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

39
[TWFT2]
Beta Testers
285 posts
4,275 battles
2 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

Then how would you do things?

Not entirely sure to be honest, though in a general sense, mayhaps look to what WoWs was supposed to be when it first came out, least the idea advertised. Rock, paper, scissors. Or Battleship, Cursier, destroyer respectably. The idea that the classes are supposed to counter one another with Carriers being the odd one out. only direct change that comes to mind is make full pens on destroyers with battleship AP harder and rarer, as well boost the survivability of cruisers. Promote them to being destroyer hunters and harassers to battleships where battleships rely on cruisers to fight off the destroyers as they're not as well equipped to deal with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[TWFT2]
Beta Testers
285 posts
4,275 battles
5 hours ago, Madwolf05 said:

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.

Well, full accuracy would be just escorting the carrier(s)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
102
[VOP]
Members
327 posts
7,826 battles
3 hours 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.           

       

Games stagnate because of potatoes and cowards.  Maybe punish the player and not the ship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,170
[HINON]
Supertester, Alpha Tester
2,562 posts
4,805 battles
14 minutes ago, brym7 said:

Well, full accuracy would be just escorting the carrier(s)

Actually, that would only be true of one Navy...  you see the problem in full historical accuracy?   Only the US navy started using BB's to only escort carriers at the end of WW2. So how would you ensure that?   RN used cruisers and DD's to escort the carriers because of the threat of the Uboats rather than the threat of BB's, which were not so much of a problem in the Atlantic.

Full accuracy is something that cannot be perpetrated in WoWs because of the disparity of the fleets and the combat areas they served in.

Now you could do a lot more towards historical accuracy, but then it becomes a decision about Simulator v Game. 

WG were origonally making a product that was 80%Simulator/20% Game and they have publicly stated that they changed tack on that around the launch of Open Beta.  They have also publicly said that they regret the decision to head towards pure 100%Game/0%Simulator, but it is now to late to reconsider that decision.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[TWFT2]
Beta Testers
285 posts
4,275 battles
2 minutes ago, MaliceA4Thought said:

Actually, that would only be true of one Navy...  you see the problem in full historical accuracy?   Only the US navy started using BB's to only escort carriers at the end of WW2. So how would you ensure that?   RN used cruisers and DD's to escort the carriers because of the threat of the Uboats rather than the threat of BB's, which were not so much of a problem in the Atlantic.

Full accuracy is something that cannot be perpetrated in WoWs because of the disparity of the fleets and the combat areas they served in.

Now you could do a lot more towards historical accuracy, but then it becomes a decision about Simulator v Game. 

WG were origonally making a product that was 80%Simulator/20% Game and they have publicly stated that they changed tack on that around the launch of Open Beta.  They have also publicly said that they regret the decision to head towards pure 100%Game/0%Simulator, but it is now to late to reconsider that decision.

 

And I'm not saying it should be simulator or pure gamey, just saying that the historical accuracy isn't the best thing to be 100% as people like to participate in the battle. Indeed, if it were a simulator, we'd be talking about much more gigantic maps, very little in the way of the islands we get with gun ranges significantly increased, ecpatally secondary armaments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,826
[RKLES]
Members
8,864 posts
10,828 battles

Only reason I am one of the players using the new French BBs is because of the missions for the. Once those are done it’s off to the Mothballs for them, and welcome back to my other ships lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,499
Members
21,729 posts
5,713 battles
10 hours ago, Madwolf05 said:

 

Fire is an absolute joke 95% of the time.

It looks scary though.....:Smile_ohmy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,865
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,180 posts
3,895 battles

Look at all the battleship mains rabidly defending against the very idea of being blanket nerfed.

 

The same battleship mains who clamored for blanket nerfs to destroyers (and got them!) multiple times, and continue to rattle their sabers in favor of cruiser nerfs.

 

Popcorn hypocrisy.

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,985
[-K-]
Supertester
3,124 posts
6,989 battles

There are always 5 DD's in every game I play.  All of them.  For the past 5 years.  If you want to take away the ability of BB's to tank, take away cruiser heals, remove citadel overpens and give DD's back their citadels.  Do that, and we can talk.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,515 posts
7,729 battles

I kill BB's all the time and vice versa, working as intended for the most part.  What I would have no issue with is some BB's getting slight nerfs to damage control and others getting slight buffs.  Battleships need some rebalancing versus each other.  The power creep is real.

Edited by Hangoverhomey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
125
[BNKR]
Members
486 posts
362 battles
9 hours ago, Azumazi said:

 

Not knocking anyone for gaming that much on the game, but man the retired life must be good. Life living  in your parents basement not having to work must be good.

 

FTFY

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
589
[SYN]
Members
2,774 posts
9,157 battles
8 hours 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.           

       

The problem with your opinion on the matter, is that any blanket buff/nerf to any type, is a bad choice, because not all BB's are overpowered, only some of them. and what makes a ship overpowered or underpowered usually differs from one ship to the next. To do a proper balance, and to solve the various balancing problems in the game, then ships have to be addressed on an individual basis, not on a blanket Buff/nerf scheme. Ie. buffing the surviviability of all DD's wouldnt help much at all with shima's problems, but would make khabarovsk even more monstrously OP than she already is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
400 posts
6,400 battles
On 3/4/2018 at 3:29 PM, 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.

Play IJN DDs and let them feel the hurt from out of nowhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[ANZ4C]
Members
183 posts
7,291 battles

There are too many BB's these days.

Please eliminate 3!

I am not a crackpot..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,827
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts
On 3/4/2018 at 2:43 PM, hofmannsc said:

At this point in the game, there is no logic, so why should I start?

 

41Nads4.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,528
[SBS]
Members
3,687 posts
2,408 battles
2 hours ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

There are always 5 DD's in every game I play.  All of them.  For the past 5 years. 

I haven't run the numbers recently but the last few times I have the five DDs a side claim just doesn't add up.  The average is somewhere around three and change. 

2 hours ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

If you want to take away the ability of BB's to tank, take away cruiser heals, remove citadel overpens and give DD's back their citadels.  Do that, and we can talk.

If WG would have balanced BBs correctly they wouldn't have the problems they are facing now.  WG had continuously lowered the skill floor for BBs at the direct expense of the other classes.  There's no way around it, there are going to be some hurt feelings to get this problem fixed.         

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,528
[SBS]
Members
3,687 posts
2,408 battles
2 hours ago, ryuukei8569 said:

The problem with your opinion on the matter, is that any blanket buff/nerf to any type, is a bad choice, because not all BB's are overpowered, only some of them. and what makes a ship overpowered or underpowered usually differs from one ship to the next. To do a proper balance, and to solve the various balancing problems in the game, then ships have to be addressed on an individual basis, not on a blanket Buff/nerf scheme. Ie. buffing the surviviability of all DD's wouldnt help much at all with shima's problems, but would make khabarovsk even more monstrously OP than she already is.

I agree that individual rebalancing would be best.  That's probably not practical.  Also, the problem with BBs isn't that they are overpowered, its that the skill floor is too low-and as I said in my post above, it comes at the expense of the other classes.  That's why I advocated for some nerfs to BBs and buffs to the other classes.  We could try those buff/nerfs on an individual basis, that would be a long and painful process.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[SOUP]
[SOUP]
Members
37 posts
On 3/4/2018 at 6:00 PM, Wye_So_Serious said:

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)

 

ap bombs are overpowered if they are in the hands of someone who can make the most out of them, and the main issues i have with the asashio is it discourages aggressive battleship tactics, also i have seen many team kills with it's torps (even if they were accidents). it promotes battleships to stay at long distances, while i think battleships should lead the charge/serve as a wedge to divide the enemy team or at least serve as a shield of sorts. i do agree there is an excess amount of BB players, but i think the asashio's torps are not the way to nerf BB's. the rest of said complaints are ridiculous. 

  • Cool 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[SOUP]
[SOUP]
Members
37 posts
On 3/4/2018 at 6:00 PM, Wye_So_Serious said:

 

Edited by Yuki_Ika7
accidentally posted twice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
633
[LUCK]
Members
1,641 posts
22,491 battles
3 minutes ago, Yuki_Ika7 said:

ap bombs are overpowered if they are in the hands of someone who can make the most out of them, and the main issues i have with the asashio is it discourages aggressive battleship tactics, also i have seen many team kills with it's torps (even if they were accidents). it promotes battleships to stay at long distances, while i think battleships should lead the charge/serve as a wedge to divide the enemy team or at least serve as a shield of sorts. i do agree there is an excess amount of BB players, but i think the asashio's torps are not the way to nerf BB's. the rest of said complaints are ridiculous. 

Battleships shouldn't lead the charge, though that's easier when they are numerous, but should provide strong support from a reasonable distance. They can take damage with their HP but if a couple cruisers focus one, land a torp here or there they're toast in no time.

A GK won't last long charging a cap with Shimas, Khabs, Zaos, Hindys, etc. roaming around. More of a recipe for disaster. I want green BBs to make the red BBs re-think their targeting decisions so, as a cruiser player, I can help hunt DDs and support caps. Those things are very challenging to do with 3-5 BBs targeting you. Sadly, XP is earned more easily by wiping a cruiser health out in one salvo than hammering an opposing BB in support of a cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
559 posts
2,438 battles

And also, ships that launch torpedoes should be spotted for 20 seconds out to their torpedo range, same as firing guns. Not for historical accuracy, for game balancing.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[SOUP]
[SOUP]
Members
37 posts
1 hour ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

Battleships shouldn't lead the charge, though that's easier when they are numerous, but should provide strong support from a reasonable distance. They can take damage with their HP but if a couple cruisers focus one, land a torp here or there they're toast in no time.

A GK won't last long charging a cap with Shimas, Khabs, Zaos, Hindys, etc. roaming around. More of a recipe for disaster. I want green BBs to make the red BBs re-think their targeting decisions so, as a cruiser player, I can help hunt DDs and support caps. Those things are very challenging to do with 3-5 BBs targeting you. Sadly, XP is earned more easily by wiping a cruiser health out in one salvo than hammering an opposing BB in support of a cap.

fair enough, i get ya, i think i might just move with the cruisers then, and behind them if they are not fast battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,944 posts
7,278 battles
On 3/4/2018 at 4:15 PM, Wye_So_Serious said:

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

you um, you do realize they were only made obsolete because of air power, right?

 

versus anything armed with guns, bb's were far from useless, and were in fact the t-rex of the seas prior to the advent of cv's.  soo... yea, if you're gonna try the historical accuracy route, you should be advocating for cv buffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×