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

Make battleships Great Again

67 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,526
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,671 posts
6,346 battles

Some fixes to make both Battleship and overall gameplay more engaging.

 

  • Cool 25
  • Confused 3
  • Boring 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
285
[CLRN]
Members
598 posts
122 battles
48 minutes ago, NoZoupForYou said:

Some fixes to make both Battleship and overall gameplay more engaging.

 

i dont like that idea about fires on BBs. lets say you are in a DD and just landed a torp on a BB which sits bow in. you know that this BB is gonna stay spotted even if you smoke up and shoot at him. so why would you ever want to punish that DD player for this play? just because BB pushed in, why would you ever want to lower that DD's fire chance? no, i dont like it. Besides BBs are already the easiest class to play (excluding CVs ofc) and the survivability they have is already too much imo.  esp. kremlin with that super special russian navy hero captain. 

but i also agree about that stupid "overpening the citadel" mechanic. like you mentioned. if a heavy cruiser shows broadside lets say at 9km, she is gonna get deleted almost for sure. but if a smolensk does that, mostly you cant even get a single citadel on her. this is beyond stupid imo. 

Edited by ghostbuster_
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,760
[KWF]
Members
4,377 posts
6,405 battles

100% agree with everything.

Just a tiny change.

Remove the arbitrary overmatch mechanics that make high tier BBs  immune to AP just by pointing their bow unless they face a Yamato (or Shikishima). Wanna bounce shells? Angle properly. Now that's a mechanic that gets almost no recognition whereas IFHE and HE gets all the flak.

What makes BB gameplay boring and lazy in my opinion (and to be honest I am an average BB player) is how easily I can pick a flank, go bow in, then the moment I am fired upon start reversing. Meanwhile I can use my Repair Party, go to stealth if not many enemies are around and also present a small profile to avoid torpedoes. If you are allowed to do that and moreover get away with it just by literally doing what is written on the front of a claymore mine, why am I not allowed to burn BBs to the waterline?

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[AAG]
Beta Testers
77 posts
3,268 battles

I agree with almost everything you've said.

Almost

Yes, I'm a destroyer player.  And believe it or not, I don't have a huge problem with radar.  CVs...okay, enough said there.  My beef is with this statement.

"Any  destroyer that gets within 6 clicks deserves to be deleted".  I think at one point, you even throw out the range of 10km. 


Most destroyers don't even get a torpedo range above 8km until tier 7.  There's only a handful that have a range of greater than 10km.  Furthermore, many of them actually have a detection range that's greater than their torpedo range, so not really sure what to do in that case, if they can't get close?

 

Lets talk about the premise of your video.  The majority of your issue seems to be with cruisers, and on this I totally agree:  HE spam has gotten way out of control.  If, however, cruisers aren't meant to counter battleships, then who is?  Submarines might be coming out, but those appear to only be present in an elective battle mode;  People don't have to deal with them unless they want to.  CVs are a little bit out of control right now, so I won't attempt to discuss that.  See, I actually thing that the HE flaming cruisers that are such a problem with battleships, THEY should be the counter to destroyers.  Problem is they're too good against battleships, and they're more interested in racking up all the exp from farming damage rather than kill DDs, so again, I agree with this.

The issue right now is that torpedoes are really damn easy to avoid.  I play battleships as well, and unless I've been caught completely off guard, I almost never take torpedo hits except from bombers.  Part of this is that I play DDs, so I know how to avoid the shot.  The vigilance talent, and the torpedo lookout system means I've usually got plenty of time to react and either slow down, speed up or make the turn.  And then, unless it's a destroyer that I know might have the reload booster, I'm safe for at least another 1-2 min, because the reload time on torpedoes is astronomical.  If I see smoke, there's no way in hell I'm going broadside to it either, cause I know what's about to come out of there.

On the other side, In destroyers, I've pulled off perfect ninja shots, completely undetected, using IJN destroyers or pan-asian, and somehow, still only land a single hit, if that.   I've also seen battleships avoid a point-blank 2km narrow spread, because several of them are able to turn in a manner that would make cruisers jealous.  Hell, I've done it in battleships of my own.

Long story short.  For most destroyers, getting close is just about the only way we can score damage.  If we try to use islands, there's the risk of hydro or radar, which, by the way, we're blind behind that island, so we don't know who's on the other side unless scouted.  If we try to use ninja tactics, 9 times out of 10 the torpedoes get spotted, wasting the shot.  

We're fragile as it is.  The moment we get spotted, every single cruiser within range is on us, and that's while dealing with rocket bombers as well.

  You don't need an insta-delete for DDs as a battleship.  If you let a destroyer get that close to you with all the means there are to detect them, you deserve to get torpedoed.

  • Cool 10
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
[OVRPN]
Members
746 posts

I posted on his video but for me I just want fires relative the shell that set them. So if an HE hit rolls "fire" it applies a DOT instead of instant damage. That DOT burns for the full HE damage the shell could do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
288
[SACH]
[SACH]
Members
990 posts

 

1 hour ago, NoZoupForYou said:

Some fixes to make both Battleship and overall gameplay more engaging.

 

I agree to on manual and auto secondaries being included for battleships . Also agree that these guns should hurt when they are fired at crusiers and DDs alike . 152 mm secondaries aren't something to laugh about . If a crusier can have all that fire power why can't a BB to defend itself .I also believe the their accuracy should be a bit more condensed  and not be all over the page at four kilometers.   A BB should be a scary sight for crusiers and DDs. That was one of their main roles.  They should also have blistering AA fire to boot.

Also think your idea about HE shattering the closer you are to a BB isn't a bad idea . Would be cool to see that.
 

:Smile_honoring:

Edited by Versili

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,624 posts

I just checked T10 NA server stats, https://na.wows-numbers.com/ships/ BB dominate T10 aver damage by far. Top 4 are BB, and then a BC. These are the facts, the rest is sad demagogy. Of course if you are pure DD player you may want cruisers down (shame on you btw, and I know a lot of DD mains that play cruisers as well) and if you believe that the only way to turn fat slow warships in something less boring to play is nerfing all the BB countering tactics, shame on you as well...If Lesta follows this lead (further nerfing cruisers tactics) they might end up just with Zoup followers or so...I'm ready to move...

I do respond to insults, so don't even bother...

Edited by loco_max
  • Cool 5
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[YETI]
[YETI]
Members
542 posts
12,255 battles

I disagree with most of what he says.  First off he is complaining about how terrible BBs are while showing a game where he gets top spot and 2300 baser XP lol.  Changing the chance of fire for a cruiser getting in closer than 10 km makes no sense.  What Worcester or Smolensk is going to get that close to a BB on purpose?  If they get that close they are dead.  He says that a broadside cruiser should be deleted, they already do.  He wants a DD that gets in 6km to be instantly killed.  If a DD chooses to get that close they are putting themselves in a lot of danger.  Any DD spotted will be shot by any cruiser in sight and if the BB is alone it still only takes one or 2 salvos at most to take it out.  I love my German BBs as well as Mass and Georgia so obviously a secondary buff would be fun but I also don't think they should make a bubble around the ship that will kill anything in their range.  

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


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

BBs have been getting buffs for years. In some cases, huge buffs to battleships (flooding changes, CV rework).

Game changes for years have been buffing BBs, with the exception of the update to AP on destroyers several years ago and the IFHE rework - only because this buffed armor on a bunch of cruisers and made them less overmatchable.

Otherwise, nearly all game changes have benefited battleships consistently.

 

  • Cool 13
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
455
[VFW]
Members
1,424 posts
29,249 battles

  There is no issue with USN BBs, they are very good.  Playing BBs like any other ship is solely based on player skill, not hyperbole.  So, about the fire chance, that make little to no sense.  The answer is not to punish DDs and supporting cruisers in trying to push objectives.

  The use of "Make (fill in the blank) great again" is just an excuse to push an personal agenda.   Zoup again has shown how disconnected to the player base he has drifted.

  I like Zoup personally, but insulting the very folks who watch his videos is getting sad.  

vr,

Edited by TexJapan
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
304
[WOLFC]
Members
488 posts
6,408 battles

I get what he's trying for here, and the static nature of BB play could use a kick in the pants. Some tweaks I'd apply to his ideas:

1) Secondary guns would be more accurate the closer the target is to the ship. At 80%-max range, they'd be what we see now. As the hostile ship got closer, the accuracy of the secondary fire would get better. At about 2km or less, they'd be nearly as accurate as primary armament. This wouldn't be a set distance, and would be dependent on the range of the BB's secondary guns. Maybe tie in the default manual secondary skill he was talking about to have this effect kick in.

2) I like the idea of a reduced fire chance the closer the BB got to the HE slinger. Maybe re-re-work the IFHE skill to include improved pen at close ranges, to help CLs still do damage at the closer ranges as well. Call it counter-counter play.

3) If they were to change the overpen, I'd only apply it at point blank range, i.e. 2km or less. Shoot, make it the replacement skill for manual secondaries, tie it in with #1 above, and call it, "Get me closer, I want to hit them with my sword" or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,624 posts

and I forgot mentioning that the best T10 CA come on 7th position, the Venezia, and it does not use HE. The fast RoF T10 CL are down the list and after the IFHE nerf, they will continue to go down...The Smolensk is on 14th position...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
656
[NUWES]
Members
3,138 posts
10,745 battles

I saw the video last week and I love watching Zoup's videos but I greatly disagree. Truthfully, the fact that BB play is unengaging is cause by people playing them in an unengaging way. I won't call it operator error because it isn't an error, it's a deliberate choice. There's no reason why BBs hovering at long rang and sniping should be insisting that their playstyle is boring. If cruisers with lower HP, no heals and shorter range can take risks closer-in there's no good reason that BBs can't do it to. Quite a few cruisers have concealment as bad as some BBs, are as unmaneuverable as BBs and are almost as sluggish accelerating and most of them don't have the ability to sit stationary at long ranges. They play dynamically. 

 There's nothing new about unengaging BB play. It is a deliberate choice a lot of BB drivers are making because they are afraid to close and choose not to engage in mechanics such as capping and close support that require a BB to ... you know ... close in where they might catch on fire or scratch some paint. The difference is more ships have appeared which can punish that playstyle or take advantage of it in some way and the playerbase has generally gotten smarter about countering it. I, for one, think that is a good thing. I finished the German BB line a couple of months ago and I must admit I enjoyed them. Accuracy sucks balls, but providing close support to my DDs and cruisers by pushing in behind them was actually fun and surprisingly it worked well. I didn't often survive to the end, but a charging angry BB provided the shock-trooper effect to collapse the enemy flank, scatter their DDs and take the heat off of ours while they capped. It contributed to wins a lot more than I thought it would the DDs I played with appreciated it. It was a fun challenge figuring out how to best close without getting sniped to death by the enemy team. (Hint: a DD smoking ahead of me worked the best). 

I've gone on far too long in this  but my point is that BB play is as dynamic or static as the player makes it. Nothing about BBs tells the player to sit at 22km let someone else spot for you, and just snipe. Tools have appeared to help counter static play and make is less effective than it was years ago, (I for one welcome the CV overlords, the long-range HE spamming cruisers and the DDs who've learned to use their concealment properly) but that means that BBs should be adapting (and using forward gears). I don't think anything needs to be done to make BBs great again. They are great and always have been. People need to stop playing them so passively and use their tools better. I DO think that Wargaming should try to come up with something to better incentivize BBs to move the hell in closer though. Good BB players know to do this, but there are too many not-as-good players who wonder why they keep ending up in losing games, but yet they and two other full-health BBs on the 10-line are the last three ships left on their teams as the enemy closes in for the kill. 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
461
[WOLFG]
Members
866 posts

Okay, I watched the entire video.  Basically, he wants Cruisers neutered against battleships. He wants Cruisers to have to play in close in order to do any damage with fires.  He wants to delete them by citadels if they show any broadside when they are close.   On top of that he wants the secondary builds for free for all Battleships so that a cruiser can get destroyed when they play in close.  

Cruisers already take a huge risk moving in close.

Just state the obvious.  Neuter cruisers so that the only ships worth playing are Battleships.  

 

Edited by Captain_Rawhide
  • Cool 4

Share this post


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

I saw the video last week and I love watching Zoup's videos but I greatly disagree. Truthfully, the fact that BB play is unengaging is cause by people playing them in an unengaging way. I won't call it operator error because it isn't an error, it's a deliberate choice. There's no reason why BBs hovering at long rang and sniping should be insisting that their playstyle is boring. If cruisers with lower HP, no heals and shorter range can take risks closer-in there's no good reason that BBs can't do it to. Quite a few cruisers have concealment as bad as some BBs, are as unmaneuverable as BBs and are almost as sluggish accelerating and most of them don't have the ability to sit stationary at long ranges. They play dynamically. 

Anecdote from a game I played yesterday - a GK was sitting 1-2km behind a DM who was about that far behind me in the Alaska. I was drawing all enemy fire, the GK was full HP.

I requested the GK to move up, and he just went straight forward got farmed and died, then complained in chat about "this is why I don't push." But the problem is that he pushed very recklessly in a class of ship that reckless pushes --> death and in a ship in that class which has nearly no abilities to disengage.

But regardless of how his push was badly done, he still believes that pushing --> death.

Knowing how/when to apply pressure in a battleship is incredibly nuanced compared to other ships. And less forgiving than cruisers (but much moreso than destroyers).

3 minutes ago, Captain_Rawhide said:

Okay, I watched the entire video.  Basically, he wants Cruisers neutered against battleships. He wants Cruisers to have to play in close in order to do any damage with fires.  He wants to delete them by citadels if they show any broadside when they are close.   On top of that he wants the secondary builds for free for all Battleships so that a cruiser can get destroyed when they play in close.  

Cruisers already take a huge risk moving in close.

Just state the obvious.  Neuter cruisers so that the only ships worth playing are Battleship.  

 

This has been the endgame goal of a lot of WoWS players for years.

Making big alpha strikes more accessible to the average player. Those dev strikes are the adrenaline "hit" that keeps people wanting to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
835 posts
5,808 battles

People say the Roma is crap but in CVless games she’s got cruiser concealment which means you only take fire when firing if doing it right. Plus she uptiers spectacularly. Dev striking T10s from concealment in a BB is sensual.

Edited by KnifeInUrNeck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
656
[NUWES]
Members
3,138 posts
10,745 battles
Just now, enderland07 said:

Anecdote from a game I played yesterday - a GK was sitting 1-2km behind a DM who was about that far behind me in the Alaska. I was drawing all enemy fire, the GK was full HP.

I requested the GK to move up, and he just went straight forward got farmed and died, then complained in chat about "this is why I don't push." But the problem is that he pushed very recklessly in a class of ship that reckless pushes --> death and in a ship in that class which has nearly no abilities to disengage.

But regardless of how his push was badly done, he still believes that pushing --> death.

Knowing how/when to apply pressure in a battleship is incredibly nuanced compared to other ships. And less forgiving than cruisers (but much moreso than destroyers).

 

Exactly. I would add that the biggest issue with BBs is they don't provide feedback to newer players if they are played badly. Badly played DDs and cruisers usually die quickly.  You know you f-ed up. BBs can f-up and still  be sitting at long ranges with almost full health. 

Badly played BBs with their high health, heals and armor can linger on like a cancer on your team. They think they playing well because they stayed alive and got a decent point total (solely because they stayed alive). However, they end up on the 10-line on one losing team after another and can't figure out the fact that they were too far away to prevent the enemy from taking the caps is part of why the teams keep losing.

I've been grinding Drake lately and it amazes me how setting BBs on fire will tend to get them to turn away and not come back. The "turn away" part to put the fire out and reset D/C is fine, but they just don't come back and that part baffles me. I cannot fathom why one fire from a CA causes them to abandon their allies and concede the flank it happens more often than not. That's not BBs not being great, it's user error. Players get attracted to them because they are big and tough with big guns but they won't take risks to get the big guns into ranges where they can actually exercise control over the battlefield or use their armor/heals/hp to manage the risks while getting to those ranges. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,324
[SIM]
Members
4,933 posts
8,013 battles

Good video. I might approach some fixes a bit differently, but I agree with the points that you’ve made. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,594
[KRAK]
Members
3,714 posts
21,733 battles
4 hours ago, NoZoupForYou said:

Some fixes to make both Battleship and overall gameplay more engaging.

 

This a joke thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×