Jump to content


American BB Sub-Branch

US BB

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

Lert #21 Posted 18 May 2017 - 08:14 AM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,477
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostTenguBlade, on 18 May 2017 - 03:02 AM, said:

Explain to me why 4-6 battleships per match is acceptable when WG themselves said it's a population issue.

 

Because choice of battleships in the game is something different from the percentage of population playing them.

(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


Ryuukazi #22 Posted 18 May 2017 - 09:12 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 12
  • Member since:
    10-22-2013

View PostLert, on 18 May 2017 - 08:14 AM, said:

 

Because choice of battleships in the game is something different from the percentage of population playing them.

 

Yea after mm normalizes it becomes the same amount of the same class just with more diversity. The normalization is the time it takes for matches to not have all of a class be all one ship at a tier, the time required really depends, for French ships its nearly immediately. With German BBs it took longer because its the line that plays the way people want BBs to play like, but even then, after a day their stopped being games where half the team were German BBs. Now its the same amount of battleships playing as before, just slip between three trees instead of two. Who would've guessed people play what they wanted to play.

 

Funny how 4-6 a game (2 to 3 a team) is somehow unacceptable to him.



TenguBlade #23 Posted 18 May 2017 - 09:27 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,098
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

View PostLert, on 18 May 2017 - 03:14 AM, said:

Because choice of battleships in the game is something different from the percentage of population playing them.

And so clearly the solution is to introduce more battleships to draw more players to the class.  I understand there are dedicated BB players, but a lot of people play more than one class.  Remember T3-5 and T7 in the first two weeks after German BBs released.


Don't know if you have a dark sense of humor?  If you laugh at this, you do.

IJN: Yamato, Amagi, Ibuki, Mogami, Shokaku, Hiryu, Akatsuki, Shiratsuyu, Kamikaze R, Katori, MikasaKongō, Myōkō, Kirishima, Haruna, Hiei, Ashigara, Nachi, Haguro, TakaoSouthern Dragon

USN: Montana, Iowa, New Mexico, New Orleans, Pensacola, Cleveland, Langley/Bogue, Farragut

European Navies: Gnevny, Shchors, Nürnberg/Yorck, Bayern, Fiji, Blyskawica (Gift from Compassghost), Scharnhorst (First and only bought), Admiral Graf Spee


Lert #24 Posted 18 May 2017 - 09:43 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,477
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Eh, sure. You're right, I'm sure. Surely the game is doomed if more BB lines are introduced, and population in a class has nothing to do with inter-class balance and meta, but purely with how many different ships of a certain class exist within the game.

(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


Neighbor_Kid #25 Posted 18 May 2017 - 10:10 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 64
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Here... Increase player count to 20v20 or 18v18.. And put hard caps for ship classes..except in clan battle/special events and training.

Ryuukazi #26 Posted 18 May 2017 - 11:33 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 12
  • Member since:
    10-22-2013

View PostTenguBlade, on 18 May 2017 - 09:27 PM, said:

And so clearly the solution is to introduce more battleships to draw more players to the class.  I understand there are dedicated BB players, but a lot of people play more than one class.  Remember T3-5 and T7 in the first two weeks after German BBs released.

 

Funny how you invalidate your own logic, You say new lines draw new people to the class, yet German BBs is a fairly old line now, and after those two weeks? Oh look, match making back to normal. Again there's a reason German BBs were popular. What's the difference between playing a Tennessee or the Gnis? A North Dakota or the Bis? If people want to play a battleship, they will play whats available. More variety of ships benefit everyone. It means less German BBs.

DiEsmitty #27 Posted 18 May 2017 - 11:37 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 120
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012

View PostTenguBlade, on 18 May 2017 - 09:27 PM, said:

  Remember T3-5 and T7 in the first two weeks after German BBs released.

This is called Cherry picking. You could say the same thing about any new line launch. Remember Tiers 3-5 when they introduced the British cruisers, or French or whatever. Any new line will draw people to play that new line, not necessarily an influx of brand new players. Once people have tried out the line it will generally stabilize.


Edited by DiEsmitty, 19 May 2017 - 02:31 AM.

Destroyers are like spiders as soon as you see one you instantly want to kill it and if you don't know where it went you never go back in that room.

El_Judarino #28 Posted 18 May 2017 - 11:53 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,691
  • Member since:
    04-10-2015

View PostRyuukazi, on 17 May 2017 - 10:20 AM, said:


I don't know about you all, but I really hope they add a US BB sub-branch that starts at tier 5 and ends at 8 that starts with Nevada (she would be too much of a seal clubber a 5 unless heavily made weaker, maybe only up to the 30s upgrades only) , then Pennsylvania, then Tennessee then North Dakota class, their "thing" can be better AA or faster guns, or better armor, or secondaries, I honestly don't care I just want these ships! Especially the badass USS Nevada, such a ship needs to be in the game! I don't expect to see these ships anytime soon, just please not as premiums...... 

 

 

Don't forget Florida or Delaware at tier 4!

 

Otherwise I'm completely in favor of your suggestion (I'm in favor of any plan that gets my paws on Nevada).



Lord_Magus #29 Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:20 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,553
  • Member since:
    08-18-2016

View PostTenguBlade, on 17 May 2017 - 11:58 PM, said:

The problem isn't that it won't bring new players in.  The problem is there's already too many battleships in most matches.  WG balanced this game around teams being composed primarily of cruisers, with DDs taking up the mantle if necessary, BBs always being in the severe minority,

and CVs being in absolute minority.

 

Then the MM needs to be adjusted to actually generate those kinds of teams.

TenguBlade #30 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:25 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,098
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015
Funny, nobody was so keen to defend introducing new BBs when the VMF were the next planned line...despite it having as many active designs as a second American battleship line...:hmm:

Edited by TenguBlade, 19 May 2017 - 07:27 AM.

Don't know if you have a dark sense of humor?  If you laugh at this, you do.

IJN: Yamato, Amagi, Ibuki, Mogami, Shokaku, Hiryu, Akatsuki, Shiratsuyu, Kamikaze R, Katori, MikasaKongō, Myōkō, Kirishima, Haruna, Hiei, Ashigara, Nachi, Haguro, TakaoSouthern Dragon

USN: Montana, Iowa, New Mexico, New Orleans, Pensacola, Cleveland, Langley/Bogue, Farragut

European Navies: Gnevny, Shchors, Nürnberg/Yorck, Bayern, Fiji, Blyskawica (Gift from Compassghost), Scharnhorst (First and only bought), Admiral Graf Spee


Ryuukazi #31 Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:39 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 12
  • Member since:
    10-22-2013

View PostTenguBlade, on 19 May 2017 - 07:25 AM, said:

Funny, nobody was so keen to defend introducing new BBs when the VMF were the next planned line...despite it having as many active designs as a second American battleship line...:hmm:

 

What are you even talking about? I'm fine with Russian BBs eventually getting in, real ships or not, "it having as many active designs as a second American battleship line..." not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, because I can assure you all the ships I listed served in the Navy. What does that have to do with this?

Lord_Magus #32 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:08 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,553
  • Member since:
    08-18-2016

View PostTenguBlade, on 19 May 2017 - 02:25 AM, said:

Funny, nobody was so keen to defend introducing new BBs when the VMF were the next planned line...despite it having as many active designs as a second American battleship line...:hmm:

 

If people prefer BBs that's what they'll play. Whether or not more BB lines get introduced won't change that. What'll change it are buffs to other classes, and setting the MM to limit the number of each type of ship per type.

 

But in the meantime, if we're going to have 6 BBs per team in some battles I prefer having more variety among those 6 BBs.



TenguBlade #33 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:23 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,098
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

View PostLord_Magus, on 19 May 2017 - 06:08 AM, said:

If people prefer BBs that's what they'll play. Whether or not more BB lines get introduced won't change that. What'll change it are buffs to other classes, and setting the MM to limit the number of each type of ship per type.

 

But in the meantime, if we're going to have 6 BBs per team in some battles I prefer having more variety among those 6 BBs.

Variety?  Don't delude yourself.  They'll play the exact same until at least T9 when WG will have to reach for Tillman or other paper designs in order to extend the line to T10 if they bother doing so.  21-knot top speed, good main battery, awful secondaries, and AA that's just enough to prevent people from whining that it needs a buff.  The differences in main armament will be literally it, if anything, besides nuances in AA and secondary battery composition.


Edited by TenguBlade, 19 May 2017 - 07:23 PM.

Don't know if you have a dark sense of humor?  If you laugh at this, you do.

IJN: Yamato, Amagi, Ibuki, Mogami, Shokaku, Hiryu, Akatsuki, Shiratsuyu, Kamikaze R, Katori, MikasaKongō, Myōkō, Kirishima, Haruna, Hiei, Ashigara, Nachi, Haguro, TakaoSouthern Dragon

USN: Montana, Iowa, New Mexico, New Orleans, Pensacola, Cleveland, Langley/Bogue, Farragut

European Navies: Gnevny, Shchors, Nürnberg/Yorck, Bayern, Fiji, Blyskawica (Gift from Compassghost), Scharnhorst (First and only bought), Admiral Graf Spee


Ryuukazi #34 Posted 19 May 2017 - 10:28 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 12
  • Member since:
    10-22-2013

View PostTenguBlade, on 19 May 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

Variety?  Don't delude yourself.  They'll play the exact same until at least T9 when WG will have to reach for Tillman or other paper designs in order to extend the line to T10 if they bother doing so.  21-knot top speed, good main battery, awful secondaries, and AA that's just enough to prevent people from whining that it needs a buff.  The differences in main armament will be literally it, if anything, besides nuances in AA and secondary battery composition.

 

So? Variety as in ships to choose from, not every ship line or ship needs some short of gimmick which I'm sure they would put in anyways. Whether or not they will be similar is not a reason to never put them in the game. I said from the beginning, I just want them to be in the game.

 

Btw, its a sub branch not a full branch.


Edited by Ryuukazi, 19 May 2017 - 10:31 PM.


TenguBlade #35 Posted 20 May 2017 - 03:16 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,098
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

View PostRyuukazi, on 19 May 2017 - 05:28 PM, said:

Btw, its a sub branch not a full branch.

Why bother with a sub-branch when there are more than enough of them to make a full branch until T8?  Even then, Tillman designs could fit at T10 and the 1920 South Dakota might have a place at T9.

 

I should make it clear that I'm not opposed to the idea of more American battleships.  I think now, or for a while yet, is a very poor time to introduce them if the game's meta is going to remain healthy.


Edited by TenguBlade, 20 May 2017 - 03:20 AM.

Don't know if you have a dark sense of humor?  If you laugh at this, you do.

IJN: Yamato, Amagi, Ibuki, Mogami, Shokaku, Hiryu, Akatsuki, Shiratsuyu, Kamikaze R, Katori, MikasaKongō, Myōkō, Kirishima, Haruna, Hiei, Ashigara, Nachi, Haguro, TakaoSouthern Dragon

USN: Montana, Iowa, New Mexico, New Orleans, Pensacola, Cleveland, Langley/Bogue, Farragut

European Navies: Gnevny, Shchors, Nürnberg/Yorck, Bayern, Fiji, Blyskawica (Gift from Compassghost), Scharnhorst (First and only bought), Admiral Graf Spee


Ryuukazi #36 Posted 20 May 2017 - 03:52 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 12
  • Member since:
    10-22-2013

View PostTenguBlade, on 20 May 2017 - 03:16 AM, said:

Why bother with a sub-branch when there are more than enough of them to make a full branch until T8?  Even then, Tillman designs could fit at T10 and the 1920 South Dakota might have a place at T9.

 

I should make it clear that I'm not opposed to the idea of more American battleships.  I think now, or for a while yet, is a very poor time to introduce them if the game's meta is going to remain healthy.

 

Were did I say introduce them immediately? I said in the last sentence in the original post "I don't expect to see these ships anytime soon, just please not as premiums......"





Also tagged with US BB

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users