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

Blanket nerf BBs

101 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

636
[LUCK]
Members
1,653 posts
22,921 battles

See how easy it is to trigger the BB supporters.

"Oh no, AP bombs are overpowered!"

"Can't have that Asashio, it's a bad idea."

"Too many fires!"

"Oh those torpedos are too powerful."

"CVs are sky cancer."

(Insert favorite BB whine here)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,242
Members
4,094 posts
15,015 battles
1 hour ago, Elegant_Winter said:

Maybe we should buff battleships?

That's what WG always does, which is probably why there's a BB overpopulation.

CVs and DDs get nerfs and Cruisers get pretty much ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
636
[LUCK]
Members
1,653 posts
22,921 battles
17 minutes ago, Xylphan said:

BB dispersion:

giphy.gif

Cruiser lands one shell:

giphy.gif

 

Exactly. Isn't that beautiful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
52 posts
586 battles
13 hours ago, hofmannsc said:

No, don't mess with the guns or armor. Don't mess with citadels. If they one-shot a cruiser, good on them.

Reduce damage control, repairs and effectiveness of repairs. If you still want to play BB and sustain the damage without all the survivability go ahead.

Too many BBs nowadays.

Want a tissue?  What nonsense, L2P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,795
Alpha Tester
7,113 posts
3,722 battles
12 hours ago, Xylphan said:

BB dispersion:

giphy.gif

Cruiser lands one shell:

giphy.gif

 

Clearly you have not heard of our Lord and Savior, Premium DCP, Premium Repair Party, Superintendant, and using it all properly.

Fire is an absolute joke 95% of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,795
Alpha Tester
7,113 posts
3,722 battles
11 hours ago, ReddNekk said:

That's what WG always does, which is probably why there's a BB overpopulation.

CVs and DDs get nerfs and Cruisers get pretty much ignored.

Cruisers don't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
546 posts
699 battles
14 hours ago, hofmannsc said:

basically, I don't have a problem with that. That would be more historically accurate.

Historical accuracy?  Okay.  In return, your thin-skinned speedboat will react accordingly to having 12" to 18" holes punched in it's sides and bottom after it gets over-penetrated by main guns.

Edited by Highlord
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,795
Alpha Tester
7,113 posts
3,722 battles
6 minutes ago, Highlord said:

Historical accuracy?  Okay.  In return, your thin-skinned speedboat will react accordingly to having 12" to 18" holes punched in it's sides and bottom after it gets over-penetrated by main guns.

Historically Battleships were mostly port-queens in WW2.

If you want historical accuracy you need to start watching Cruisers and DDs fight while you're sidelined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,326
[CUTE]
Members
5,202 posts
3,461 battles
13 hours ago, Kuckoo said:

Because a brand-new battleship line didn't just come out...

:fish_palm:

I would give people this point except it only manages to "get worse" with a new line, its a consistent issue. Battleships are always the largest population at high tiers and have been that way for almost 2 years now. It would be great if folks stopped pretending this wasn't the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6
[BNKR]
Members
71 posts
2,175 battles
14 hours ago, hofmannsc said:

basically, I don't have a problem with that. That would be more historically accurate.

Then why have you sunk fifteen thousand battles into the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
220 posts

It is supposed to be the "tankiest" ship type. Why would you nerf the one part BBs are NOT over performing at?

The only blanket nerf BBs need that would solve almost all balance issues is a large nerf to sigma.

This would mean far less cruisers getting insta gibbed from 21k+ and it would also mean less DDs taking stupid pens and double pens from BBs (because less accurate)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,989 battles
15 hours ago, Fog_Battleship_NCarolina said:

Snapmeme_1517666482909.thumb.jpg.e328cf59a77eb1dbaf100891758447d0.jpg

Yes plz, as I am currently in Hipper working my way up I would totally love a buffed Hindenburg when I get into it!

56 minutes ago, TehParakitteh said:

Then why have you sunk fifteen thousand battles into the game?

Joking aside, I seriously wonder how people get that many matches in game.

I mean, say the average match lasts 12 minutes, that's 3,033 hours of game time. Even if only spending 8 hours a day on the game, that's 379 day's. I mean, I love playing this game but I also have a job and other games I play too. It's mind boggling. It was different on WoT because you could literally run over a match with a good platoon in 4 minutes flat if a flank collapsed on there. That's a lot harder to do on WoWS.

Not knocking anyone for gaming that much on the game, but man the retired life must be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,099
[KP]
Beta Testers
2,559 posts
12,334 battles

i want my DD capt to be called Voldemort, then i can avada kadava everyone in my path

Edited by CriMiNaL__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,578
[SBS]
Members
3,789 posts
2,408 battles

For the sake of productive conversation maybe we should, at the very least, consider discussing the OP's suggestion.  Hear me out, what I'm about to say probable isn't what you might be expecting. 

We know WG feels there is a BB overpopulation problem.  Many believe the problem is that too many BBs throws the overall game balance out of whack.  While I think that is an issue to some extent, I don't believe that is what WG sees as the real problem.  I have little doubt the issue is longer match lengths because of the BB overpopulation.  I don't think longer matches are a problem for player per se, however, stagnate games no one seems to like, not WG or players.  BB overpopulation is a big contributing factor to stagnate games so it is a problem that should be addressed.  I'm pretty sure we all agree. 

I'm not a big fan of how WG is going about trying to solve the BB overpopulation problem, that is with gimmicky things like DWT and AP bombs to "punish" BBs.  This type of problem solving can be heavy-handed and shortsighted.  New gimmicks are hard to balance and really hard, or impossible to roll back once the problem they were implemented for has been solved.

On the other hand WG could do what the OP suggests- instead of punishing gimmicks.  The upside is that nerfing dam con is much easier to balance overall, and can be easily rolled back at any time.  Another option is don't nerf BBs at all and find ways to make the other the classes more attractive to play.  I think a careful combination of all three would work, limited application of mechanics like DWT, nerf dam con on BBs slightly, and buff survivibility of cruisers (and maybe DDs). 

I know WG has already set a course of action with gimmicks designed to kill the "problematic" ships class, but maybe we can offer alternative ideas before these gimmicks are cemented into the game.  It is certainly worth discussing.           

       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[TWFT2]
Beta Testers
297 posts
4,314 battles

while I could concede to a rebalance, a blanket nerfs to repairs and calling it a day isn't how to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,578
[SBS]
Members
3,789 posts
2,408 battles
Just now, brym7 said:

while I could concede to a rebalance, a blanket nerfs to repairs and calling it a day isn't how to do it.

Then how would you do things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
636
[LUCK]
Members
1,653 posts
22,921 battles
17 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

For the sake of productive conversation maybe we should, at the very least, consider discussing the OP's suggestion.  Hear me out, what I'm about to say probable isn't what you might be expecting. 

We know WG feels there is a BB overpopulation problem.  Many believe the problem is that too many BBs throws the overall game balance out of whack.  While I think that is an issue to some extent, I don't believe that is what WG sees as the real problem.  I have little doubt the issue is longer match lengths because of the BB overpopulation.  I don't think longer matches are a problem for player per se, however, stagnate games no one seems to like, not WG or players.  BB overpopulation is a big contributing factor to stagnate games so it is a problem that should be addressed.  I'm pretty sure we all agree. 

I'm not a big fan of how WG is going about trying to solve the BB overpopulation problem, that is with gimmicky things like DWT and AP bombs to "punish" BBs.  This type of problem solving can be heavy-handed and shortsighted.  New gimmicks are hard to balance and really hard, or impossible to roll back once the problem they were implemented for has been solved.

On the other hand WG could do what the OP suggests- instead of punishing gimmicks.  The upside is that nerfing dam con is much easier to balance overall, and can be easily rolled back at any time.  Another option is don't nerf BBs at all and find ways to make the other the classes more attractive to play.  I think a careful combination of all three would work, limited application of mechanics like DWT, nerf dam con on BBs slightly, and buff survivibility of cruisers (and maybe DDs). 

I know WG has already set a course of action with gimmicks designed to kill the "problematic" ships class, but maybe we can offer alternative ideas before these gimmicks are cemented into the game.  It is certainly worth discussing.           

       

Better said than I. WG has admitted at times they are concerned with the BB population, which they perpetuate for business reasons understandably.

The bow armor reduction test was not good- no touchy the armor.

Hence, the suggestion to tackle the issue from survivability. Lion and Conqueror were nerfed similarly, because of the ridiculous heal, for balance. Why not do something like that for all of them? It's not like they wouldn't have heals and DC just not as robust.

It's the difference between medicine and poison- it's all in the dosage. A little warfarin thins the blood, too much and it causes fatal hemorrhaging.

Blanket with respect to tech tree and premiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
975
[-BRS-]
Members
2,500 posts
15,731 battles

We don't need a Nerf battle ships

 

We just need to buff Destroyers:Smile_hiding:

J/K I really think the games pretty good right now besides ijn torpedoes need to be put back pre Nerf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,578
[SBS]
Members
3,789 posts
2,408 battles
Just now, silverdahc said:

We don't need a Nerf battle ships

Generally speaking I don't like the idea of directly nerfing ships.  In this case it might be needed.  I say that because WG has lowered the skill floor for BBs a bit too much.  Underwater citadels, HE spamming BBs, KM secondaries, crazy concealment, all on top of considerable nerfs to DDs.  All this wouldn't be too bad if WG could control themselves with new BBs lines, an excess of BB premiums and BB favored event/campaigns.  Nothing wrong with these in moderation. 

9 minutes ago, silverdahc said:

We just need to buff Destroyers:Smile_hiding:

J/K I really think the games pretty good right now besides ijn torpedoes need to be put back pre Nerf

My own personal bias would be to buff DDs.  I wouldn't do it with buffs to torps.  I know many people find it frustrating to play against a massive wall of long range torps.  I can understand that.  I'd go for survivability buffs for DDs.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
636
[LUCK]
Members
1,653 posts
22,921 battles
2 hours ago, Azumazi said:

Joking aside, I seriously wonder how people get that many matches in game.

 I had the good fortune of working at home for a couple years in a not very difficult of time consuming position.

Alas all good things come to an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,989 battles
36 minutes ago, hofmannsc said:

 I had the good fortune of working at home for a couple years in a not very difficult of time consuming position.

Alas all good things come to an end.

I just gonna keep spreading this Blackberry JELLY all over my bagel with that working at home bit. :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×