Jump to content


Hard cap BB's to two or three per match and increase CA credit earning?


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

Rekkoff #1 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:24 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 188
  • Member since:
    12-13-2012
 So as an idea to try and help out the game. Maybe im off my rocker, but friends and I have been thinking. Hard cap BB's to two or three and then increase how much you make while playing CA's and CL's? Maybe it will promote playing more CA's?

The_first_harbinger #2 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:45 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,267
  • Member since:
    10-28-2015

I personally thinks that hard capping BB numbers to a low level will be pretty unfair...especially for cruisers of different nations, also for IJN destroyers.

 

For example, USN heavy cruisers would benefit a lot, putting their fat heavy shells to their optimal environment. Soviet cruisers, especially Chapayev, Kutuzov, Schors will suffer, forcing them to close the distance against stealthier targets, taking risk with their sub-par survivability and maneuverability, while their 152mm guns cannot out dpm their competition consistently, and setting fires have less impact against cruisers. IJN cruisers will fair just fine IMO, just have to play more stealthily and carefully, and KM cruisers...will...just...do their thing...

 

If BB numbers are hard capped there would be no point in playing IJN dds...


"May the Meteorblitzkrieg begin!"
Battleship Cult Cardinal

Ships that deserves Admirals' love series

Latest addition: Algérie

 


RipNuN2 #3 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:54 PM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,909
  • Member since:
    09-30-2014
Nah, MM already struggles with the CV MM caps. More restrictions will only exacerbate it.

EmperorMaxwell #4 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:54 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Alpha Tester

  • 2,366
  • Member since:
    12-10-2013
Why? BBs are the easiest class to farm damage off of. The more BBs, the more damage there is to earn. More damage means more XP/Credits to earn.

Spyde #5 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:00 PM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,976
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

There is nothing wrong with Cruisers, and we really need no buffs or MM changes to get them played more.

 

 

 


[-K-] Kraken

T10  Des Moines, Zao, Moskva, Hindenburg, Minotaur, Gearing, Shimakaze, Khabarovsk, Grozovoi  , Z52, Montana, Yamato, Grober Kurfurst   T9: Saint-Louis

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

 


RipNuN2 #6 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:01 PM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,909
  • Member since:
    09-30-2014

View PostEmperorMaxwell, on 19 May 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

Why? BBs are the easiest class to farm damage off of. The more BBs, the more damage there is to earn. More damage means more XP/Credits to earn.

 

XP/credits are based off of the % of the ship damaged, so half the health of a BB is worth the same as half the health of a DD. They are helpful though for missions where you need to do a certain amount of damage due to their high HP pool.

Kevs02Accord #7 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:11 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 169
  • Member since:
    07-03-2013
There reason there are too many bbs is because their natural counter, the CV, has been directly / indirectly nerfed into the ground. If there were more CVs you would see less bbs.

EmperorMaxwell #8 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:12 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Alpha Tester

  • 2,366
  • Member since:
    12-10-2013

View PostRipNuN2, on 19 May 2017 - 09:01 AM, said:

 

XP/credits are based off of the % of the ship damaged, so half the health of a BB is worth the same as half the health of a DD. They are helpful though for missions where you need to do a certain amount of damage due to their high HP pool.

 

Yes, however a DD is far harder to spot and hit than a BB is. Plus you're discarding potential damage as well. Not only do BBs offer the largest amount of potential damage per salvo, but they are also the most inaccurate.

 

Also Fire damage differs between ship classes so 1 fire will net more damage from a BB than a DD. Also Flooding does far more damage to BBs than DDs.



Madwolf05 #9 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:19 PM

    Commander

  • Alpha Tester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 3,882
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostEmperorMaxwell, on 19 May 2017 - 09:12 AM, said:

 

Yes, however a DD is far harder to spot and hit than a BB is. Plus you're discarding potential damage as well. Not only do BBs offer the largest amount of potential damage per salvo, but they are also the most inaccurate.

 

Also Fire damage differs between ship classes so 1 fire will net more damage from a BB than a DD. Also Flooding does far more damage to BBs than DDs.

 

But it does the same % damage. It does more damage to other BBs because they have more HP. Damage to nearly every other ship in the game is permanent, where for BBs it is not.


Check out my Twitch Channel: HERE

 

CPU: Intel i7 3770K, MB: ASUS Maximus V, RAM: 16GB, GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7900


Madwolf05 #10 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:24 PM

    Commander

  • Alpha Tester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 3,882
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostThe_first_harbinger, on 19 May 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

I personally thinks that hard capping BB numbers to a low level will be pretty unfair...especially for cruisers of different nations, also for IJN destroyers.

 

For example, USN heavy cruisers would benefit a lot, putting their fat heavy shells to their optimal environment. Soviet cruisers, especially Chapayev, Kutuzov, Schors will suffer, forcing them to close the distance against stealthier targets, taking risk with their sub-par survivability and maneuverability, while their 152mm guns cannot out dpm their competition consistently, and setting fires have less impact against cruisers. IJN cruisers will fair just fine IMO, just have to play more stealthily and carefully, and KM cruisers...will...just...do their thing...

 

If BB numbers are hard capped there would be no point in playing IJN dds...

 

Disagree.

 

In a USN Cruiser you don't have torpedoes outside of the Phoenix and Omaha, to counter enemy BBs with anything other than fire, and you have no defense against it other than a heal on the Baltimore and Des Moines. If you're getting shot at by a BB in a USN Cruiser it's a VERY bad time, and he'll be able to sink you long before you can burn him down. A BB that is being burnt down by a Cruiser is either insanely bad, has positioned very poorly, or is over-committed. 


Check out my Twitch Channel: HERE

 

CPU: Intel i7 3770K, MB: ASUS Maximus V, RAM: 16GB, GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7900


Wowzery #11 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:35 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,985
  • Member since:
    09-27-2015

View PostMadwolf05, on 19 May 2017 - 08:19 AM, said:

 

But it does the same % damage. It does more damage to other BBs because they have more HP. Damage to nearly every other ship in the game is permanent, where for BBs it is not.

 

Um, you're repeating what was said.

I can recall last year about this time the discussion was hard capping DDs to 2-3 on each side due to the high number of DDs in each game.  There were games were I was the only BB for both sides.  My average damage went down, didn't really earn more in credits but I got good at sinking DDs so my XP actually went up.  The problem at that time was it was more profitable to run a DD than a BB.  But the games were actually worse, not better with fewer BBs.

Personally, I like 2-4 BBs, same amount of DDs, a CV perhaps and the rest CAs.



rutilius83 #12 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:53 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 37
  • Member since:
    03-19-2016

I was just in a few games where there were no DDs and just 4 CAs the rest were BBs. the BBs mostly avoided going forward and harassed the CAs to play DD for them and go forth and die. 

not a really a fun game. and yes I was one of the CAs



Tzarevitch #13 Posted 19 May 2017 - 03:03 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 459
  • Member since:
    05-26-2015

View PostThe_first_harbinger, on 19 May 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

I personally thinks that hard capping BB numbers to a low level will be pretty unfair...especially for cruisers of different nations, also for IJN destroyers.

 

For example, USN heavy cruisers would benefit a lot, putting their fat heavy shells to their optimal environment. Soviet cruisers, especially Chapayev, Kutuzov, Schors will suffer, forcing them to close the distance against stealthier targets, taking risk with their sub-par survivability and maneuverability, while their 152mm guns cannot out dpm their competition consistently, and setting fires have less impact against cruisers. IJN cruisers will fair just fine IMO, just have to play more stealthily and carefully, and KM cruisers...will...just...do their thing...

 

If BB numbers are hard capped there would be no point in playing IJN dds...

1. The issue is not hard capping the number of BBs. They are already hard capped at 5. The issue is reducing the cap to something like 3 so they aren't so overpowering and unbalancing to the game as a whole. They have already acknowledged that the current BB-heavy meta is a problem and they are trying to fix it. The least damaging approach is to reduce their numbers per match. The alternative (which I am pretty sure almost no one wants) is to nerf BBs directly. (Another option IMHO is to give all T6+ cruisers heals).

2. Reducing the number of BBs per match has nothing to do with Soviet cruisers. Soviet cruisers aren't going to fall into uselessness because there are 2 fewer BBs per match. They fight DDs and other Cruisers better than they do BBs because the target is softer and they can outrange most of them and take advantage of better ballistics. I am pretty sure that a Kutusov would much rather exchange fire with a Myoko than an Alabama.

3. There is hardly "no point" in playing IJN DDs if BBs are reduced by 2 per match. First of all not all of them are torpedo boats. The gunboats have no problem. The torpedo boats have two fewer potential targets to go after but that is hardly uselessness.

 



Skpstr #14 Posted 19 May 2017 - 03:10 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,275
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostMadwolf05, on 19 May 2017 - 02:19 PM, said:

 

Damage to nearly every other ship in the game is permanent, where for BBs it is not.

 

That means more BBs equal more potential damage. You can only do 100% damage to a DD, but you can do 160-200% damage to a BB.


 


SeanPwnery #15 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:11 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 677
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Terrible idea... that's all we need is more Inertia-fuse HE spammers running around setting infinite deck fires on 3 bigs per side. DD's would nearly be out of a job with the torpedo-beats on slow moving potato captains. 

Wowzery #16 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:48 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,985
  • Member since:
    09-27-2015
I will admit, I'm not a fan of 5+ BBs on each side, but the opposite is just as true, having 5+ DDs on each side is even worse.  Now, all CAs, that's actually a fun game.

SkaerKrow #17 Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:10 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 480
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
You think that this will suddenly make people stop playing BBs, therefore changing this game to your liking. What it will actually do is increase queue times for people wanting to play BBs, which will ultimately hurt the game's population as people leave to go play something else. There's nothing wrong with the game's battleship numbers (though they are crazy in queue right now because of the Hood event). There's nothing wrong with cruisers, either.

KaptainKaybe #18 Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:17 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,764
  • Member since:
    08-14-2012

View PostKevs02Accord, on 19 May 2017 - 10:11 AM, said:

There reason there are too many bbs is because their natural counter, the CV, has been directly / indirectly nerfed into the ground. If there were more CVs you would see less bbs.

 

This. It's not that BBs are overpowered. It's that their counters have either been nerfed (DDs) or are almost entirely absent (CVs).

 

I don't think limiting them to two or three is the best solution, but I have to admit that seeing five to a side in most matches is getting old fast.



Destroyer_Kiyoshimo #19 Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:29 PM

    Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 11,883
  • Member since:
    05-25-2014

View PostKaptainKaybe, on 19 May 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

This. It's not that BBs are overpowered. It's that their counters have either been nerfed (DDs) or are almost entirely absent (CVs).

 

Guess what.

 

That still makes it overpowered.


 Kiyoshimo's aircraft carrier rework Kiyoshimo's Torpedo Campaign

I am the Hull of my Torpedo. Steel is my body and Oxygen is my blood. I have caused over one thousand hull breaches. Unknown to flames, nor known to penetrate. I have withstood pain to launch many torpedoes. Yet those guns will never shoot anything.
So, as I pray-- Unlimited Torpedo Works


Skpstr #20 Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:31 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,275
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSkaerKrow, on 19 May 2017 - 06:10 PM, said:

You think that this will suddenly make people stop playing BBs, therefore changing this game to your liking. What it will actually do is increase queue times for people wanting to play BBs...

 

Not just BBs either. You'll have to have at least 18 appropriately tiered ships other than BBs to start a game. So if you have (all appropriately tiered) 30 ships in queue, and 10 of them are BBs, you won't get a game to start, whereas it would currently.

 

It will also guarantee 3 BBs in every match. No more games with 4-5 BBs per side, but none with 0-2 either. That's just what happened in WoT when they capped arty at one point.


Edited by Skpstr, 19 May 2017 - 06:36 PM.

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users