Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Admiral_Thrawn_1

Are Tier X BBs Going Obsolete?

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,527
[RKLES]
Members
12,592 posts
14,320 battles

I have been finding myself more drawn more towards CAs and DDs in tier X in recent months and when I have used BBs in tier X they have felt as if they are far less capable of carrying and dealing damage than they used to be. And this is the case with a Ranked and Randoms. And actually the last Ranked season there were battles with just CAs and DDs as the BBs were often simply large practice targets to be burned down or flooded out by DDs and CAs. And with all the Large CAs / Battlecruisers now on tier X plus more likely on the way that can fill the BB role well enough many times while still having the flexibility of CAs. 

Might be something I and other others are doing wrong, but it almost feels like just in real life the tier X BBs are obsolete. Played a a Yamato battle this morning where I scored a mere 40k damage, 1 ship sunk, I ended up being sunk with close to 3 million potential damage. Meanwhile my CAs have done well this morning each putting up nice scores, my DDs have dine very well with Gearing scoring 116k damage within first 5 minutes of the battle after feasting on a couple enemy BBs which there again the BBs were easy targets that have a difficult time dealing with massive damage output in tier X. And then guess what Subs will be targeting later.

Now let me crystal clear I do not think for a moment that BBs tier 8 and below are obsolete, on the contrary they are as good as ever. And even the tier 9 BBs still do well. Like Iowa is fast enough and compactly sized enough to be on par with the Large CAs of tier 9 and 10.

If WG decides to release some proper Battlecruiser lines that have BB class emblems on them, I really think we would see major switch over to those on tier X as that would likely be when the subs arrive or are already around. BC style ships already in X aka Large CAs are rather resilient in the armor, the 12” guns pack enough of a punch to deal with CAs and BBs, they have the speed to adapt as needed to battle conditions, faster reload to take shots at the target that just dodged the first salvo, better agility to avoid incoming ordnance, and their smaller hulls are harder to hit.

I am curious to hear everyone’s thoughts on this matter to see if anyone else has been experiencing the same thing in tier X.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
513
[KMS]
[KMS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,683 posts
12,249 battles

I haven't take a tier X bb other than the Thunderer out.  It's rough with CV and cruisers.  BB are farming targets...

 

I do have the Monty and Grober... just don't like to play them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,425
[FEM]
Members
2,105 posts
17,350 battles

BBs are still VERY good in T10, but only if you take a measured approach. Sit back too far and you will be useless, get up too close to early and you die. If you can manage that sweet spot and know when to push and when to pull away, you can consistently be lethal. That being said of course, I'd say they're similar power to DDs assuming no CVs are present, while cruisers continue to dominate.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,809
[1984]
Members
4,469 posts
21,506 battles
1 hour ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

I have been finding myself more drawn more towards CAs and DDs in tier X in recent months and when I have used BBs in tier X they have felt as if they are far less capable of carrying and dealing damage than they used to be. And this is the case with a Ranked and Randoms. And actually the last Ranked season there were battles with just CAs and DDs as the BBs were often simply large practice targets to be burned down or flooded out by DDs and CAs. And with all the Large CAs / Battlecruisers now on tier X plus more likely on the way that can fill the BB role well enough many times while still having the flexibility of CAs. 

Might be something I and other others are doing wrong, but it almost feels like just in real life the tier X BBs are obsolete. Played a a Yamato battle this morning where I scored a mere 40k damage, 1 ship sunk, I ended up being sunk with close to 3 million potential damage. Meanwhile my CAs have done well this morning each putting up nice scores, my DDs have dine very well with Gearing scoring 116k damage within first 5 minutes of the battle after feasting on a couple enemy BBs which there again the BBs were easy targets that have a difficult time dealing with massive damage output in tier X. And then guess what Subs will be targeting later.

Now let me crystal clear I do not think for a moment that BBs tier 8 and below are obsolete, on the contrary they are as good as ever. And even the tier 9 BBs still do well. Like Iowa is fast enough and compactly sized enough to be on par with the Large CAs of tier 9 and 10.

If WG decides to release some proper Battlecruiser lines that have BB class emblems on them, I really think we would see major switch over to those on tier X as that would likely be when the subs arrive or are already around. BC style ships already in X aka Large CAs are rather resilient in the armor, the 12” guns pack enough of a punch to deal with CAs and BBs, they have the speed to adapt as needed to battle conditions, faster reload to take shots at the target that just dodged the first salvo, better agility to avoid incoming ordnance, and their smaller hulls are harder to hit.

I am curious to hear everyone’s thoughts on this matter to see if anyone else has been experiencing the same thing in tier X.

I think part of it is the ROF. With bbs you really need to choose your shots, hope for someone to derp broadside, and further hope RNGeronimo gives you his blessing rather than his insult and then wait 29-32 sec to try it again all the while hoping you can go dark enough long enough before you have incessant HE or AP raining down on you from smoke or behind mountains. Then there’s the frustration of watching the same machine gun ships completely ignore spotted dds letting them torp havoc. You either shoot at said dds thus forgoing damage in the vain hope of surviving or ignore them and eventually get torped/burnt to death.Get’s boring after a while especially if you dont have a premium because then your costs will be high.

On the other hand its far easier to take a machine gun ca, ignore dds and farm bbs, all the while earning a liveable minimum wage allowing you to safely q again...

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,527
[RKLES]
Members
12,592 posts
14,320 battles
On 1/31/2020 at 11:03 AM, Kebobstuzov said:

BBs are still VERY good in T10, but only if you take a measured approach. Sit back too far and you will be useless, get up too close to early and you die. If you can manage that sweet spot and know when to push and when to pull away, you can consistently be lethal. That being said of course, I'd say they're similar power to DDs assuming no CVs are present, while cruisers continue to dominate.

And there once again the Large Cruisers / Battlecruisers often are good at being in that sweet spot range, then being able to fire long ranges rivaling BBs depending on the X cruiser and how far the range the player wanted to equip. Then they also can quickly push in if the situation calls for it. Plus those Cruisers get hydro and in some cases radar as well so that they are more protected from torpedo attacks. Their armor can shrug off Yamato shells if angled and at the right ranges. And if air attacks are too much of a concern they often can equip Def AA consumables, or might do so again if or when WG rebuffs the Def AA consumables. So you have ships that fill that role better in many ways except in the sheer potential damage of BB guns and their HP although some of the CAs are cutting surprisingly close.

I have wondered if some of the tier X maos are also not being favorable to X BBs with plenty of ambush spots for DDs to either sit in or launch torpedoes through, and CAs can pull those stunts as well. Not to mention if the largest CAs can be mobile enough to relocate or avoid to deal with a bad area. BBs on the other hand are massive, poor stealth so enemy pretty much can know anywhere they are or will be traveling to, and if they enter an island area they are committed for a while which makes ambushing them easier.

Oh and let’s not forget the difference in damage control and HP between BBs and CAs, with CAs tending to be able to use Damage Control more often, typically have shorter fire duration times, and in some cases having HP that compares favorably to BBs.

Really not sure about what kind of solution there is for tier X BBs other than simply either increasing the numbers of Large CAs added so we can just use those, adding in some Battlecruiser BB lines, or we could add in 50-100k more HP onto all existing tier X BBs as they are getting enough fires that even the added HP could be burned off fast enough, but would at least give them more time in battle. Or even an extra Repair Party consumable would help the BBs as in some fire spamming battles I go down after burning though all fire of my Repair Parties after careful use and that is with the appropriate signal flags and premium consumables mounted to try to maximize my healing. 

I have not tried going full maxed out survivability builds in my X BBs yet, but I am starting to wonder if that is what I will need to end up doing. Have been feeling like absolute damage sponge these days in my X BBs, and if that is now their role in the current meta then perhaps I need to adapt them to fill that role. Just will be sad to see them have to abandon the perks that my tier 9 and below BBs enough in terms of equipment and role in combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
845 posts
4,679 battles

Absurd fire chance HE spam & super cruisers where BB's overpen broadsides over and over again are killing BB's in high tier play. Just got out of a game where I was set on fire constantly, mostly from one Alaska.

And when I hit it with the Georgia main guns? Sorry, you get 4 overpens. Try again in 26 seconds. Also, you're on fire again after putting out the first lot of fires. 

Edited by macktkau2
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
498
[WAMMY]
Members
2,515 posts
13,988 battles

Hey

The most aggravating thing about BB's anymore is their at times lack of damage (RNG) do to the shear number of over pens, ricochets, and the fact that they get set on fire to everything.  It's insane how the likes of some fire spewing DD's, the absolute ridiculousness that is Smolensk and how fast you can get burned down even with BOS, FP and running flags and while they are still useful, they are not the bullying force they once were.  Some BB's are hampered by lack of maneuverability (GK) or worse, the lack of tools (hydro, spotting aircraft) to deal with the DD threat, and then for some it's weak armor (Conqueror, and Thunderer to a lesser extent).  Maybe if BB's were able to live longer in todays HE spamming everything, you might see BB's pushing in more, like the days when Germans were known for being close in brawlers.  Today it's Russian BB everything since they get good accuracy in close (usually), they tend to get good pen damage and enough armor to withstand HE spam.  Interesting that you never see Conqueror in CB these days, almost never see Republique now, and the GK and Montana see only limited usage.  But you do see Kremlin and sometimes the longer range Thunderer.  I hit broadside cruisers with many BB's and it's nothing but Overpens, and the ratio is approx. 1/3 pens, 1/3 overpens, and 1/3 ricochets/broken shells.  If you use HE on a DD, good luck killing it; as I mentioned before about the Conqueror where I hit a very close range DD with 8 HE shells, set 3 fires but didn't kill him outright, he damaged controlled and then sunk me with torps, it was a wth moment.  That continues today and is ruining the interest in this game for me.  Wargaming ruined the game when they made everything (including idiotic RN BB's) HE spammers from DD's, to light cruisers, to rocket planes.  And add in the everything has Radar these days and it ruined play for DD drivers.  Add rocket planes and each pass takes about 1/4 to 1/3 of a DD's health.  Now you want to add subs?  Then you have some ships and your constant manipulation (balancing) like YueYang, Hindy has been in constant flux for over a year now, Henri 4 will now be a port queen, and many other ships (entire Pan-Asian DD line) and there is much more.  The balance and fun of BB play and certain lines continue to get worse, but have no fear, we can create more crappy premiums while we ruin what was good, useful ships.

 

Pete

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,527
[RKLES]
Members
12,592 posts
14,320 battles
On 2/3/2020 at 9:18 PM, arch4random said:

wows nerfed the kurfurst and kremlin ,,there ugly now... cant even look at them..hope that helps

Well to be fair Kremlin was a little overpowered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
[R-SKY]
Members
65 posts
17,688 battles
On 2/2/2020 at 6:53 AM, macktkau2 said:

Absurd fire chance HE spam & super cruisers where BB's overpen broadsides over and over again are killing BB's in high tier play. Just got out of a game where I was set on fire constantly, mostly from one Alaska. 

And when I hit it with the Georgia main guns? Sorry, you get 4 overpens. Try again in 26 seconds. Also, you're on fire again after putting out the first lot of fires. 

^This.

A few things have changed since I started playing this game a couple years ago that have negatively impact T10 BBs - (1) too many fires and (2) bizarrely unreliable AP damage.

***There are many more fire-starting ships now. It used to be a few cruisers, specifically the IJN cruisers, which posed a significant fire threat but now there are so many cruiser lines+premium cruisers in the game that there has inevitably been an increase in HE fire-starters (exceptions of course being UK and Italian lines). Also, WG added DD gunboats (not really an issue for BBs though tbh) and what really drives me nuts: HE BBs which have absurdly high fire starting percentages (UK BBs & French BBs to a lesser extent).

***The nerfing of battleship maneuverability (like ~2 years ago?) made BB movement much more realistic and was a necessary nerf since the acceleration and turning of BBs was too good. But combine this with the increase in HE spam and the big fat T10 BBs can easily be burned down, especially if the enemy team is smart enough to focus fire. 

***Battleship AP is not effective enough. Like the quoted post above says, there are way too many overpens and ricochets (nothing worse than a well placed AP salvo resulting in both overpens and ricochets...). T10 BB AP shells are huge, they shouldn't be bouncing so easily off an enemy BB without causing any damage and the shells shouldn't be overpenning broadside cruisers without causing at the very least, moderate damage. Unless your shells are penetrating the sails of an old tall-ship, AP shells broadside shouldn't overpen so easily.  Yamato, Ohio, Kremlin, Georgia, etc. have massive guns but often even well-placed shells that don't register as overpens/ricochets still do very little/no damage. This especially occurs when facing a heavy cruiser/BB facing bow-forward. Shells bounce from the very well-armored bow so okay, you aim for the superstructure... but even with perfect hits to the superstructure, the damage is often ~1-3k (this happens all the time against Stalingrad and the French T9s/10s). The enemy's turrets seem like the only semi-vulnerable part of the ship. These are supposed to be 16"+ shells. It's insane. 

The BB which best represents the cumulative negative impact these changes have had on BBs is the Grosser Kurfurst - (1) too many fires and (2) bizarrely unreliable AP damage.

 

Edited by HolyWaterCow
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
383 posts
4,341 battles

As a cruiser player I'll give the "target side" viewpoint. All of what I'm about to say are generalizations I see as I play all different kinds of cruisers at tier 8 - 10. I'd agree that BBs aren't the best in the meta, but at the same time I also see way to many subpar bb players then any other class. 

 

1. I have yet to get away from an RU BB at sub 10km in open water. Half the time I will die instantly in the first salvo, never made it past the 3rd if I'm still spotted.

2. I have yet to get away from a German BB at sub 8km in open water. (secondaries eat at least 20% of my health before guns eventually wipe me)

3. I almost always lose at least 80% of my health or more against a Yamato or Montana when broadside at sub 14km. (hell I've been deleted by both of these ships at 20km+)

3. German BBs are played by the worse players that either get themselves killed too early or sit too far away to do anything effective.

4. RU BBs are the easiest to fight at 14km+, since they almost never hit anything (German BBs are a close second)

5. The best BB players that I believe win games are the ones that either snipe the crap out of the right targets, or the ones that get focused at some point and live later to snipe the right targets and come back with more health.

6. There are more cruisers and BBs then there are CV and DDs, so getting torped is probably the least concerning aspect about playing a BB in todays meta, and yet most BB players still play like torps are the worst thing on earth and don't push against isolated DDs, are scared of empty ocean and drive too far away from caps (where DDs are) and allow cruisers to manipulate DD play and caps too easily.

7. Almost no BBs ever uses cover to any extent. Its almost as if they see islands as a traffic cone to drive around so they can continue getting shot at even though it will take them another 30 seconds to fire. This doesn't include "bow tanking" by sitting next to an island and facing the enemy and possibly backing up. Stopping might take a while, but it beats getting sunk by continuously moving forward into the enemy, or being useless by continuously driving away.

8. Bow tanking doesn't work against anything shooting HE. Backing up to disengage also doesn't work due to the range available at higher tiers. At the ranges where people stop focusing you, BBs are basically totally ineffective against anything but the largest targets. 

9. BB platoons that go the same direction are the easiest targets to beat, since they can only attack from one angle. 2 BBs from 90 degrees from a target are more effective then 3 BBs at 1 angle from a target. 

10. The most devastating cruiser I drive against BBs is the Minotaur which is the best against dumb BBs who push open water flanks while getting pelted by AP. It doesn't contribute fire damage, and yet is more effective then all my "he spamming" ships simply due to BBs being more concerned with torps or BB rounds, and not leveraging cover to any extent, and thus slowly succumbing to a steady stream of bullets. 

12. All BBs have good HE, but few non-RN ever use it even in situations where AP is more of a "prayer" shot, or against targets bow tanking. (or any Russian BB that isn't broadside)

13. BBs can act as cruisers more often then cruisers can act as BBs, and yet few BBs ever play as aggressively as the most aggressive cruisers (like Alaska or Stalingrad). (I assume its because of the fear of torps or something?) 

14. Point blank DD strikes almost always ends up with the DD either dead or close to it, high tier secondaries alone are devastating. 

 

I'd say BBs are the easiest to play, but one of the hardest to master simply because their lack of flexibility and adaptability. You can't speed up the reload, or make the ship respond faster to changing situations, so you have to plan correctly and understand the situation. There is nothing more I fear then a good BB player on the enemy team, because they can go on and end me the moment I screw up from across the map. They also wont die quickly regardless of what I try to do, and they will always escape a bad situation to come haunting my team later thru their continuous contributions of AP.

Obsolete is the wrong term. I'd say they are getting harder to drive as its become easier and easier to punish bad play in a BB regardless of how "tanky" it is, but the changes have done nothing to other changes in the meta that actually changed how BBs used to drive. Now flexibility, adaptability and survivability are more important then armor, not getting torped and raw firepower. The game has changed drastically compared to how it was when there was only 2 nations. BBs are still viable, but they definitely have gotten harder to play and not for the traditional reasons of bigger guns, heavier armor and more torps.

 

PS. If you think its bad it got harder to drive the easiest class, go drive a DD which went from the hardest to drive to the class filled with the most important, valuable, and vulnerable ships in almost every match haha. Also I wanted to add that I do drive BBs and do fine in them, but then I play them more like cruisers rather then traditional BBs, its very successful until a DD torp runs you, but those are rare and easy to overcome. 

Edited by sargentmki
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[109TH]
Members
60 posts
2,399 battles
 
 
 
 
 
3
On 2/4/2020 at 11:11 AM, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

The most aggravating thing about BB's anymore is their at times lack of damage (RNG) do to the shear number of over pens, ricochets, and the fact that they get set on fire to everything.  It's insane how the likes of some fire spewing DD's, the absolute ridiculousness that is Smolensk and how fast you can get burned down even with BOS, FP and running flags and while they are still useful, they are not the bullying force they once were.  Some BB's are hampered by lack of maneuverability (GK) or worse, the lack of tools (hydro, spotting aircraft) to deal with the DD threat, and then for some it's weak armor (Conqueror, and Thunderer to a lesser extent). 

As a new Tier X ship user, I have to admit that Conqueror is more "vulnerable" than I have ever imagined. Maybe I am not good enough. I think using the Tier VIII Lenin or even lower-tier ships is more enjoyable than using the Tier X Conqueror at the moment, and this is the reason why I found this post after 5 defeats in a row. Because of lack of maneuverability and tools but having a much longer gun range, I see lots of BB (including me) staying maybe 15km away from the cap zone for the whole battle, moving slowly or simply sitting and searching for suicidal ships to appear. 

I test the ship in Training Room, it seems that sinking the Tier VIII Bismarck is not an easy task for the Conqueror, let alone sinking other ships in a heavily balanced Tier X Random Battle that filled with a list of Tier X DD with 15 mins or less...I still love the Conqueror because Random Battle became even more challenging than before, but now I truly understand why a popular Twitch streamer said that using Tier X BB in a 100% Tier X battle wouldn't be as enjoyable as Tier VIII (or below) battle for new players (like me). Just my two cents... 

 

 

conqu.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
[R-SKY]
Members
65 posts
17,688 battles
On 3/26/2020 at 3:48 AM, sargentmki said:

As a cruiser player I'll give the "target side" viewpoint. All of what I'm about to say are generalizations I see as I play all different kinds of cruisers at tier 8 - 10. I'd agree that BBs aren't the best in the meta, but at the same time I also see way to many subpar bb players then any other class.  

 

I'd say BBs are the easiest to play, but one of the hardest to master simply because their lack of flexibility and adaptability. You can't speed up the reload, or make the ship respond faster to changing situations, so you have to plan correctly and understand the situation. There is nothing more I fear then a good BB player on the enemy team, because they can go on and end me the moment I screw up from across the map. They also wont die quickly regardless of what I try to do, and they will always escape a bad situation to come haunting my team later thru their continuous contributions of AP. 

Obsolete is the wrong term. I'd say they are getting harder to drive as its become easier and easier to punish bad play in a BB regardless of how "tanky" it is, but the changes have done nothing to other changes in the meta that actually changed how BBs used to drive. Now flexibility, adaptability and survivability are more important then armor, not getting torped and raw firepower. The game has changed drastically compared to how it was when there was only 2 nations. BBs are still viable, but they definitely have gotten harder to play and not for the traditional reasons of bigger guns, heavier armor and more torps.

 

PS. If you think its bad it got harder to drive the easiest class, go drive a DD which went from the hardest to drive to the class filled with the most important, valuable, and vulnerable ships in almost every match haha. Also I wanted to add that I do drive BBs and do fine in them, but then I play them more like cruisers rather then traditional BBs, its very successful until a DD torp runs you, but those are rare and easy to overcome. 

(1) "As a cruiser player".... Uhhh, what? I can maybe understand someone saying "as someone who doesn't play CVs"... but who actually dedicates themselves to a certain ship type (excluding ranked or clan battles)? That's weird (fine, be weird/bizarre, who cares) but you immediately put the rest of your comments in the context of: 'In a cruiser versus enemy BBs, I conclude <whatever> about how to play a BB and how they have/have not changed'.

(2) "BBs are the easiest to play, but one of the hardest to master"... followed in the next paragraph with "I'd say they are getting harder to drive as its become easier and easier to punish bad play in a BB".... so which is it? Are BBs easy for noobs or are noobs easily punished? As for "mastering" a BB, my points were precisely addressing this. Regardless of circumstances (i.e. what situations you put your ship in), BBs are still far too easy to burn down and AP is far too ineffective/inconsistent.

(3) "the changes have done nothing to other changes in the meta that actually changed how BBs used to drive"..... that's simply false. I'm not going to look up which patches (likely multiple different ones gradually) changed BB maneuverability. But again, that isn't my complaint. The maneuverability is better/more realistic now and it's only an issue because of the the fire and AP ineffectiveness issues.

(4) "PS. If you think its bad it got harder to drive the easiest class, go drive a DD".... Uhhh, again, what? You make it sound like people only play one ship type. I play all of them (CVs to a lesser extent) and I always play DD in ranked and rank out in the DD (reason being, it's the easiest ship type in terms of "mastering".... create the circumstances 99%+ of the time rather than be at the mercy of them).

(5) "I wanted to add that I do drive BBs and do fine in them <explanation>"..... DD torps aren't the biggest threat. We're talking about T10 BBs, not T3-T-7. And you play a Yamato, GKurfurst, Montana, etc. like a cruiser? What does that even mean? You can't play them like cruisers because they are fundamentally different... let me take my GKurfurst out for a drive and play it like an Henri or Des Moines (lolwut). That maybe makes some sense if you're comparing a Moskva/Stalingrad to a Yamato/Frenchy BB but otherwise what are you talking about.

I really shouldn't have responded (but I've typed this crap already so whatever), but you didn't even address the two specifics I said were the problem: too easy to set on fire and unreliable/ineffective AP (which were also what the guy I originally quoted mentioned as the problems).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,146
[ARGSY]
Members
10,326 posts
16,093 battles

i love republiq with UU .    its fast enough  tanky enough and   have guns that shoot as fast as super cruisers and hits hard.  20km range is enough for me and when you need it, it hits fast.     Beyond that,   tank build is only build for BB.         my most played BB, not that is saying much.    i may work in yammy's UU next though.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
383 posts
4,341 battles
14 hours ago, HolyWaterCow said:

(1) "As a cruiser player".... Uhhh, what? I can maybe understand someone saying "as someone who doesn't play CVs"... but who actually dedicates themselves to a certain ship type (excluding ranked or clan battles)? That's weird (fine, be weird/bizarre, who cares) but you immediately put the rest of your comments in the context of: 'In a cruiser versus enemy BBs, I conclude <whatever> about how to play a BB and how they have/have not changed'.

(2) "BBs are the easiest to play, but one of the hardest to master"... followed in the next paragraph with "I'd say they are getting harder to drive as its become easier and easier to punish bad play in a BB".... so which is it? Are BBs easy for noobs or are noobs easily punished? As for "mastering" a BB, my points were precisely addressing this. Regardless of circumstances (i.e. what situations you put your ship in), BBs are still far too easy to burn down and AP is far too ineffective/inconsistent.

(3) "the changes have done nothing to other changes in the meta that actually changed how BBs used to drive"..... that's simply false. I'm not going to look up which patches (likely multiple different ones gradually) changed BB maneuverability. But again, that isn't my complaint. The maneuverability is better/more realistic now and it's only an issue because of the the fire and AP ineffectiveness issues.

(4) "PS. If you think its bad it got harder to drive the easiest class, go drive a DD".... Uhhh, again, what? You make it sound like people only play one ship type. I play all of them (CVs to a lesser extent) and I always play DD in ranked and rank out in the DD (reason being, it's the easiest ship type in terms of "mastering".... create the circumstances 99%+ of the time rather than be at the mercy of them).

(5) "I wanted to add that I do drive BBs and do fine in them <explanation>"..... DD torps aren't the biggest threat. We're talking about T10 BBs, not T3-T-7. And you play a Yamato, GKurfurst, Montana, etc. like a cruiser? What does that even mean? You can't play them like cruisers because they are fundamentally different... let me take my GKurfurst out for a drive and play it like an Henri or Des Moines (lolwut). That maybe makes some sense if you're comparing a Moskva/Stalingrad to a Yamato/Frenchy BB but otherwise what are you talking about.

I really shouldn't have responded (but I've typed this crap already so whatever), but you didn't even address the two specifics I said were the problem: too easy to set on fire and unreliable/ineffective AP (which were also what the guy I originally quoted mentioned as the problems).

Honestly I was half asleep writing that post, so I think I kinda went off the rails haha.

1. I primarily drive cruisers, and wanted to offer a "cruiser viewpoint" to everything. The idea that "you need to drive a BB to be able to say anything" is false. You need to understand your enemy to beat them. I'm not saying I'm 100% all knowing (duh), but I can at least toss in things I've noticed over the games I've played. I do drive BBs, but not as much as most other classes (besides CVs hehe) and have been very successful. It could be just due to the small sample size of games played in the class, or I actually do know what I'm talking about, only time will tell. Regardless, I do spend most of my time playing some other class, either watching allied BBs, or getting shot by enemy BBs, which is why I point to my specific experience so far playing this game. (primarily driving cruisers around)

Just because I don't only drive BBs doesn't automatically make my statements false. (You could say this is a straw man fallacy )

2. Both? BBs are the easiest to play, but they aren't 100% noob proof. The level of skill you need to perform decent in a BB is lower then most other classes, simply because you can't get instantly deleted, at the same time the skill you need to perform really well in a BB is higher then most other classes because each "mistake" is more costly over time. IE its not a big deal if your shots are off in a cruiser, since you can fire again in like 2-10 seconds, but if your missing with a BB, your wasting one of the ~40 volleys you get per match. 

I do not believe BBs are significantly more vulnerable to fire then other classes. They are easier to shoot and hit due to their size, but they are also the one class that can easily shrug off fires. (1 heal ~= 1 full length fire damage) They are also usually speced to cut down on fire damage in general. If played correctly I see no reason you should die to fire unless your out of heals, or getting focused. If your getting focused then you screwed up and nothing will save you. 

AP inconsistency is a different story as there are tons of facets that determine if a volley is going to be worth any damage. I specifically gave examples where specific battleships are basically "locked" to kill the average cruiser regardless of other factors. If your sitting at 15km+ and complaining about AP inconsistencies, then the problem has nothing to do with RNG or game balance, just get closer or aim at something easier to hit, or do both. 

3. I'd say the changes to BB maneuverability affected their ability to dodge torps the most. Today there are less torp threats due to the CV re-work (no more Miday double torp planes for instant kills hehe) and less DDs in most matches in general. If your playing smart, I'd say the change increased the amount of torps you get hit by an average by 1 or 2 over a few games if your playing aggressively, compared to before the maneuverability changes. Simply put, you either are gonna get hammered at point blank, hammered cuse your driving to straight, or your prepared and facing torps where extra maneuverability would help to dodge an extra torp here and there. Regardless this is a pretty old change, like I think pre-radar, which I think came around a similar time as I remember a ton of "nerfs" to DDs all coming in at the same time when the game was in beta. 

4. Yea I think this one was a cheap shot haha.

5.

15 hours ago, HolyWaterCow said:

What does that even mean? You can't play them like cruisers because they are fundamentally differentt

I think my idea of saying "playing them like a cruiser" and expecting people to understand what the hell I'm saying is my fault since I play my cruisers very aggressively, which isn't true for everyone, nor could it be true for all cruisers. At the same time I play them aggressively because I know how to use cover to not die, which very few BBs I see ever try to do.

 

15 hours ago, HolyWaterCow said:

I really shouldn't have responded (but I've typed this crap already so whatever)

I know this feeling, I have it all the time ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
633
[UN1]
Members
1,293 posts
4,041 battles

T10 ships in general are the most lethal relative to their tier, so even minor mistakes get especially punished. 

Keep in mind, too, that T10 battleships are also the largest and least agile relative to their tier, so in any scenario where you even minutely over-extend, it can be brutally punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,545
[WOLF3]
Members
28,794 posts
25,049 battles

LOL Tier X Battleships are fine :Smile_teethhappy:

They can take punishment whereas Cruisers have a lot to be concerned about to survive.

Damage dealing?  Let's look at some damage averages with K/D ratio.

(Source for these values:  Maplesyrup NA Server 1st Quarter 2020)

Yamato 83.4k / 1.14

GK 72.9k / 0.9

Republique 84.4k / 1.1

* Bourgogne 118.1k / 2.2

Conqueror 98.1k / 1.3

Thunderer 98.8k / 1.4

Kremlin 83k / 1.3

Montana 71.2k / 1.0

* Ohio 93.9k / 1.5

 

Venezia 90.2k / 1.93

Zao 72.9k / 1.2

Yoshino (Super Cruiser) 75.6k / 1.1

Hindenburg 77.7k / 1.1

* Colbert 77k / 1.4

Henri IV 78.7k (the nerf has been hard, this used to average 87-92k in past quarters) / 1.2

* Goliath 86.6k / 1.5

Moskva 70.2k / 1.0

Smolensk 76.2k / 1.2

* Stalingrad (Super Cruiser) 89.7k / 1.5

Des Moines 63.6k / 1.0

Salem 61k / 0.9

Puerto Rico 63.6k / 0.9 (honestly disappointed in these PR stats, these are weak for a Tier X Super Cruiser)

Worcester 63.7k / 1.0

Minotaur 62.1k / 1.2

 

Take the stats from the ones with an * with a grain of salt because of the small sample size (Battles played), newness of the line, or the upper end of the playerbase that normally uses them (Stalingrad, i.e. a lot of Ranked / Clan Battle veterans).  The stats are inflated.

 

The K/D ratio looks to favor Battleships in general, but the advantage is slight.

In raw Damage Average, Battleships are quite a bit better.  Henri IV got nuked hard with her nerfs and is no longer the 92k monster.  Outliers Venezia and Stalingrad are what prop up Cruiser Damage Average in this selection.  Even the "Big Bad HE DPM" Cruisers Worcester, Smolensk, Cruisers that many around here complain about their nonstop HE spam being OP, don't do the damage that Battleships are typically doing in Tier X.  Des Moines-class with their 203mm guns firing at a base 5.5 seconds reload are among the worst damage dealers among Tier X Cruisers, never mind comparing the performance to Tier X Battleships.

 

And people say Battleships are obsolete?

Imgur: The magic of the Internet

 

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
498
[WAMMY]
Members
2,515 posts
13,988 battles

Hey

I think there is certain game manipulation at play and in Clan battles right now; You so seldom see a Conqueror (like 1%) same for Montana, not even a lot of Thunderers,  a couple of Ohio's, No Republiques, and about an equal portion of GK's and Yamato's.  There clear winner is Kremlin (imagine that, no Russian bias).   That is a fair sign of the status of T10 BB's these days, how they are on the competitive side of things,

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
949 posts
2,321 battles

It's the biggest paywall in the game. If you pick a line with a T10 BB you don't like you can't just do some work and try another one without a huge effort. 

I think it has less to do with BB's being less playable and more to do with cruisers at T10 being more playable for BB players. They are smaller but they aren't BB food. There's a lot of people who wouldn't enjoy cruisers at the lower ranks who'd enjoy them higher up, not sure that's the same with BB's. I know I've enjoyed my Alaska cause it's mostly a BB. But while IRL that was the only class of its kind, WG's just keeps pumping those out. Think there's a lot of BB players who'd enjoy the faster playstyle of cruisers if the things could take a punch and if they could do damage. And now there's a lot of cruisers that can do that. 

In my short time back I have not seen what you're describing in terms of their being less BB's though just more CV's. But I've experienced it personally where I look forward to taking out a cruiser more than a BB. My take is that's cause they ain't cruisers and are tailored to BB players play style in the lower tiers making the adjustment from BB to cruisers is hard, at the higher tiers its pretty doable. . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
949 posts
2,321 battles
3 hours ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

I think there is certain game manipulation at play and in Clan battles right now; You so seldom see a Conqueror (like 1%) same for Montana, not even a lot of Thunderers,  a couple of Ohio's, No Republiques, and about an equal portion of GK's and Yamato's.  There clear winner is Kremlin (imagine that, no Russian bias).   That is a fair sign of the status of T10 BB's these days, how they are on the competitive side of things,

 

Pete

 

I play the Conqueror and saw those stats too, made a thread about it. It's putting up great numbers but no one's playing it. I didn't get the 457's but I know that's what a lot of Conqueror players enjoyed(not sure if they got patched out or you can't get them anymore but if they were patched out that explains a lot). Thunderers which are behind a hefty pay wall is the BB with those guns now and lots of Conqueror players who preferred Conqueror with them might not without them and might not have Thunderer yet(252k coal is a lot).Thunderer doesn't have superheal which is a big part of what makes Conqueror fun but some people prolly would rather have the Yamato fire guns.

Also Conqueror was powercrept. It used to be most powerful ship, last 2 tech tree BB's look like they better. Yamato and Montana players only chose that cause it's what they wanted or because they were there in the beginning not to play the best ship. I think a lot of Conqueror mains were playing it cause it was the best ship(as paper ship enthusiasts would have every reason to do). It's not anymore not even the best UK BB and so a lot of people are going to change. 

Someone on that thread also brought up to me Conquerors playstyle was bad for ranked sprint strategy but he was also talking BB's in general. 

But yeah it having the playrate it did is so low all of this still doesn't explain it to me. Same with Lion compared to other T9's. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
949 posts
2,321 battles
On 3/30/2020 at 4:00 AM, HolyWaterCow said:

(1) "As a cruiser player".... Uhhh, what? I can maybe understand someone saying "as someone who doesn't play CVs"... but who actually dedicates themselves to a certain ship type (excluding ranked or clan battles)? That's weird (fine, be weird/bizarre, who cares) but you immediately put the rest of your comments in the context of: 'In a cruiser versus enemy BBs, I conclude <whatever> about how to play a BB and how they have/have not changed'.

(2) "BBs are the easiest to play, but one of the hardest to master"... followed in the next paragraph with "I'd say they are getting harder to drive as its become easier and easier to punish bad play in a BB".... so which is it? Are BBs easy for noobs or are noobs easily punished? As for "mastering" a BB, my points were precisely addressing this. Regardless of circumstances (i.e. what situations you put your ship in), BBs are still far too easy to burn down and AP is far too ineffective/inconsistent.

(3) "the changes have done nothing to other changes in the meta that actually changed how BBs used to drive"..... that's simply false. I'm not going to look up which patches (likely multiple different ones gradually) changed BB maneuverability. But again, that isn't my complaint. The maneuverability is better/more realistic now and it's only an issue because of the the fire and AP ineffectiveness issues.

(4) "PS. If you think its bad it got harder to drive the easiest class, go drive a DD".... Uhhh, again, what? You make it sound like people only play one ship type. I play all of them (CVs to a lesser extent) and I always play DD in ranked and rank out in the DD (reason being, it's the easiest ship type in terms of "mastering".... create the circumstances 99%+ of the time rather than be at the mercy of them).

(5) "I wanted to add that I do drive BBs and do fine in them <explanation>"..... DD torps aren't the biggest threat. We're talking about T10 BBs, not T3-T-7. And you play a Yamato, GKurfurst, Montana, etc. like a cruiser? What does that even mean? You can't play them like cruisers because they are fundamentally different... let me take my GKurfurst out for a drive and play it like an Henri or Des Moines (lolwut). That maybe makes some sense if you're comparing a Moskva/Stalingrad to a Yamato/Frenchy BB but otherwise what are you talking about.

I really shouldn't have responded (but I've typed this crap already so whatever), but you didn't even address the two specifics I said were the problem: too easy to set on fire and unreliable/ineffective AP (which were also what the guy I originally quoted mentioned as the problems).

1)It's not weird lots of people do it. BB's and cruisers are more similar to each other than DD's and CV's(soon to be subs) but a BB playstyle won't work in a cruiser and vice e versa. The game also kind of incentives you to pick one in the beginning to move up the tree fastest. Not saying everyone doesn't play everything but you're probably out of touch here a bit. It doesn't mean you don't know about the other class but if you don't enjoy a different play style aren't you just wasting your time no reason? BB's can take a hit, cruisers and DD's can't.  

And high tier BB's are faster than low tier BB's, low tier BB's are slow af. I guess that's what  playing a BB like a cruiser means means. What do you think a "battlecruiser" is? 

You need to calm down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
949 posts
2,321 battles
On 3/26/2020 at 7:40 AM, HMSRodney_1941 said:

As a new Tier X ship user, I have to admit that Conqueror is more "vulnerable" than I have ever imagined. Maybe I am not good enough. I think using the Tier VIII Lenin or even lower-tier ships is more enjoyable than using the Tier X Conqueror at the moment, and this is the reason why I found this post after 5 defeats in a row. Because of lack of maneuverability and tools but having a much longer gun range, I see lots of BB (including me) staying maybe 15km away from the cap zone for the whole battle, moving slowly or simply sitting and searching for suicidal ships to appear. 

I test the ship in Training Room, it seems that sinking the Tier VIII Bismarck is not an easy task for the Conqueror, let alone sinking other ships in a heavily balanced Tier X Random Battle that filled with a list of Tier X DD with 15 mins or less...I still love the Conqueror because Random Battle became even more challenging than before, but now I truly understand why a popular Twitch streamer said that using Tier X BB in a 100% Tier X battle wouldn't be as enjoyable as Tier VIII (or below) battle for new players (like me). Just my two cents... 

 

 

conqu.jpg

 

Conqueror's my only BB too. 

A T10 being more enjoyable than a lower tier ship isn't a fair expectation especially with just a few years.

It will be fun when you do well in it not saying it can't be fun, but that ain't going to be a consistent thing especially not right away. The ship I do the best in these days is the Viriblius Unitis. Is it better than Conqueor? Hell no, it's just Conqueror is fighting better players in the best ships in the game. Every single T10 required people to finish a tech tree to play(or care enough to spend a very hefty price for the doubloons to skip the line. People play T10 exclusive modes for the rewards and a good game will get you more. Not having the most fun at T10 is what I expect is normal. They don't do normal ranked T10 for a reason.

Edited by Aristotle83

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
498
[WAMMY]
Members
2,515 posts
13,988 battles
6 hours ago, Aristotle83 said:

1)It's not weird lots of people do it. BB's and cruisers are more similar to each other than DD's and CV's(soon to be subs) but a BB playstyle won't work in a cruiser and vice e versa. The game also kind of incentives you to pick one in the beginning to move up the tree fastest. Not saying everyone doesn't play everything but you're probably out of touch here a bit. It doesn't mean you don't know about the other class but if you don't enjoy a different play style aren't you just wasting your time no reason? BB's can take a hit, cruisers and DD's can't.  

And high tier BB's are faster than low tier BB's, low tier BB's are slow af. I guess that's what  playing a BB like a cruiser means means. What do you think a "battlecruiser" is? 

You need to calm down. 

Hey

The problem as I see it with Conqueror is 2 fold.  First the raised citadel and weak armor for brawling.  second is related to damage it eats; I rarely survive long enough to use the last "super heal".  If your set on fire and taking any damage, that health bleeds off very quickly to the point of never making it to that heal, and if you don't get to the heal , then what's the point.   The Conqueror does hold my 2 personal best scores in the game of around 265K+.  I have to admit it was a cheap shot that Wargaming took the 457 guns away from Conqueror to give to Thunderer, and I used to switch and forth on occasion.   It also seams like the HE fire chance has been messed with in general because many ships that used to be outstanding at starting fires are not nearly as good as they once were (and this was before the recent armor changes too).

 

Pete

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×