Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Citrusss

Did BBabies cry out another nerf to DDs?

181 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,178 posts
5,612 battles
6 hours ago, Cobraclutch said:

Give me a Sharnhorst with 3 DD's (Tier  7-8-9 doesn't matter) in a cap and il show them 7/10 how easy it is to counter DD's as a BB. Unless a DD is at Point blank range on your broadside. Torps are always dodgable.  

 

That was exactly my point. If he is 3km away before you can see him, he is going to launching them at point blank range into your broadside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ARRGG] CLUCH_CARGO 656
2,730 posts
On 9/7/2017 at 0:15 AM, Citrusss said:

Somehow, every topic on the forum was about how the upcoming smoke mechanics will nerf battleships but hey, battleships can survive without smoke whatsoever - huge HP pool, great armour, repair party.

 

However, with the new patch many gunboat destroyers will be hit the hardest! And this, of course, includes higher tier RN cruisers and other nations' heavy cruisers which were using smoke just not to get one-shot killed by battleships. Literally, WG is taking away survival chances of heavy cruisers and gunboats. First, open water stealth fire, now this... 

 

I propose the following: make BB understandable completely and make another game for the rest - which has complexity and non-BB domination game play.  

 

Look at the queues - 6/12 slots per team are battleships pretty much every match!

No!Your proposal is not a very good one. Calling  out for BBabies to be segregated from the rest only show your Bias Against them. The UK BB line was just released and the fever of the player base to grind up that line to their favorite ship and the latest Sponsored Contest By Niko Powers The most Fires caused by a Brit BB King George V,has fueled the BB insanity you call out on. You condemn the new smoke mechanics before they are released into the live game. Another Bias you have shown. Your Post is full of  Bias. Chicken Little the sky is falling and the boy who cried Wolf Come to mind when I read this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,032 posts
7,763 battles
2 minutes ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

No!Your proposal is not a very good one. Calling  out for BBabies to be segregated from the rest only show your Bias Against them. The UK BB line was just released and the fever of the player base to grind up that line to their favorite ship and the latest Sponsored Contest By Niko Powers The most Fires caused by a Brit BB King George V,has fueled the BB insanity you call out on. You condemn the new smoke mechanics before they are released into the live game. Another Bias you have shown. Your Post is full of  Bias. Chicken Little the sky is falling and the boy who cried Wolf Come to mind when I read this post.

you didnt read the whole topic before making your statement again. i already said that I play high tiers exclusively (8-10) and they are not overpopulated with brits, but with battleships in general.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NMKJT] KiyoSenkan 5,355
17,368 posts
3,741 battles

Amusing thought about the title of the thread:

 

Battleships cried so hard for nerfs to smoke that they inadvertently nerfed themselves instead.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ARRGG] CLUCH_CARGO 656
2,730 posts
6 minutes ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

No!Your proposal is not a very good one. Calling  out for BBabies to be segregated from the rest only show your Bias Against them. The UK BB line was just released and the fever of the player base to grind up that line to their favorite ship and the latest Sponsored Contest By Niko Powers The most Fires caused by a Brit BB King George V,has fueled the BB insanity you call out on. You condemn the new smoke mechanics before they are released into the live game. Another Bias you have shown. Your Post is full of  Bias. Chicken Little the sky is falling and the boy who cried Wolf Come to mind when I read this post.

 

3 minutes ago, Citrusss said:

you didnt read the whole topic before making your statement again. i already said that I play high tiers exclusively (8-10) and they are not overpopulated with brits, but with battleships in general.  

I read your post I quoted your post You Have a Bias against BB's I also play High tiers and see a normal balance of ships there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,032 posts
7,763 battles
14 minutes ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

 

I read your post I quoted your post You Have a Bias against BB's I also play High tiers and see a normal balance of ships there.

except you didnt read anything below the top post. there were several people who said the same thing already and to whom I have answered. 

 

I do not have bias towards battleships as long as they are not an absolute majority in the match

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ARRGG] CLUCH_CARGO 656
2,730 posts
On 9/7/2017 at 0:15 AM, Citrusss said:

Somehow, every topic on the forum was about how the upcoming smoke mechanics will nerf battleships but hey, battleships can survive without smoke whatsoever - huge HP pool, great armour, repair party.

 

However, with the new patch many gunboat destroyers will be hit the hardest! And this, of course, includes higher tier RN cruisers and other nations' heavy cruisers which were using smoke just not to get one-shot killed by battleships. Literally, WG is taking away survival chances of heavy cruisers and gunboats. First, open water stealth fire, now this... 

 

I propose the following: make BB understandable completely and make another game for the rest - which has complexity and non-BB domination game play.  

 

Look at the queues - 6/12 slots per team are battleships pretty much every match!

Segregating Game play is never the answer. I quoted you the OP of this entire Thread. You stated in the Original reason of this post your proposal. It is Wrong! Yes BB's are heavy in all tiers at certain times of play but by no means worthy of segregating them out. and as far as the smoke goes  .4 km change is not going to affect the game to fatality. In the PT server  where it is being tested by those who choose to participate are the last hurdle to go live the Data collected from the PT Server will either justify the implementation or send it back to the Developers. Watch Nosters vid I have provided you here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,975 posts
3,902 battles
On 9/7/2017 at 0:15 AM, Citrusss said:

battleships can survive without smoke whatsoever

If they could, they wouldn't ask for it you brainless [edited]potato.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,471 posts
4,009 battles
2 minutes ago, Sakuzhi said:

If they could, they wouldn't ask for it you brainless [edited]potato.

Non-Sequitor. Just because I don't need more money and I ask for more does not mean I need that said money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RUST] centarina 824
8,844 posts
10,760 battles

triggered today sak?   sheesh,  any BB that needs smoke to do well in random  is nothing more than brainless potato.    in ranked, may be so, , but in random, you should not expect it and be grateful if you get it.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[5D2] Beornotns 134
644 posts
2,811 battles
11 hours ago, Citrusss said:

I will just leave it here. this match is happening right now

 

 

bb world.png

Do let us know how it turned out, would you?

 

~B

 

(good luck!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KOZ] AirshipCanon 374
1,473 posts
1,152 battles
12 hours ago, Citrusss said:

I will just leave it here. this match is happening right now

 

 

bb world.png

If it weren't for the Carriers, that'd a be a DD field day. SO MUCH DAMAGE POTENTIAL.

Edited by AirshipCanon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NOVA] issm 3,174
11,026 posts
25,293 battles
On 07/09/2017 at 1:32 AM, Mavairo said:

B Bring back CVs. A static target is a dead one to CVs. 

 

*Unless that static target has excellent AA, or is being static with another ship with excellent AA.

   ** Unless CVs are so overbuffed they can attack effectively through strong AA, at which point CVs are broken

 

Quit suggesting CVs as a solution, they aren't.

 

They just make the problem worse.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[E-BR] Xlap 202
1,581 posts
6,253 battles
12 hours ago, Citrusss said:

I will just leave it here. this match is happening right now

 

 

bb world.png

I think i never had a high tier battle like this. Only happened in low tier battles when a BB line was released, but this os situational. 

 

My battles lately are very balanced i must say, with close or equal numbers of CVs, BBs, CA/CL and DDs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KOZ] AirshipCanon 374
1,473 posts
1,152 battles
1 hour ago, issm said:

*Unless that static target has excellent AA, or is being static with another ship with excellent AA.

   ** Unless CVs are so overbuffed they can attack effectively through strong AA, at which point CVs are broken

Or we have the old situation where the ATTACK will be successful, but all planes will be lost as they try to leave the strike zone. Which ISN'T broken.

In fact, that's the perfect zone of Carrier to AA balance.
Where if you're alone, you'll never be able to ward off a Carrier strike, but your AA is sound enough to where if you're grouped, you can.

The Hood is an oddjob, and doesn't count towards anything.

Edited by AirshipCanon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KOZ] AirshipCanon 374
1,473 posts
1,152 battles
34 minutes ago, Citrusss said:

a loss for me but I snatched almost 1500 xp.

 

it was toxic :cap_rambo:

oh, and if you are going to watch replay - turn on mature language filter on. 

 

20170908_233010_PGSD109-Z-46_15_NE_north.wowsreplay

Can one perm chat block someone from a Replay? Because that virus dumkopf is just that.

0 Kills, 0 Caps, [edited] about everything. Yeah, worthless.
Oh, but he did damage... it's a game with 10 BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-MS-] Mavairo 247
1,401 posts
3,425 battles
2 hours ago, issm said:

 

*Unless that static target has excellent AA, or is being static with another ship with excellent AA.

   ** Unless CVs are so overbuffed they can attack effectively through strong AA, at which point CVs are broken

 

Quit suggesting CVs as a solution, they aren't.

 

They just make the problem worse.

They are the solution no matter how much they make you want to rage uninstall issm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NOVA] issm 3,174
11,026 posts
25,293 battles
3 hours ago, AirshipCanon said:

Or we have the old situation where the ATTACK will be successful, but all planes will be lost as they try to leave the strike zone. Which ISN'T broken.

In fact, that's the perfect zone of Carrier to AA balance.
Where if you're alone, you'll never be able to ward off a Carrier strike, but your AA is sound enough to where if you're grouped, you can.

The Hood is an oddjob, and doesn't count towards anything.

 

Right, see, except that's not how math works.

 

You spend roughly half of your attack coming in, and half leaving, slightly more time on the "leaving" half, I grant you that.

 

It's not possible for all the losses to be clustered on one side.

 

Not to mention losing all your planes every run wouldn't be sustainable even for Midway.

 

~~~~~~

 

Also, what is this "old" situation?

 

The only "old" situation I remember is Midway dev striking Montanas through Des Moines DF.

 

You want to call that balanced?

 

2 hours ago, Mavairo said:

They are the solution no matter how much they make you want to rage uninstall issm.

 

Please, explain how they are the solution.

 

I already told you why they won't work. 

 

CVs can not strike through strong individual AA, or concentrated AA. In fact, CVs incentivise concentrated AA, which has the side effect of concentrating firepower. This concentrated firepower further encourages static play, because anyone who tries to push forward dies, and any DD that tries to sneak around gets spotted by the CV and dies.

 

If you buff CVs so that they CAN strike through heavy AA, then they're just broken.

 

~~~~~~

 

No one who says "CVs will fix static gameplay" ever defends their opinion.

 

I have never seen a single good solution offered for the concentrated static AA problem. Certainly seen tons of people change the topic though.

 

Like suggesting that I just don't like CVs because they make me rage.

 

That excuse kind of sounds like bullcrap when you consider that I, unlike you, actually own and play high tier CVs.

 

I oppose CVs because of facts and statistics. You support CVs out of blind faith.

Edited by issm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-MS-] Mavairo 247
1,401 posts
3,425 battles
16 hours ago, issm said:

 

Right, see, except that's not how math works.

 

You spend roughly half of your attack coming in, and half leaving, slightly more time on the "leaving" half, I grant you that.

 

It's not possible for all the losses to be clustered on one side.

 

Not to mention losing all your planes every run wouldn't be sustainable even for Midway.

 

~~~~~~

 

Also, what is this "old" situation?

 

The only "old" situation I remember is Midway dev striking Montanas through Des Moines DF.

 

You want to call that balanced?

 

 

Please, explain how they are the solution.

 

I already told you why they won't work. 

 

CVs can not strike through strong individual AA, or concentrated AA. In fact, CVs incentivise concentrated AA, which has the side effect of concentrating firepower. This concentrated firepower further encourages static play, because anyone who tries to push forward dies, and any DD that tries to sneak around gets spotted by the CV and dies.

 

If you buff CVs so that they CAN strike through heavy AA, then they're just broken.

 

~~~~~~

 

No one who says "CVs will fix static gameplay" ever defends their opinion.

 

I have never seen a single good solution offered for the concentrated static AA problem. Certainly seen tons of people change the topic though.

 

Like suggesting that I just don't like CVs because they make me rage.

 

That excuse kind of sounds like bullcrap when you consider that I, unlike you, actually own and play high tier CVs.

 

I oppose CVs because of facts and statistics. You support CVs out of blind faith.


They force people to move. You must have forgotten what beta was like, I haven't. Oh RIGHT you weren't actually here for CVs being good.  
non USN AA needs a nerf. The one distinct flavor the usn was supposed to have, they effectively don't have. Altering the interface, helped a lot. All CVs also should have a balanced loadout top to bottom.

I support CVs with my 3000+ battles of experience of having them on, and against my team. I know where they are weak, and why. 
I have played with CVs on the field, in every iteration they have had in this game. 

And anyone here, who has the memory greater than that of a gold fish remembers your repeated tirades against CVs quite well, some of us have even seen you in matches, go afk in DDs, just because there are CVs on the field. Myself included. You have a hate boner for CVs and always have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RUST] centarina 824
8,844 posts
10,760 battles

at high tier,  CV mostly make people camp cause island clustered together.     The big problem with CV currently is the high skill ceiling with high floor, you need to bring the floor up and ceiling down  to make them closer to rest of the ships.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NOVA] issm 3,174
11,026 posts
25,293 battles
18 minutes ago, Mavairo said:

I support CVs with my 3000+ battles of experience of having them on, and against my team. I know where they are weak, and why. 

 

Yeah? Well I oppose CVs with my 1200 matches playing them, and 20k matches with them on and against my team.

 

So I guess I know 7x more than you about where they're weak and where they aren't.

 

18 minutes ago, Mavairo said:

And anyone here, who has the memory greater than that of a gold fish remembers your repeated tirades against CVs quite well

 

Nice of you o leave out that my "tirades" always included detailed explanations of my opinion, something your posts sorely lack.

 

18 minutes ago, Mavairo said:

some of us have even seen you in matches, go afk in DDs, just because there are CVs on the field

 

I also "afked" in BBs and CAs.

 

And? None of that is relevant to my arguments as to why CVs work or not.

 

18 minutes ago, Mavairo said:

They force people to move

 

How?

 

18 minutes ago, Mavairo said:

Oh RIGHT you weren't actually here for CVs being good.  

 

OH RIGHT, it was by being so overpowered that they could dev strike you through AA cruiser DF

 

Forget closed beta, they could still do that throughout open beta. And let's not forget the other consequence of CVs everywhere, no one played DDs because their torps would be spotted, preventing them from doing anything, and they'd be spotted to death.

 

You want to call that "balanced"?

 

18 minutes ago, Mavairo said:

non USN AA needs a nerf. The one distinct flavor the usn was supposed to have, they effectively don't have. Altering the interface, helped a lot. All CVs also should have a balanced loadout top to bottom.

 

UN doesn't need an AA flavor,they're quite good as it is.

 

The interface change did nothing, all the core UI problems, the unresponsiveness, bugginess, is all still there. Perhaps you'd know if you actually played CVs.

 

Balanced loadouts likewise would be completely pointless. If the problem was as simple as "CVs need more loadouts", you would expect that IJN CVs, which have strong balanced loadouts throughout the line, to be popular.

 

They are not.

 

Looks like that 3000 matches with CVs was pretty worthless.

Edited by issm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wulfgarn 2,182
4,852 posts
6,923 battles

Lotta replies here are making me laugh.

Seeing some peeps that are bias towards DDs calling foul that there is bias here toward BBs.

wnd_c50fa246e893eb8ad35892c80e9e6879.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skpstr 1,606
13,388 posts
4,359 battles
On 09/09/2017 at 0:56 AM, Sakuzhi said:

If they could, they wouldn't ask for it you brainless [edited]potato.

 

I don't ask for it, I guess that means I don't need it.

 

Sure, I'll take advantage of it if it happens to be nearby, for as long as I happen to be nearby.

 

But I'm not stopping and engaging in WW1-style trench warfare, using smoke instead of trenches. I've got places to be.

 

Sure, good players can use it effectively, but I see too many smoke clouds dissipate, leaving a gaggle of stationary sitting ducks. Not my cup of tea.

 

As far as asking for it, but not needing it, that's been the Western way for decades.....

Edited by Skpstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×