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

Beta Testers
1,944 posts
7,332 battles
On 3/5/2018 at 6:34 AM, 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.

the thing is, bb's were sidelined because of cv's.  if there was a cv in every match, sure, bb's should be pretty ineffective.  but in a gunfight without the threat of airplanes pushing your crapin, a bb stomps all over cruisers and dd's, and did so historically in those rare instances where hostile air power wasn't a concern.

Share this post


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

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.

that's why i like secondary builds, they increase your AA power (but i normally only do partial secondarys)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,944 posts
7,332 battles
1 minute ago, Yuki_Ika7 said:

that's why i like secondary builds, they increase your AA power (but i normally only do partial secondarys)

meh, i play mostly t10, and at that point if a cv wants you dead, no amount of AA power will save you... as it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
217
[WOSV]
Members
578 posts
2,928 battles

Blanket-nerf Battleships because supposedly there is a BB overpopulation issue. I'm not so sure that's the right course. 

Try waiting for the inevitable Carrier Re-work (RN CV?) and the USN CL/CA split. It should shallow out the Battleship numbers. 

Actually, BB populations aren't even that bad right now. There's a glaring lack of BB at and around Tier V that I've seen recently. (One game with 5 DD, including myself, and another with more than 5 Cruisers). At Tier VIII it's pretty balanced. Usually only 3 or so BB. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
637
[LUCK]
Members
1,656 posts
23,002 battles
18 minutes ago, Shadeylark said:

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.

Sure i want cv buffs/rework and short of AA platforms and shore bombardment, which were invaluable to the effort, generally useless other than being the big dog on chained up on the porch in surface conflicts as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure many naval commanders or nations were itching for another Jutland particularly with weapons advances.

That said the game is not historical, it just borrows certain things from history. And that's ok.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
691
[WOLF4]
Members
1,425 posts
3,231 battles
6 minutes ago, Halonut24 said:

Blanket-nerf Battleships because supposedly there is a BB overpopulation issue. I'm not so sure that's the right course. 

Try waiting for the inevitable Carrier Re-work (RN CV?) and the USN CL/CA split. It should shallow out the Battleship numbers. 

Actually, BB populations aren't even that bad right now. There's a glaring lack of BB at and around Tier V that I've seen recently. (One game with 5 DD, including myself, and another with more than 5 Cruisers). At Tier VIII it's pretty balanced. Usually only 3 or so BB. 

I've seen more CA lately and DD have multiplied like rabbits. So far the meta isn't BB dominated as far as i've seen.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
114
[HOT]
[HOT]
Members
429 posts
11,063 battles

Just because the class is popular doesnt mean its OP. Its just that people like playing the big ships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
364
[SEOP]
Members
1,521 posts
8,233 battles
On 3/4/2018 at 12:29 PM, Wye_So_Serious 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.

EDIT: added picture - really?!

 

toomanybbs.jpg

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
777 posts
1,515 battles
On 3/4/2018 at 2:51 PM, Xylphan said:

BB dispersion:

giphy.gif

Cruiser lands one shell:

giphy.gif

 

Undeniably accurate.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
453
[TMS]
Members
2,375 posts
24,493 battles

I don't see the problem, all BB match makes a nice change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,891
[_-_]
Members
1,760 posts
On 3/4/2018 at 3:29 PM, Wye_So_Serious said:

Too many BBs nowadays.

There can never be too many battleships. They are such wonderful XP pinatas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,577 battles

WG will never nerf their "cash cow"

BBs have been objectively overpowered since 2015, when they got a large accuracy buff, which also interestingly enough happened just after WG went public admitting BB mains were their biggest $$ spenders. Path of least resistance simply reinforces this as to be why BBs are overpopulated and have been for years.

"but but but they just released a new BB line" - Every BB main since 2016. Also logical fallacy.

BB accuracy being overpowered is the exact reason why balance cascaded out of control in this game. Sure adding new lines can contribute to the effect, but the root cause is BB accuracy.

Blanket Nerf BB Sigma by 25%. Add in a minor min dispersion value to reduce RNG. Buff Damage control party fire and flooding immunity time by 15s (increase in survivability).

What this nerf accomplishes:

- Cruisers can now play the game and peek from islands without fear/high chance of being sniped from long range for 50% of the hp. Most of the time 5km+ **outside** the range of their own guns.
- Cruisers will be a little more effective at hunting DDs.
- BBs will have to push up and be more aggressive to achieve damage and kills, like what they see now while sniping.
- BBs will get more AA cover and be more protected from those CVs because they are pushing up (See closer to ally AA bubbles)
- DDs will be less likely to take double dip BB AP
- BBs will not be treasured as team players by simply trying to get kills and do damage
- More team play
- Less BB whining about fires and HE
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
828 posts
6,367 battles
On 3/4/2018 at 12:29 PM, Wye_So_Serious 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.

EDIT: added picture - really?!

 

toomanybbs.jpg

so asashio didnt get the invite to this party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
637
[LUCK]
Members
1,656 posts
23,002 battles
4 minutes ago, _Dracarys said:

so asashio didnt get the invite to this party?

This was 2 months ago- Asashio would have had a field day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,011
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,448 posts
3,895 battles
1 hour ago, Shadeylark said:

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

Yeah, that's why they cry the loudest of any ship type when it comes to demands for carrier nerfs.

 

Also wow, who necro'd this?

Edited by KiyoSenkan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,795
Alpha Tester
7,113 posts
3,722 battles
1 hour ago, Shadeylark said:

the thing is, bb's were sidelined because of cv's.  if there was a cv in every match, sure, bb's should be pretty ineffective.  but in a gunfight without the threat of airplanes pushing your crapin, a bb stomps all over cruisers and dd's, and did so historically in those rare instances where hostile air power wasn't a concern.

It wasn't just CVs, it was mostly due to cost. A BB engages directly in battle, where a CV, theoretically, mostly risks it's aircraft.

CVs in WW2 were mostly newer ships that had the benefit of advances in propulsion, hull design, and full effenciency. Most of the BBs on the other hand were built during or soon after the 1st World War, with only a few being built directly prior or during.

The result was that most BBs cost twice as much to deploy as a modern BB, or CV, and at much greater risk and cost per battle, on top of the general combat abilities such as slow speed, and aging design.

During Guadalcanal the men in the Cruisers and DDs would get in fights with the BB crews if the Standards. Despite being ready to sail for a year, by late 43, the BBs were forced to sit in port while the Cruisers and DDs fought in their place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
726
[SIDE]
Members
2,099 posts
On 3/4/2018 at 2:29 PM, Wye_So_Serious 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.

EDIT: added picture - really?!

 

toomanybbs.jpg

Obvious troll thread.

Nicely done. 70 posts and counting. Congrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
637
[LUCK]
Members
1,656 posts
23,002 battles
11 minutes ago, thebigblue said:

Obvious troll thread.

Nicely done. 70 posts and counting. Congrats.

 

hi.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
726
[SIDE]
Members
2,099 posts
15 minutes ago, landcollector said:

If you really didn't care, you wouldn't have even replied to them.

Lol. Best troll sense radar threads started getting locked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
364
[SEOP]
Members
1,521 posts
8,233 battles
1 hour ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

 

hi.jpg

I care...time to sing

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[SOUP]
[SOUP]
Members
37 posts

another thought occurred to me: if you play aggressive in bb's, at least have another battleship or cruisers join you, being aggressive in a bb solo is certain death. if you stick with the advancing cruisers, you can survive.

 

tl;dr: if your gonna play battleships aggressively, at least have a team member or 2 to back you up in the charge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
726
[SIDE]
Members
2,099 posts
50 minutes ago, Yuki_Ika7 said:

another thought occurred to me: if you play aggressive in bb's, at least have another battleship or cruisers join you, being aggressive in a bb solo is certain death. if you stick with the advancing cruisers, you can survive.

 

tl;dr: if your gonna play battleships aggressively, at least have a team member or 2 to back you up in the charge

Sad as it is, this may actually be a new idea to some people....

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
672 posts
2,346 battles
19 hours ago, Madwolf05 said:

During Guadalcanal the men in the Cruisers and DDs would get in fights with the BB crews if the Standards. Despite being ready to sail for a year, by late 43, the BBs were forced to sit in port while the Cruisers and DDs fought in their place.

That was due to lack of fuel tankers in the Pacific.  Too many resources were being diverted to the Atlantic so the USN only had enough logistics capacity to operate the Standards or the CVs + the few fast BBs they had in the Pacific.  They made the obvious choice.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×