Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
_RC1138

DoY Free XP

33 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,595
[ARS]
Beta Testers
3,884 posts
4,185 battles

As specced I won’t touch it, and I have the FXP to get it outright.

 

I am not opposed to a repair partyless BB, but it needs to be significantly compensated for it.  DoY’s compensation currently doesn’t even compensate her for her reduced rate of fire, let alone the removal of her repair party.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,167
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
1 minute ago, Helstrem said:

As specced I won’t touch it, and I have the FXP to get it outright.

 

I am not opposed to a repair partyless BB, but it needs to be significantly compensated for it.  DoY’s compensation currently doesn’t even compensate her for her reduced rate of fire, let alone the removal of her repair party.

I more or less agree. I think reducing BB durability is the *worst* thing you could do at this stage in the game's life. What little pushing we see from BB's is 100% contingent on the idea they can maintain 75% health through Repair parties, removal of that might as well turn the game into 2 Fort Sniper Only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29,747
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
22,750 posts
16,720 battles

Might this be WGs way of testing the waters for battlecruiser gameplay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,167
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
3 minutes ago, Lert said:

Might this be WGs way of testing the waters for battlecruiser gameplay?

That's a very interesting idea but I'm not sure it's wise for the same reasons; durability of all ships, BB's to DD's, is in my analysis the biggest contributor to player, I suppose you could call it 'bravery.' And any reduction in durability will cause an increase in caginess. See IMO all ships should have repair party, with BB's just having *noticeably* higher health (perhaps, at a minimum, 2x the highest HP CA at it's tier) so that while spike damage *can* eliminate a DD or CA rapidly, it doesn't really work on a BB, but *all* can come back from a fight they win by repairing part of their health.

 

Also, thinking about that, the DoY is the oddest way to test a CC concept as it's one of the least CC's of any BB in the game, having traded both speed and firepower for armor, basically the total inverse of a CC.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,595
[ARS]
Beta Testers
3,884 posts
4,185 battles
21 minutes ago, Lert said:

Might this be WGs way of testing the waters for battlecruiser gameplay?

Perhaps, but there needs to be more compensation for a BC to be viable as well.  You can’t have a ship that large, clumsy and prone to taking hits and being lit on fire without a serious method of mitigation.  Cruisers can dodge, BBs can heal, this BC proposal can do neither.  It has the worst of both worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,167
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
Just now, Helstrem said:

BC to be viable as well

CC... if we're going to use the abbreviations use the right ones...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,347
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,154 posts
4,908 battles

Battlecruisers without a heal...that could be....erm....interesting....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,595
[ARS]
Beta Testers
3,884 posts
4,185 battles
18 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

CC... if we're going to use the abbreviations use the right ones...

So far as I can find BC is the correct designation.  CC is an American code for “large cruiser”, not the British designation for “battlecruiser”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[DARTH]
Members
553 posts
13,644 battles

I still think that a capital ship, especially DoY without a heal would be the most colossally dumb thing I've seen WG do.  KGV is hardly my favorite as it is.  I have that level of free XP, and if the ship releases in that fashion, it'll be staying in my wallet.

As for battlecruisers, really, WG need do nothing.  Cesare is essentially the perfect example of how to deal with it.  Good guns, good speed, show broadside or citadel and get the heck spanked out of you.  As it should be.

Oh, well, I'll just have to wait for this inevitable failure to run its course and see if it eventually gets the GZ treatment.  (sigh)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,720
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,525 posts
12,810 battles
50 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

I more or less agree. I think reducing BB durability is the *worst* thing you could do at this stage in the game's life. What little pushing we see from BB's is 100% contingent on the idea they can maintain 75% health through Repair parties, removal of that might as well turn the game into 2 Fort Sniper Only.

This.  I'd like to see ships, especially cruisers, durability INCREASED, not decreased.  I don't really want BB players to have to suffer the same way cruiser players do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
894
[TSF_1]
Members
3,241 posts
7,306 battles

And to think that they price it like Nelson... No repair vs godlike repair. Pretty close to a line ship vs totally unique...

 

I would go on, but I've given my $USD 0.02. Not nearly interesting enough.

Edited by pewpewpew42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,131
[VCRUZ]
Members
3,717 posts
8,947 battles

I would never spent free xp for DoY with her current stats. I would rater spent that much of free XP grinding some line or with Missouri. 

 

DoY trader the repair party for... nothing... Not worth at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,650
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,818 posts
4,361 battles

She's tempting as it is likely she could get a Repair Party later on if she proves to be too much of a lemon.

 

Though I feel if they wanted to go cruiser with her, give her a regular BB-style Repair Party rather than Warspite-style 60% Repair Party, cruiser-style DCP but let her burn the full 60s by default, and throw in Hydro separately from AADF, but reduce all consumable counts by -1 (including Repair Party) and adjust the CD/duration for each as-needed (encouraging/forcing the use of Premium Consumables + Superintendent, and maybe JoaT). This would be in addition to any changes to shell performance (such as removing the improved normalization on the RNAP shells or normalizing the HE firestarting rate) or other stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,882
[HINON]
Privateers, Privateers
6,798 posts
4,837 battles
1 hour ago, Helstrem said:

So far as I can find BC is the correct designation.  CC is an American code for “large cruiser”, not the British designation for “battlecruiser”.

Large cruiser is CB, Not CC. USN designation for battlecruisers was CC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,937
[SYN]
Members
5,472 posts
12,704 battles

Ya, not too keen on this ship's "personality".  A battleship with only cruiser-level damage control, and no repair?   Noooo, thank you!

 

I have the Free XP now but not interested.  Definitely not worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
825 posts
13,665 battles
3 hours ago, _RC1138 said:

I think reducing BB durability is the *worst* thing you could do at this stage in the game's life. What little pushing we see from BB's is 100% contingent on the idea they can maintain 75% health through Repair parties, removal of that might as well turn the game into 2 Fort Sniper Only.

this is a problem with many BB players, not the ship they are driving. I am not sure that making BBs more OP or invulnerable would change that attitude.

Getting those guys to play a different class once in a while is probably what would help the current meta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,650
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,818 posts
4,361 battles
6 minutes ago, PicknChew said:

this is a problem with many BB players, not the ship they are driving. I am not sure that making BBs more OP or invulnerable would change that attitude.

Getting those guys to play a different class once in a while is probably what would help the current meta.

 

Even if BBs were invincible to all forms of damage except that of another BB, there still will be those who just won't advance.

 

It was nicer when BBs actually had some maneuverability; it naturally forced players to get closer to hit with consistency; rather than being able to always camp max range and spam away or take long-range potshots that could still land even after one attempted to evade (in the high tiers notably).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,937
[SYN]
Members
5,472 posts
12,704 battles
10 minutes ago, slokill_1 said:

BB without repair is like a DD without smoke.

 

...unless, of course, it's a high-tier Russian DD, then smoke doesn't matter.   :Smile-_tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,167
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
3 hours ago, Helstrem said:

So far as I can find BC is the correct designation.  CC is an American code for “large cruiser”, not the British designation for “battlecruiser”.

Large Cruiser =/= Battlecruiser. The USN had a term for Battlecruiser, it's CC. As in CC-1 USS Lexington. BC is only used to reference the specific ships of the Alaska Class, but those are not battlecruisers insofar as the USN is concerned, and given the topic of discussion and the point raised by lert, *CC* is the only valid description to use in context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,167
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
1 hour ago, PicknChew said:

this is a problem with many BB players, not the ship they are driving. I am not sure that making BBs more OP or invulnerable would change that attitude.

Getting those guys to play a different class once in a while is probably what would help the current meta.

I'm not a BB player, I'm a USN CL/CA player, but *my* game is made *worse* when *my* BB's hide in the back behind me. So I get to enjoy the game *more* when BB players are in a better place, feel safer, and move forward. If I'm in the DM and find myself the only one pushing, that's not going to work very long, especially when all 4 of the Monty on my team are 24+ km from the closest enemy. I want BB's to be more durable so that they feel comfortable moving forward and take some of the heat off of me.

That's the problem with partisan politics in games like this; they make no sense.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
533
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
5,072 posts
1,514 battles
6 hours ago, Lert said:

Might this be WGs way of testing the waters for battlecruiser gameplay?

 

Thats my thought. The thing is shen gives up a couple of quite big points, (RoF and heal), compared to contemporary BB's but doesn't seem to gain anywhere near as much back in other area's in compensation.

 

A lot of people tend to forget it but DFAA and Hydro help cruisers do somthing, (because of maneuverability and in Hydro's case RoF/dispersion), that they're allready good at, (namely survive air attacks and duke it out at mid to short ranges with DD's). For DoY the two options more or less directly compensate her for what the lack of heals does to her in terms of handling those threats BB style. You could argue, (mostly validly), that either alone makes the ship better than a BB in those area's, but the margin of superiority isn't great.

 

In terms of BC conceptualising in general i think i can name three things i think they'd need to work:

 

1. Hydro+DF in separate slots, to avoid OP DPS problems i'd prefer somthing like USN CV DF with low damage multiplier but long duration and full scatter.

 

2. A unique turning radius formulae and rudder shift formulae so they achieve better values than their BB contemporaries.

 

3. Ark Beta style secondaries, this is the tricky one, but if you don't give them some kind of boost to close in fighting capability all the rest isn;t really going to pull them far enough away from the BB mold IMO. At the same time care is required, DoY herself, or indeed most later RN BC designs would work fine with somthing like that. Giving that to a ship with significantly better secondaries could prove to be a bit of an issue, you want somthing thats a strong dissuaded to ultra cloe passes, not something that can wreak ships single handedly over a wide area, for that reason 5km max base range IMO. I'd be tempted to drop sec mod 2 out and drop sec mod 3 to the second slot as a BC thing actually. Would mean a new high tier sec mod module potentially.

 

EDIT: The one thing i wouldn't want to see is significantly better main battery dispersion, i just think that with BB calibre guns wouldn't be good for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×