Jump to content


Photo

0.4.1 Introducing Ranked Battles


74 replies to this topic

#61 TonyE

TonyE

    I/Kitsap Militia

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,044 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway
  • Interests:Them grate steal beest! and, there history.

Posted 15 October 2015 - 1311 PM

Any chance or possibility that they (the developers) would ever consider including nation fleet battles, so each team consisting of ships from only a single navy tree rather than only mix of all? 


  • 0

#62 Stefan Fredriksson

Stefan Fredriksson

    Goldmember

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 15 October 2015 - 1501 PM

Was tried in Wot. Failed. Disappeared. But I like the idea.

Perhaps more doable in Wows?
  • 0

#63 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,301 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 15 October 2015 - 1536 PM

Doubt it would be any better. The game isn't balanced for nation vs nation battles. 


  • 0

#64 TonyE

TonyE

    I/Kitsap Militia

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,044 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway
  • Interests:Them grate steal beest! and, there history.

Posted 15 October 2015 - 1654 PM

Never understood why it failed in WoT, i did play a number of these battles and found them to be more fun than the ordinary ones, six TOGs on the same side, damn that was a fun battle!

 

It might not be better, but it would be nice to try something else than the museum ship/tank collection parade with one of each that battles usually are.


  • 0

#65 Stefan Fredriksson

Stefan Fredriksson

    Goldmember

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 16 October 2015 - 0107 AM

Skywalkre can elaborate. But placing US tanks with vision range against RU without, could be one-sided.
Would like to see the official reason for closing it down though.
  • 0

#66 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 16 October 2015 - 0402 AM

In WoWs it would be placing fast but fragile, high Alpha, vs. slower and protected gunfighters. Last tiem we tried it in historical battles (doing the 1st night battle off Guadalcanal), US won every time as the assorted Bensons, Mahans and Fletchers just murdered Kageros and Fubukis thanks to turret rotation speed and then it was just question of surrounding and spamming the Kongos.


  • 0

#67 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,189 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 16 October 2015 - 0451 AM

BTW, are there any decision about putting USN CL separate branch in game? True that perhaps only USN and RN could have a separate CL branch, but driving a Worcester could be fun.


  • 0

#68 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 16 October 2015 - 0631 AM

Well, Cleveland is kinda misplaced and there was buzzs about moving that repeatedly, last on a RU stream around Gamescom..

 

I guess that with unnerfed AA it could easily survive as VIII. Then you get Brooklyn to balance out Myoko as VII, you need something in between Cleveland and Worcester (Fargo?) and replacement at Tier VI.

 

Or arrange it in any other way, but yes, actually Britain has more chance of getting to tier X in CL than in CA... 


  • 0

#69 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,442 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 16 October 2015 - 1203 PM

Counting paper designs there should be plenty of CLs for the taking, but for some nations you will have to go until the 50s. Cleveland and Portland should be switched around as they stand.


  • 0

#70 a77

a77

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 637 posts

Posted 20 August 2016 - 0805 AM

Any chance or possibility that they (the developers) would ever consider including nation fleet battles, so each team consisting of ships from only a single navy tree rather than only mix of all? 

 

They did in World of Tanks, a Stalingrad scenario, it turned out that Russian tanks was so superior to German tanks so they scraped it....it is much easier to hide the lack of balance if you mix team.....


  • 0

#71 Stefan Fredriksson

Stefan Fredriksson

    Goldmember

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 20 August 2016 - 1610 PM

Yep. Hellcats vs KV-1S' on open map. Balanced? Hell yea.
  • 0

#72 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,896 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 21 August 2016 - 1404 PM

Generally IIRC statistically TEAM AMERICA! dominated almost any non-city map.


Edited by bojan, 21 August 2016 - 1405 PM.

  • 0

#73 FlyingCanOpener

FlyingCanOpener

    Kakistocrat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,903 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Iberia, LA USA
  • Interests:Geomatics // Naval History // Soccer // Teaching

Posted 21 August 2016 - 1428 PM

I seem to remember the Germans did exceptionally well at Tier 10 mainly due to Waffentraeger E-100s being en masse in those battles.


  • 0

#74 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,896 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 21 August 2016 - 1920 PM

They were big targets w/o camo rating however, so if opponents had competent spotters things ended bad for them quickly...


Edited by bojan, 21 August 2016 - 1921 PM.

  • 0

#75 FlyingCanOpener

FlyingCanOpener

    Kakistocrat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,903 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Iberia, LA USA
  • Interests:Geomatics // Naval History // Soccer // Teaching

Posted 21 August 2016 - 2147 PM

True, but I remember in NA they did well because there would be so many in the queue that you'd end up with 6-7 of them slinging 320+ APCR with E-100s and a token E-50M. I steered far clear of those battles.

 

The issue WoWS has that by the end of the war the US was so far ahead of everyone in terms of design that at high tiers you're stuck buffing everyone to ludicrous levels or handwaving some napkin designs into relevance. The Soviets weren't a blue-water fleet, the Germans kinda stopped at Plan Z, the Japanese peaked around 1943-44, the Royal Navy stopped at Vanguard for BB's, and the French/Italians ditched follow-up BB designs for various reasons.

 

I remember when I played the Japanese carriers matched up against the Essex was essentially overbuffed to the point it had no resemblance to reality. Of course, the Essex had gimped air group setups that had no resemblance to reality either. Still never understood why you had SBD's with Hellcats when the SB2C would have made more sense. *sigh*

 

Still have over 15k gold and 6 months of premium for the game I haven't touched.


  • 0



Reply to this topic



  


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users