Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
SmokinCAT

Balance Super Cruisers in Ranked.

36 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
601 posts
7,235 battles

Can there be some balance factors put into the T9 ranked that keeps all the super cruisers from making it all on one team while the other gets tech tree cruisers?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
526
Members
596 posts
10,570 battles

don't add the poor Azuma to the discussion please. Other than that that's one of the main reasons we need "large cruisers" and battlectuisers in a separated class so the MM can work properly. For example in clan wars there is a limit to 1 BB per team (correct me if I'm wrong) while you can take 7 Stalingrad and effectively have 7 BBs in one team. 

Although we run into the problem were to put things like Azuma or Yoshino that are basically super larger light cruisers or thing like Amagi and Hood should also get in that new category as they are battlectuisers, not BBs.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,573
[1984]
Members
4,128 posts
19,953 battles

This really isnt an issue. Just bring your yammy or georgia.

Ps. Any he spitting ship can dealy with the “super” cruisers.

Edited by monpetitloup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
164
[LOIN]
Supertester
810 posts
11 minutes ago, XurMP said:

don't add the poor Azuma to the discussion please. Other than that that's one of the main reasons we need "large cruisers" and battlectuisers in a separated class so the MM can work properly. For example in clan wars there is a limit to 1 BB per team (correct me if I'm wrong) while you can take 7 Stalingrad and effectively have 7 BBs in one team. 

Although we run into the problem were to put things like Azuma or Yoshino that are basically super larger light cruisers or thing like Amagi and Hood should also get in that new category as they are battlectuisers, not BBs.

Too be fair in Axis and Allies, the Hood and the Amagi are classified as battleships. Alaska is classified as a cruiser. However though it has some really good armour and some players classify put her more of a battleship. 

Anyway, I don't really quite agree. There really isn't enough of these "super cruisers" to make an independent thing out of it. Then, Hood and Amagi. I still think there fine as is being classified as a battleship, there more fast battleships so. Therefore battleships. Some countries don't have enough battlecruisers to be an independent type. The U.S had the Lexington class and that's pretty much it. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,715
[SOFOP]
Members
2,439 posts
14,361 battles

They dont need to be reclassed in game but just have the matchmaker recognize if there are multiple Alaska, stalingrad, kron, whatever entering the game, to try and spread them equally as possible.

I'm sure they will get to this soon, around the same time they balance radar, average games, average damage, etc between teams and the Missouri goes on sale again.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,007
[RLGN]
Members
14,303 posts
25,241 battles
33 minutes ago, Old_Baldy_One said:

I'm sure they will get to this soon, around the same time they balance radar, average games, average damage, etc between teams and the Missouri goes on sale again.

You say that; but the way WG logic seems to work, you could have two float plane DMs, and two Radar DMs, and the two Radar DMs would still manage to wind up on the same team.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,715
[SOFOP]
Members
2,439 posts
14,361 battles
24 minutes ago, _CPR said:

Why don’t we just follow the EU clan battles this season and just ban all premiums from ranked as well? 

Because this would reduce the value of said premiums and be seen as a premium nerf.  There would be chaos and anarchy and requests for heads on spikes.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
526
Members
596 posts
10,570 battles
1 hour ago, Starfleet1701 said:

Anyway, I don't really quite agree. There really isn't enough of these "super cruisers" to make an independent thing out of it. Then, Hood and Amagi. I still think there fine as is being classified as a battleship, there more fast battleships so. Therefore battleships. Some  don't have enough battlecruisers to be an independent type. The U.S had the Lexington class and that's pretty much it. 

it's not to have full branches of them, just to make MM specially on competitive modes more fair because something like a Minotaur or Worcester is NOT the same as a Stalingrad. To be honest I would say to differentiate between Light Cruisers and Heavy Cruisers, not as separated classes but with some sort of icon difference and distributing them equally on the team so we don't see a team with 3 Minotaur and the other with 3 Moines (just an example). Although if we go to the full branch debate... Germany only have 1 CV and nothing wrong happend (except WG messing up GZ several times) and Japan had one and a half DD lines until Haru and Kita came to the game so won't the first time. WG also have access to some weird and rare designs so probably we could eventually get full BC (battlectuiser) lines for all "big" in game nations. 

Maybe not create full different classes at all but just adjust the MM and also add little marks on the ship icons. Azur Lane for example does this perfectly as CLs have the regular Cruiser icon while CAs have the same but with a +. Maybe in WoWs CLs and CAs can follow that rule while BBs get the + on the side leaving the current BB icon to BCs/CCs (Battlectuisers/Large Cruisers). It's just a idea but it works wonders in AL so maybe could work here too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,922
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,125 posts
7,989 battles
2 hours ago, XurMP said:

 For example in clan wars there is a limit to 1 BB per team (correct me if I'm wrong) while you can take 7 Stalingrad and effectively have 7 BBs in one team. 

It doesn't work that way.  The Stalingrad is not equivalent to a BB, especially in a competitive setting, and is balanced in line with the other Tier 10 cruisers.  

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55
[DTB]
Members
264 posts
1 hour ago, Starfleet1701 said:

Too be fair in Axis and Allies, the Hood and the Amagi are classified as battleships.

In reality they were both classified as Battlecruisers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amagi-class_battlecruiser

1 hour ago, Starfleet1701 said:

There really isn't enough of these "super cruisers" to make an independent thing out of it.

They really need to be just defined in game to help the MM balance the teams. They don't need their own tree even if they do end up with their own symbol in game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
526
Members
596 posts
10,570 battles
1 minute ago, yashma said:

It doesn't work that way.  The Stalingrad is not equivalent to a BB, especially in a competitive setting, and is balanced in line with the other Tier 10 cruisers.  

when was the last time you saw any other T10 cruiser citadel a T10 BB at more than 15km range? probably we all have the same answer.

Stalingrad is a BB? No. 

Stalingrad is a Cruiser? No.

If you take into account only the regular T10 CAs you won't find anything even close to Stalingrad's health, armor or penetration. Is any of that BB level? No, health and armor are lower but that doesn't justify it basically taking the same spot in the MM as something that carry from 152mm to 240 at very max. Is specially harsh when you consider that there is BB cap to only 1 and no cruiser cap. Just to clarify again, it's not a BB but it's by far the closest you can get without actually taking a 50k+ ton floating city with massive guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,922
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,125 posts
7,989 battles
29 minutes ago, XurMP said:

when was the last time you saw any other T10 cruiser citadel a T10 BB at more than 15km range? probably we all have the same answer.

Stalingrad is a BB? No. 

Stalingrad is a Cruiser? No.

If you take into account only the regular T10 CAs you won't find anything even close to Stalingrad's health, armor or penetration. Is any of that BB level? No, health and armor are lower but that doesn't justify it basically taking the same spot in the MM as something that carry from 152mm to 240 at very max. Is specially harsh when you consider that there is BB cap to only 1 and no cruiser cap. Just to clarify again, it's not a BB but it's by far the closest you can get without actually taking a 50k+ ton floating city with massive guns.

It has its strengths and weaknesses compared to the other tier 10 cruisers, but the same can be said for all cruisers.  Just compare the Worcester to the Minotaur, the Des Moines to the Zao, the Henri to the Moskva and so on.

The Stalingrad doesn't fill any of the roles that really makes a battleship a battleship.  It lacks the overmatch and survivability to bully cruisers, while being easily countered by most cruisers it will face in competitive settings.  It's less tanky than Moskva, while the Henri/Moskva both have the penetration to citadel any tier 10 cruiser out to their max ranges.  There is only one BB per side limiting some of the Stalingrad's inherent advantages in that regard, while it comes with numerous downsides in other areas.

At the end of the day in a competitive setting a Stalingrad isn't inherently better than the other tier 10 cruisers in such a way that warrants MM restraints unless you really want to nitpick the differences between all the Tier 10 cruisers.  

Edited by yashma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
601 posts
7,235 battles
4 hours ago, monpetitloup said:

This really isnt an issue. Just bring your yammy or georgia.

Ps. Any he spitting ship can dealy with the “super” cruisers.

Their HP alone gives the team with those ships a significant advantage over the team that doesn’t have them, doesn’t matter if they are susceptible to fire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
601 posts
7,235 battles
2 hours ago, yashma said:

It has its strengths and weaknesses compared to the other tier 10 cruisers, but the same can be said for all cruisers.  Just compare the Worcester to the Minotaur, the Des Moines to the Zao, the Henri to the Moskva and so on.

The Stalingrad doesn't fill any of the roles that really makes a battleship a battleship.  It lacks the overmatch and survivability to bully cruisers, while being easily countered by most cruisers it will face in competitive settings.  It's less tanky than Moskva, while the Henri/Moskva both have the penetration to citadel any tier 10 cruiser out to their max ranges.  There is only one BB per side limiting some of the Stalingrad's inherent advantages in that regard, while it comes with numerous downsides in other areas.

At the end of the day in a competitive setting a Stalingrad isn't inherently better than the other tier 10 cruisers in such a way that warrants MM restraints unless you really want to nitpick the differences between all the Tier 10 cruisers.  

Better, no not in some cases, but the HP of any of the super cruisers gives the team that gets that ship versus a tech tree ship an advantage as not only do they start with more HP they can heal more because of that. 

 

That is the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
793
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,755 posts
11,770 battles
3 hours ago, XurMP said:

 a Minotaur or Worcester is NOT the same as a Stalingrad. 

Stalingrad is in a class of its own when it comes to cruisers over all, on top of being t10; ranked is t9.

3 hours ago, XurMP said:

Maybe not create full different classes at all but just adjust the MM and also add little marks on the ship icons. Azur Lane for example does this perfectly as CLs have the regular Cruiser icon while CAs have the same but with a +. Maybe in WoWs CLs and CAs can follow that rule while BBs get the + on the side leaving the current BB icon to BCs/CCs (Battlectuisers/Large Cruisers). It's just a idea but it works wonders in AL so maybe could work here too.

It not only would make ques longer for both parties but it would take out of context that post treaty heavy cruisers are already balanced by their reduced dispersion, increased fire duration and much lower DPM: ~50%.

A team with more post treaty  heavy cruisers cruisers is technically at a disadvantage to a team of standard tech tree cruisers for non other than the increased fire duration. 

1] Kronshtadt: worst in class dispersion and completely covered in 25mm plating aside armor belt.

2] Azuma: need i say more?

3] Alaska: aside the external armor belt, the only protection she has is from her 36mm deck that gives HE spam shielding from none German 203mm guns.

All three of those ships are longer than a North Carolina. All three of them are vulnerable to fires.

All three of them have uncharacteristically low dpm and you wana nerf them? :fish_viking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
304
[-GOD-]
[-GOD-]
Members
1,188 posts
3 hours ago, Old_Baldy_One said:

Because this would reduce the value of said premiums and be seen as a premium nerf.  There would be chaos and anarchy and requests for heads on spikes.

And oh the tears of the wallet warriors roflmfao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55
[DTB]
Members
264 posts
16 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

All three of them have uncharacteristically low dpm and you wana nerf them?

Where has anyone asked for nerfing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
793
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,755 posts
11,770 battles

 

 

3 hours ago, XurMP said:

when was the last time you saw any other T10 cruiser citadel a T10 BB at more than 15km range? probably we all have the same answer.

Stalingrad is a BB? No. 

Stalingrad is a Cruiser? No.

If you take into account only the regular T10 CAs you won't find anything even close to Stalingrad's health, armor or penetration. Is any of that BB level? No, health and armor are lower but that doesn't justify it basically taking the same spot in the MM as something that carry from 152mm to 240 at very max. Is specially harsh when you consider that there is BB cap to only 1 and no cruiser cap. Just to clarify again, it's not a BB but it's by far the closest you can get without actually taking a 50k+ ton floating city with massive guns.

To be honest, every t10 cruiser is a super cruiser in their own right; especially Minotaur and Worcester. They are beyond anything in their preceding branch.

1 hour ago, SmokinCAT said:

Their HP alone gives the team with those ships a significant advantage over the team that doesn’t have them, doesn’t matter if they are susceptible to fire. 

Taking the subject out of context makes any disposition sound valid: its not.

Increased detectability, increased fire damage and ~30% larger size is more than enough balance.  Especially when these ships are still susceptible to 406mm guns and wild torpedoes.

Meanwhile, Alaska's vaunted survivability is due to the unusual number of AA mounts coating her that are eating smaller HE and AP shells being carelessly thrown into her.

I dont own one butKronshtadt potentially has the worst cruiser dispersion in the game while having no HE protection of any kind.

Furthermore, Azuma's citadel sits so high and is so oddly shaped she's more a liability than an asset to her team.

These claims post treaty heavy cruisers are some how breaking competitive mm is simply baseless fear mongering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
793
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,755 posts
11,770 battles
10 minutes ago, bosco1111 said:

And oh the tears of the wallet warriors roflmfao

Owning a premium has nothing to do with being a wallet warrior. And All three current cruisers can be gotten for free.

2 minutes ago, DracoTB said:

Where has anyone asked for nerfing?

Asking for special MM is asking for a nerf: obvious nerf. And an unjustified excuse to attack ships well balanced, even over balanced for their tier and type in an age where an entire class is getting damage reduction and spotting reduction out of everybody.... :cap_horn::fish_viking:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55
[DTB]
Members
264 posts
2 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

Asking for special MM is asking for a nerf

No, really, it isn't. The boats would remain the same. The balance of the team would change to be, hopefully, more balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
793
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,755 posts
11,770 battles
6 minutes ago, Destroyer_KuroshioKai said:

These CAs are balanced and have plenty of ways to counter them.

Overly balanced and overly vulnerable to fires. Every ship is supposed to benefit from their advntages.

13 minutes ago, DracoTB said:

No, really, it isn't. The boats would remain the same. The balance of the team would change to be, hopefully, more balanced.

It is, and is a door for more nerfs just like the nerfs to CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,358
[BFBTW]
Members
4,181 posts
9,556 battles

Which supercruiser isn't objectively worse at T9 than its tech tree counterparts?

I guess the Kron, but that's not a very fair comparison to the Donskoi given how different the playstyles are. But in ranked, buffalo > Alaska and Ibuki > Azuma.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55
[DTB]
Members
264 posts
2 hours ago, Crokodone said:

It is, and is a door for more nerfs just like the nerfs to CVs.

Balanced teams != nerf

You seem to be complaining about the game being balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×