Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
dagger1013

Upgrade slot and CA armor change proposal

9 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

122
[LSNB]
Members
159 posts
4,895 battles

So first, what does this proposal seek to accomplish?

1. T10 CAs often find themselves unable to angle against most T10 BBs.

2. Montana, and to a lesser extent GK have been powercrept by BBs that can overmatch 30mm of armor.

3. Kremlin is overperforming due to it's excellent tankiness as well as ability to punish cruisers from virtually any angle.

4. T7 vs T9 has a difference of two upgrade slots, making up tiers in T7s very punishing.

 

So what changes am I proposing?

1. Buff all T10 CA upper belt and deck to 32mm.

2. Give upgrade slot 5 to T7, and upgrade slot 6 to T8.

 

How do these changes solve the above issues?

The first problem should be pretty clear. T10 CAs can now angle against all T10 BBs with the exception of Yamato, Musashi, and Shikishima. I feel this is justified as this is their main gimmick, and they already have clear weaknesses like the well known citadel cheeks, poor handling, and upper belt vulnerable to HE.

As for issues 2 and 3, Montana and GK now are more competitive with the T10 competition as the inability to overmatch CA upper belt becomes more common. GK has secondaries that can still pen 32mm, increasing its relevance, as well as superior weight of fire from having 12 guns. Montana also gains the weight of fire advantage as well as good dispersion due to Artillery Plotting Room Mod 2. Thunderer is reigned in, but it can fall back on it's excellent HE. Conqueror is spamming HE anyways, so there is little change there. Kremlin loses its overmatch capability, but retains its excellent protection and tankiness, as well as higher individual shell alpha when forced to go bow in. IJN BBs of course still can ignore CA angling, but they have their own weaknesses as stated above. Bourgogne couldn't over match 30mm before anyways, and retains its maneuverability and opportunistic burst potential with MBRB. With this change, the majority of the T10 BBs will have their own unique advantages and disadvantages and they should all mostly be competitive. The one odd duck is Republique, which I will address later.

This also has the benefit of helping some cruisers that have been struggling, like Goliath and Zao. It also narrows the gap between conventional CAs and the Russian super CAs like Petropavlosk, Moskva, and Stalingrad in terms of tankiness. Of course, they still have their resistance to HE and IJN BB AP.

And as an unexpected bonus, it's an indirect nerf to Kitakaze. Now, I don't have the ship so I can't speak with 100% confidence, but from what I've heard with Harugumo players go full BB farm mode with AFT and IFHE. The cruiser plating change should not affect it. However, with Kitakaze, from what I've heard some people prefer to abuse its excellent concealment and hold on to fire chance by not taking IFHE allowing them to murder cruisers. While of course this doesn't affect Kitakaze's victims at T9, they now must give up some fire chance if they want to be able to reliably farm T10 CAs.

Finally, the upgrades. I decided to include this in my proposal because I felt that the above changes would further exacerbate the very sharp power increases we experience. I wanted to smooth out the power curve. There is now a clear progression of power. At T7 we get access to concealment mod, which is a high buff to those ships especially because they see T9 so frequently. They would only be at a DPM (and sometimes heal) disadvantage versus now where they are at both a concealment and DPM (and for some lines heal) disadvantage. At T8 we get DPM/Range mod as well as the gimmick for most lines (RN CL superheal, MN DD ballistics, VMF/USN radar, RM guns, etc ). At T9 for cruisers they gain a heal, for DDs, I don't know how to describe it but it's like they start taking their final form (MN DDs go from single mounts to double, EU DDs get actually good torp damage, RN DDs get a heal, etc.). And finally, at T10, CAs get more durability and for all ships their gimmick reaches it's final form (Mino dakka, DM reload, Zao guns, Shima 15 torps, Venezia 15 guns, etc.)

An indirect bonus to the upgrade change would also be a buff to Monarch, widely regarded to not be a very good BB. Giving it slot 6 would benefit it greatly.

 

Now, the issues that I anticipate will be brought up.

1. This doesn't address Georgia over performing at T9, only when it's uptiered.

Yes. Honestly, I considered including T9 CAs as well, but most T9 BBs really are not over performing and don't need the massive hit to their efficacy, so I couldn't in good conscience advocate for that. However, the upgrade slot changes should help close the gap between lower tier BBs and Georgia.

2. The upgrade change powercreeps T9 BBs and some T9 CAs. Why play Iowa when NC exists and can get APR Mod 2, why play S. Soyuz when Vladivostok gets reload mod, why play Ibuki when Mogami gets reload mod, etc etc.

I think Sovetsky Soyuz would still be in a good spot due to the 30s 180 turn time on the turrets vs the 45 on Vladi, and 60mm vs 50mm deck for better HE and SAP resistance. Iowa may need a buff, perhaps a small reload buff, justified as better loading mechanisms for the new turret or something. For Ibuki, maybe give her Zao shells? That way gunnery becomes more powerful, but Zao is still better due to 2 more guns and the increased tankiness. Drake probably needs a reload buff, but there's not much way to justify this besides just game balance unlike Iowa where excuses can be made. Alsace might need the reload nerf reverted. If there are any other cases of T9s getting powercrept please let me know.

3. The problem is now shifted down to T7, where T7 clubs T5 and T6.

I feel this problem is mitigated in part due to players progressing through the tiers more quickly at this point. I also feel the relative power level in the base ship before upgrades was never as big as T7 vs T9 anyways. Also, in my experience, T5s don't really see T7s that much, maybe because most of the T7s get uptiered. T6 vs T7 is only a difference of one upgrade slot, and even before upgrades I feel the ships are closer in power level. Guepard vs Vauquelin is a lot less of a power gap even bone stock than Vauquelin vs Mogador. Pensacola vs New Orleans is less of a power gap than New Orleans and Buffalo.

4. Montana still struggles.

I don't play Montana so I don't know how truly weak it is right now, but I don't think it's something that can't be helped with a few simple additional buffs.

4. Republique gets its kneecaps broken. Its 30mm over match was basically the only thing keeping it somewhat relevant.

Yep, can't deny that. Drastic changes are probably going to have to be made. I don't want to give it better dispersion as I don't want another Thunderer/Champagne like ship, so I think maybe giving it better bounce angles would be good. Now, I don't want to go too overboard. USN CAs angles are as good as they are (60 before any checks are done, 67.5 autobounce) because even if they don't ricochet at 65 degrees, the effective armor thickness may be too high for their shells to pen. Republique wouldn't have that problem, so I think a conservative suggestion would be to give it the same angles as the new VMF CAs, 50/65. Maybe bump it up by another 2.5 degrees at most. This way, it can't camp in the back like Champagne or Thunderer, but would still be rewarded for staying at arms length at mid range. However, cruisers would still be able to angle, they just need to respect the enhanced angles more. There is also precedent for a one ship change to bounce anyways, as pre 0.9.6 Venezia had better SAP bounce angles by 5 degrees than the rest of the tech tree despite using the same shells and guns. If anything, Republique would be more justified as it uses entirely different guns and shells to the rest of the tech tree.

Are there any other issues or side effects I may have missed? What are your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
527
[GRAVE]
Members
1,269 posts
18,799 battles
1 minute ago, dagger1013 said:

2. Give upgrade slot 5 to T7, and upgrade slot 6 to T8.

never gonna happen, unless you never ever want to play T5 or 6 again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,681
[PVE]
Members
6,170 posts
22,432 battles

Are these just tech tree proposals? Because my Atlanta says yummy to the concealment upgrade option...or just the rudder shift upgrade option (-: even yummier now that I think of it :-).

It would definitely need to have the MM parameters changed to see T9s 60% instead of 40% of the time though as the T5 tears would add so much salt to the oceans nothing would be able to sink :-)

But for higher tiers it's definitely a sound balancing option...but T5s & T6s would definitely be screwed.

 

Edited by IfYouSeeKhaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
[IMP]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
203 posts
4,585 battles

Haida with concealment, yeah... never gonna happen :Smile_veryhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
473
[KERMT]
Members
1,008 posts

Now listen here all you fire slinging rudder shifting island huggers. 

My Battle ship says Neigh to these changes on the grounds of "go island hug harder" 
You don't like my rounds going through you, I can help you with a few great options 

  1. Hide behind an island and pray they never introduce deform-able terrain, pray by flinging your shells at me in a rainbow. 
  2. Take off your concealment mods and go harder into rudder shift than an all boys scout regatta 
  3. Use Smoke
  4. Get a bigger ship

If you are still having trouble with 1 or all of the above, please consult a physician

This has been a 'Battleship Main' service announcement.  

shot-20.07.14_19.35.17-0386.jpg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,225 posts
5,930 battles

How about no? The last CA armor buff was a terrible mistake that all but obsoleted a huge number of ships(especially lower tier cruisers). The last thing we need to do is do that again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
122
[LSNB]
Members
159 posts
4,895 battles
18 hours ago, tfcas119 said:

never gonna happen, unless you never ever want to play T5 or 6 again

 

14 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

Are these just tech tree proposals? Because my Atlanta says yummy to the concealment upgrade option...or just the rudder shift upgrade option (-: even yummier now that I think of it :-).

It would definitely need to have the MM parameters changed to see T9s 60% instead of 40% of the time though as the T5 tears would add so much salt to the oceans nothing would be able to sink :-)

But for higher tiers it's definitely a sound balancing option...but T5s & T6s would definitely be screwed.

 

As it stands, T7 is uptiered the majority of the time so it shouldn't really impact those ships too much. That said, I do realize this is dependent on the current matchmaker and so perhaps I was overreaching a bit. But remember, people get out of T5 and T6 very quickly. The XP needed to get from T7 to T8 is roughly the same as the XP needed to get from T5 to T7.

14 hours ago, Torenico said:

Haida with concealment, yeah... never gonna happen :Smile_veryhappy:

Yes, but now all ships at her tier would have access to concealment mod as well, so her concealment lead remains roughly the same margin. This also reduces the impact that some ships (*cough Belfast) have at T7 due to their access to concealment mod.

14 hours ago, Salvo_Creative said:

Now listen here all you fire slinging rudder shifting island huggers. 

My Battle ship says Neigh to these changes on the grounds of "go island hug harder" 
You don't like my rounds going through you, I can help you with a few great options 

  1. Hide behind an island and pray they never introduce deform-able terrain, pray by flinging your shells at me in a rainbow. 
  2. Take off your concealment mods and go harder into rudder shift than an all boys scout regatta 
  3. Use Smoke
  4. Get a bigger ship

If you are still having trouble with 1 or all of the above, please consult a physician

 

1. Not every ship has the ballistics to island hug.

2. That forces ships into staying further back, and BB player already complain about long range HE spam and no support from their team.

3. Not every ship has smoke, not every ally DD is going to be willing to smoke you up, not every DD has smoke, not everyone can div.

4. Some people prefer having reliable guns and not so horrid maneuverability.

10 hours ago, Tekina_ said:

How about no? The last CA armor buff was a terrible mistake that all but obsoleted a huge number of ships(especially lower tier cruisers). The last thing we need to do is do that again.

The last CA armor buff was in conjunction with a change to IFHE. This change should not affect cruiser on cruiser interactions, since most people take IFHE anyways. The only ships that would not be able to pen T10 CAs would be fail-divved T7s, but they're fail divisions for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,629
[WOLF3]
Members
27,063 posts
23,845 battles

Bad enough being tier v to vi, these changes would make it hellish for them for the sake of making Tier vii essentially tier viii.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,681
[PVE]
Members
6,170 posts
22,432 battles
1 hour ago, dagger1013 said:

T7 is uptiered the majority of the time

No it isn't. T7 has the same MM parameters as any other tier...after the 1st 20 battles you will not be bottom tier more than 8 battles out of the last 20 (40%)...which means that in at least 60% of your matches there will more than likely be T6s (although there is no clarification on how many times in the other 12 of 20 battles you will be top tier against T5 ships...if ever...the only guarantee is you won't be bottom tier in 60% of them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×