game so fun. 

I can freely admit that i cannot into tactical awareness and that it was all my fault and i was punished for my bad play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baddy. I got focused last night in my Myogi, so much hate. Something like 10 torp drops, several of them simultaneous.

Fwarken carriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, AA seems to be quite shit on my T5s... its no fun chasing down the last 2 carriers only to have 4 torp squads come and ruin my fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I survived it somehow. Apparently took more than 120% of my HP in damage though. The low/mid tier BBs are very lacking in AA, but at least the torp drops dont have the same level of stupidity as the high tier ones (sooo many torps).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's up with your screenshot looking off-center? Did terrible MM break the game even harder?

Wait... no, surely he...

 

It appears nutkase has forgotten how the prt scrn button works and actually took a pic of his screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My laziness is telling.

Lot less effort with taking a pic from my phone and posting then a screenshot, playing on such a large monitor has its downfalls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I survived it somehow. Apparently took more than 120% of my HP in damage though. The low/mid tier BBs are very lacking in AA, but at least the torp drops dont have the same level of stupidity as the high tier ones (sooo many torps).

How does one lose 120% of their HP? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does one lose 120% of their HP? 

Battleships and tier 9/10 cruisers can use an ability which restores some of your health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa!

You had a fucking game!

Who doesn't love the Murmansk. Truly a good premium ship. The guns are good, the torps are useful and the spotter plane with it's faster reload makes long range support so viable.

Very nice game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how long the "But it's still beta!" excuse is going to hold up. Have seen this excuse in pretty much every thread on the main forums where somebody has highlighted an actual problem, some of which are still present from closed beta.

 

Suffice to say, if you are accepting money for in game transactions that will not be returned upon "full release" you already have gone into full release. Calling it beta is just a cop out. Of course I expect the same problems to keep happening even if they ever do a full release unless they decide on the perpetual beta option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still find it weird people paid for early access to an unseen game. Or was that AW?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.