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

Cumulative Battleship Nerfs

110 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

75
[KTFO]
Members
243 posts
1,273 battles

What do we have being "thought about" so far?

 

Torpedo Bulges treated as part of the hull for receiving damage;

Concealment expert reduced to 10%;

Destroyers not only having no citadel but also cannot receive normal penetrations and only overpens from battleships;

 

What else am I missing so we can keep track?

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,592
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,748 posts
6,713 battles

I really hope the torpedo bulge change doesn't make it to live. The other two are not a big deal, IMO. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[BEER]
Members
100 posts
1,468 battles
4 minutes ago, Meeso_Thorny said:

Destroyers not only having no citadel but also cannot receive normal penetrations and only overpens from battleships;

 

 

I use HE on destroyers and have 1-shot them with that ammo multiple times.    Stop using AP on DDs and you'll be fine.

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,079
[SIM]
Members
2,435 posts
4,068 battles
7 hours ago, vak_ said:

I really hope the torpedo bulge change doesn't make it to live. The other two are not a big deal, IMO. 

Agreed completely. I do believe that we’re getting close to the point where battleships are in danger of falling behind all of the other classes, but it’s only the way that damage is received to parts of the ship that seems like an unreasonable change. 

Edited by SkaerKrow
  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
547
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
1,771 posts
13 minutes ago, Meeso_Thorny said:

What do we have being "thought about" so far?

 

Torpedo Bulges treated as part of the hull for receiving damage;

Concealment expert reduced to 10%;

Destroyers not only having no citadel but also cannot receive normal penetrations and only overpens from battleships;

 

What else am I missing so we can keep track?

The torpedo bulge idea is utter garbage, simple as that.  No way that should make it to live. 

Concealment Expert, I could care less about, I never take it on BBs and I loath the meta of trying to game the vision/spotting system anyway.

The whole AP vs DD thing has been repeatedly misrepresented -- the point of it is to keep large AP from "double dipping" and getting damage as if it had penned or overpenned the DD multiple times. 

 

So, one out of three is really a nerf to BBs.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
169
[ECOM]
Members
494 posts
11,028 battles

I'm on the fence. I'm a battleship main and do not believe BBs are as OP as some players make it out to be. BBs are criticized because players can get away with many more mistakes than  when driving other classes of ships. The proposed changes do not address this problem.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[FOG]
Members
270 posts
4,562 battles
15 minutes ago, Meeso_Thorny said:

What do we have being "thought about" so far?

 

Torpedo Bulges treated as part of the hull for receiving damage;

Concealment expert reduced to 10%;

Destroyers not only having no citadel but also cannot receive normal penetrations and only overpens from battleships;

 

What else am I missing so we can keep track? 

IFHE

Pan Asian Deep Water Torps

Asashio Torps

AP Bombs

Graf Zeppelin AP Bombs 

  • Cool 6
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[SUCIT]
Members
783 posts
3,493 battles
11 minutes ago, Zenn3k said:

I use HE on destroyers and have 1-shot them with that ammo multiple times.    Stop using AP on DDs and you'll be fine.

That's all well and good, but if you're starting with HE in any BB not named the Conqueror, you're probably doing it wrong.  

1 minute ago, KilljoyCutter said:

The whole AP vs DD thing has been repeatedly misrepresented -- the point of it is to keep large AP from "double dipping" and getting damage as if it had penned or overpenned the DD multiple times. 

Not really, they're limiting the amount of damage an AP shell over 280mm can do to a DD to 10%.  That's not even touching double dipping, which is the only thing that should be touched imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
547
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
1,771 posts
Just now, XpliCT_ said:

That's all well and good, but if you're starting with HE in any BB not named the Conqueror, you're probably doing it wrong.  

Not really, they're limiting the amount of damage an AP shell over 280mm can do to a DD to 10%.  That's not even touching double dipping, which is the only thing that should be touched imo.

 

My default is always AP, but I've switched to HE right at battle start because there were 5+ DDs on each side.

 

OK, the 10% damage limit is a news for me, and it's garbage too, but not for balance reasons -- it's just utterly contrived.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
663
[-VT3-]
Members
1,607 posts
3,346 battles

"Please stay spotted for the next half minute while I change ammo types to one that'll actually hurt you."

 

And just like that, everyone started playing UK battleships exclusively. XD

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[SUCIT]
Members
783 posts
3,493 battles
1 minute ago, KilljoyCutter said:

OK, the 10% damage limit is a news for me, and it's garbage too, but not for balance reasons -- it's just utterly contrived.

That was my thinking as well.  I don't like the change personally, for the simple reason that a DD becomes more tanky than a CL if this passes through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[FOG]
Members
270 posts
4,562 battles
Just now, DerKrampus said:

"Please stay spotted for the next half minute while I change ammo types to one that'll actually hurt you."

 

And just like that, everyone started playing UK battleships exclusively. XD

But now, of course, they will get a serious nerf to their detection range from the "proposed" CE change....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,494 posts
7,413 battles
8 minutes ago, DerKrampus said:

"Please stay spotted for the next half minute while I change ammo types to one that'll actually hurt you."

 

And just like that, everyone started playing UK battleships exclusively. XD

Even with the skill to reduce switching shells, you will not get a good shot off on them generally if at all.  Switching ammo on the fly in battleships has always been a laughable tactic in this game in my opinion.  I never bother, I just shoot what's in the tube at the time.  As for the concealment issue, this for me is a big factor in why battleships stay in the back all the time, because they are always spotted and thus spammed from all directions at long ranges, usually with large caliber HE etc.  They don't want to get closer because then they just get focused even more and usually from ships they cannot see.  This happens over and over again.   So they get frustrated and just hang back.

Edited by Hangoverhomey
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
72
[TNG-D]
[TNG-D]
Members
346 posts
8,400 battles

CE being nerfed for all classes. Not a bb nerf.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,036
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,160 posts
8,772 battles
11 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

The whole AP vs DD thing has been repeatedly misrepresented -- the point of it is to keep large AP from "double dipping" and getting damage as if it had penned or overpenned the DD multiple times. 

 

So, one out of three is really a nerf to BBs.

 

I would be good with the the AP always 10% if all secondaries had more realistic ranges so they could engage that spotted DD.

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,494 posts
7,413 battles
1 minute ago, BrushWolf said:

I would be good with the the AP always 10% if all secondaries had more realistic ranges so they could engage that spotted DD.

 

Yeah the utter uselessness of most secondaries in game have always been a major dislike of mine.    Drunk AI shooting at fish and sea gulls is a major let down.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
547
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
1,771 posts
3 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

I would be good with the the AP always 10% if all secondaries had more realistic ranges so they could engage that spotted DD.

That might be a fair tradeoff. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
478 posts
2,009 battles
3 minutes ago, MackDye said:

CE being nerfed for all classes. Not a bb nerf.

So a nerf to cruisers ability to vision control awesome....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,952
[PVE]
Members
8,852 posts
7,257 battles
3 minutes ago, MackDye said:

CE being nerfed for all classes. Not a bb nerf.

Current CE -10% DD, -12% CL/CA, -14% BB, -16% CV

New CE -10% DD, -10% CL/CA, -10% BB, -10% CV. 

 

So nerf to 3 of the 4 classes.

 

And a good nerf as well, CE should be the same across all the classes.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,214
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,196 posts
3,871 battles

Only one of these is actually a nerf.

 

Buffs or changes to other ships are not nerfs to your ship.

 

I suggest adapting. The other 3 types have had to do it consistently for the past 2+ years.

Edited by KiyoSenkan
  • Cool 8
  • Boring 7
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,036
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,160 posts
8,772 battles
3 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

Current CE -10% DD, -12% CL/CA, -14% BB, -16% CV

New CE -10% DD, -10% CL/CA, -10% BB, -10% CV. 

 

So nerf to 3 of the 4 classes.

 

And a good nerf as well, CE should be the same across all the classes.

And effectively a buff for DD's as most will have more time to get out of dodge if needed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,119 posts
3,141 battles

Battleships are incredibly strong in many situations, and dont punish mistakes as much as other classes. A couple nerfs will be fine. if they show as another nerf, then we panic. 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
147
Members
706 posts
4 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

And effectively a buff for DD's as most will have more time to get out of dodge if needed.

err no, as a DD will see BB & CL/CA at +10% rather than +12% or +14% if that BB/CL/CA commander has CE

 

edit:

do'h read it wrong

Edited by b101uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,036
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,160 posts
8,772 battles
1 minute ago, b101uk said:

err no, as a DD will see BB & CL/CA at +10% rather than +12% or +14% if that BB/CL/CA commander has CE

More time to react is very much a buff as the other types have reduced CE now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,743 posts
5,464 battles
2 hours ago, XpliCT_ said:

Not really, they're limiting the amount of damage an AP shell over 280mm can do to a DD to 10%.  That's not even touching double dipping, which is the only thing that should be touched imo.

2 hours ago, XpliCT_ said:

That was my thinking as well.  I don't like the change personally, for the simple reason that a DD becomes more tanky than a CL if this passes through.

Not quite. Take Bismarck and Benson as an example. Bismarck's AP does 11,600 max damage. 10% of that is 1,160. Benson has 15,400 HP, without SE  Being a little generous, lets say you strike 4 out of 8 shells on a Benson, you're still inflicting 4,640 damage to that Benson, which is approximately 30% of it's total HP pool. Go down to T6 with Warspite and Bayern, and you're looking at DDs that barely break 12-13k HP. A salvo like the above example is about half of a mid-tier DDs HP. Also remember that 16in guns and larger do more damage maximum with their AP, so they do more over-pen damage. An Iowa will inflict 1,350 HP per over-pen, and assuming Iowa hits 4 or 5 out of 9 shells(and remember Iowa is widely regarded as one of the more accurate BBs in the game) she's doing between 5,400 and 6,750 HP of damage to a DD. If it's a Fletcher without SE, which has 17,100 HP, an Iowa will strip off approximately 32% - 40% of it's HP. (okay, the HP ratio is a little closer than I expected, but for a DD, losing 30-40% of it's HP in a single salvo is huge, since most cannot heal any of it back.)

So in reality, you still have a chance to knock off about half a DDs HP with the AP only doing 10% damage, if you get really lucky with RNG and strike with around 50% of your shells, which from my experience at T8+ is more common than you might think

Edited by GhostSwordsman
Mis-read the caliber of BB guns affected, omitted sentence.
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×