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

A BB main's idea to control BB population

86 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

740
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts
1,630 battles

I was playing a few matches last night, mainly in BBs, and I thought about it as I saw the BB numbers and the lack of RN BBs to explain them away.  RN BBs were there, just not in greater numbers than anybody else's BBs.  I was seeing BB numbers in the queue equal to the other three types combined.

 

Looking at this and thinking about it, a thought struck me.  Historically BBs were rare because they were expensive.  Would dramatically increasing BB repair costs work as a method to control BB populations?  BBs could still be used as much as a player wants, so long as they have the credits to do so, but low tier BBs would only break even, mid and high tier would lose money.  Players would need to use DDs, CL/CAs and CVs to make money?

 

Viable idea or terrible idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
275
[VOC]
Beta Testers
1,124 posts
5,871 battles

shot-17_09.16_13_37.22-0637.thumb.jpg.a0e328ebfe7225efc29b7a12c5ba9951.jpg#Nuffsaid?

Historically the only ship superior to the Battleship was the carrier, so shall we make DD's and CA's/CL's weaker too...? I like the idea of trying to make th eBB population smaller, but this isn't the way of doing that..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,614
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,703 posts
11,317 battles

I don't think BB pop is a real issue. Regardless of what class of ship I play I would rather see lots of BBs than DDs. Easier targets IMO.  

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
754
[SF-A]
Members
2,843 posts
5,547 battles

Just making DDs an effective counter again will do enough. As a cruiser main I think it's too darn easy to whap a DD in just about anything.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
740
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts
1,630 battles

They need to make cruisers an effective counter to DDs before they do any significant DD buffing.  With a few exceptions the primary counter to DDs is other DDs.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,899 posts
4,448 battles
13 minutes ago, Lionel92 said:

... I like the idea of trying to make th eBB population smaller, but this isn't the way of doing that..

So what is the way? You must have an alternative if you consider this suggestion useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
502
[SYN]
[SYN]
Beta Testers
1,814 posts
10,692 battles
3 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

They need to make cruisers an effective counter to DDs before they do any significant DD buffing.  With a few exceptions the primary counter to DDs is other DDs.

Isn't reducing BB population or effectiveness an indirect buff to CAs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,249 battles
27 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

I was playing a few matches last night, mainly in BBs, and I thought about it as I saw the BB numbers and the lack of RN BBs to explain them away.  RN BBs were there, just not in greater numbers than anybody else's BBs.  I was seeing BB numbers in the queue equal to the other three types combined.

 

Looking at this and thinking about it, a thought struck me.  Historically BBs were rare because they were expensive.  Would dramatically increasing BB repair costs work as a method to control BB populations?  BBs could still be used as much as a player wants, so long as they have the credits to do so, but low tier BBs would only break even, mid and high tier would lose money.  Players would need to use DDs, CL/CAs and CVs to make money?

 

Viable idea or terrible idea?

There is no need to limit BBs because it's not a problem.  End of story.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,249 battles
3 minutes ago, OstwindFlakpanzer said:

people play this game for majestic capital ships not afterthought boats.  that's just the way it is.  nobody downloads this game thinking "gee I wish I could play a g-101".

 

^ Bingo!!!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,249 battles
9 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

They need to make cruisers an effective counter to DDs before they do any significant DD buffing.  With a few exceptions the primary counter to DDs is other DDs.

Honestly, this entire rock paper scissors stuff is nonsense.  Usually the best counter to any given type of ship is itself.  Still, cruisers, light cruisers in particular,  are usually good counters to DD's because they have the speed and high RoF to take down DD's quickly.  BB's can trash DD's ... but only if the BB player has good aim with his main guns.  (BB Secondaries are more like a persistent DoT because they don't trash DD so much as they wear them down over time.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,008
[OPG]
Members
3,866 posts
5,463 battles

I don't think the BB population is a problem, but if we do decided we need to reduce the population, I think it would be better to incentivize people to play other classes more rather than discourage them from playing BBs.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,189
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,124 posts
3,867 battles

No.

 

Increasing costs would just make battleships play even more passively than they do now.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,189
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,124 posts
3,867 battles
8 minutes ago, OstwindFlakpanzer said:

people play this game for majestic capital ships not afterthought boats.  that's just the way it is.  nobody downloads this game thinking "gee I wish I could play a g-101".

 

Plenty joined the game thinking "I want to play Shimakaze because she's my favorite in Kancolle" or "My dad served on Fletcher, I really want one"

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
76
[WAIFU]
[WAIFU]
Members
350 posts
9,142 battles

eh its not like they changed it so you pay a flat fee now for entering battle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
213
[PS1HQ]
Members
621 posts
3 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

Plenty joined the game thinking "I want to play Shimakaze because she's my favorite in Kancolle" or "My dad served on Fletcher, I really want one"

not as many as "wow I can sail a yamato or a bismarck".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,189
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,124 posts
3,867 battles
1 minute ago, OstwindFlakpanzer said:

not as many as "wow I can sail a yamato or a bismarck".  

Still a significant number, though.

 

Then again you're the one who equates an entire ship type to pest insects and another to a malignant disease so I'll take your comments with a grain of salt.

 

The only ships you like are the ones you can freely farm damage from.

Edited by AraAragami
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,704 posts
4,491 battles

You guys need to think of this like a food chain: the CV was the top of said chain for a reason. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,189
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,124 posts
3,867 battles
Just now, Dr_Venture said:

You guys need to think of this like a food chain: the CV was the top of said chain for a reason. 

 

It's not a chain, it's a triangle. Battleships are not the lion who predators on everything else and only has to fear occasional encounters with Man.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
414
[NATO]
Beta Testers
1,764 posts
5,803 battles
3 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Honestly, this entire rock paper scissors stuff is nonsense.  Usually the best counter to any given type of ship is itself.  Still, cruisers, light cruisers in particular,  are usually good counters to DD's because they have the speed and high RoF to take down DD's quickly.  BB's can trash DD's ... but only if the BB player has good aim with his main guns.  (BB Secondaries are more like a persistent DoT because they don't trash DD so much as they wear them down over time.)

 

 

Unfortunately, the rock paper scissors 'stuff' is exactly how the game was designed. However, over the last 2 years its come to pass that everything is a counter to a BB.

 

Curbing the BB population will only result in curbing the PLAYER population. People are here FOR THE BB's. They are not here (at least on this server) for paper Russian ships, or any paper ship for that matter. They are not here for ships they've never heard of. They are here for the ships they've read about in history books, seen as museums or seen in movies.

 

I play all classes of ships, but 50% of the time Im in a BB...because its where the FUN is for me. I play DD's to learn how to deal with them, same with cruisers. CV's were my first love in this game but my connection prohibits me playing them a lot....if you have lag you cannot strafe, and if your ping is higher than the other CV's, you cannot deal with his fighters.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,189
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,124 posts
3,867 battles
2 minutes ago, hipcanuck said:

Unfortunately, the rock paper scissors 'stuff' is exactly how the game was designed. However, over the last 2 years its come to pass that everything is countered by a BB.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

"Players are here for battleships" is no reason to make the other 3 ship types suck, you know.

 

it's like if Blizzard thought "Players are here for knights with swords and plate armor" and making warriors and paladins the apex classes while ensuring that mages, rogues, warlocks, hunters, etc, etc were all demonstrably weaker and less fun.

 

Instead of, you know, making all the classes fun with defined roles.

Edited by AraAragami
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,752
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
6,103 posts
1,313 battles

I'd rather have a max BB limit per match of 4 per side, than nerfing BBs into the ground to make them less popular. Then, make a max limit for DDs of 3 per side and the rest can be filled in with crusiers and boom, you're golden.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,249 battles
8 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

 

Fixed that for you.

 

"Players are here for battleships" is no reason to make the other 3 ship types suck, you know.

 

it's like if Blizzard thought "Players are here for knights with swords and plate armor" and making warriors and paladins the apex classes while ensuring that mages, rogues, warlocks, hunters, etc, etc were all demonstrably weaker and less fun.

 

Instead of, you know, making all the classes fun with defined roles.

The other types don't suck.  Could they use some tweaks?  I won't deny that.  But they don't suck.  Frankly, people who think that they do suck, probably suck at playing them in the first place.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25
[MIA-A]
Members
139 posts
7,282 battles

Yes, that would definitely curb the BB population.  But then you wouldn't see ANY BBs whatsoever.  

 

I think the major turn off for people not playing Tier 10 CV is the huge repair bill cost per how much income.  All Tier 10s are 180,000 repair cost.  The problem with that is that it's really easy to get good games in a BB.  Most of my good games rely on me being sneaky or the enemy being dumb.  And because I'm a BB, the odds of more than one person being dumb on the enemy team.  

 

For a CV, you have to rely on just 1 person being dumb.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  But I like the odds of a couple of enemies being dumb than just one CV.

 

Now, lets go to how badly an increased repair bill will do to a BB.  I will use CV as evidence.  As stated previously a T10 Repair bill is 180,000, not to mention replacing all your planes that were shot down.  Without a premium account, camo, and flags, if you have a decent game, you barely break even if at all.  If you do the same in a T10 BB, you can expect a 100,000 credit profit.  Now, if you have a really good game, you barely get over 50,000 for all that work you did in a CV.  Lets say there were a division of Des Moines and you don't do that well.  You just lost over a 100,000 credits.  

 

I tallied up all the games played for Japanese and U.S. BB and CV to give you an idea of what a lower profit margin would do.

Ratio of (U.S. + IJN BB games played) / (U.S. + IJN CV games played)

Tier 6: 3.24

Tier 7: 2.88

Tier 8: 3.9

Tier 9: 4.2

Tier 10: 8.2

 

The Tier 10 CV population does not play it's ships.  There's little incentive to play one if you're not going to break even.  You can say it's  just the nature of CV gameplay, but if the gameplay was hard but rewarding, people would still play.  The Montana is considered inferior to the Yamato, and yet it still has over 600k games played, more than the Midway and Hakuryu combined thee times over.

 

The overpopulation of BBs is a complex issue and simplifying it down to just increasing the cost is just going to upset a player base.  I don't think BBs are overpopulated.  I think 5 BB max per game is healthy at Tier 8-10 and maybe limiting BBs to 4 per match for Tier 5-7 could be a good idea considering the maps are smaller.    

Just now, AraAragami said:

Increasing costs would just make battleships play even more passively than they do now.

It wouldn't do that, its a flat cost no matter how passive they play.  I get better games where I'm being aggressive and pushing with my team than just sitting back sniping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,414 battles
4 minutes ago, Kitsunelegend said:

I'd rather have a max BB limit per match of 4 per side, than nerfing BBs into the ground to make them less popular. Then, make a max limit for DDs of 3 per side and the rest can be filled in with crusiers and boom, you're golden.

Pretty much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×