Upcoming Clan Battles

[Paladin1954]

After reading yesterdays news with all the hype about Italian battleships they slipped in this little nugget about the upcoming tier 9 Clan Battles. There might be a possibility of some ships being banned totally from being used. The examples they used were the Kita and the Kron. I don't know how the rest of the community feels but I think they are setting a dangerous precedent. They're the ones who buffed the Kita and now they say you can't use it. Same with Dockyard, steel and coal ships. If there's no discussion on the forum they'll just assume that everybody's good with it and push it through. They weren't worried about balance at tier 10 so they shouldn't interfere with the tier 9's after people have spent a lot of time grinding coal and steel to get these ships

[Burnsy]

7 minutes ago, Paladin1954 said:

After reading yesterdays news with all the hype about Italian battleships they slipped in this little nugget about the upcoming tier 9 Clan Battles. There might be a possibility of some ships being banned totally from being used. The examples they used were the Kita and the Kron. I don't know how the rest of the community feels but I think they are setting a dangerous precedent. They're the ones who buffed the Kita and now they say you can't use it. Same with Dockyard, steel and coal ships. If there's no discussion on the forum they'll just assume that everybody's good with it and push it through. They weren't worried about balance at tier 10 so they shouldn't interfere with the tier 9's after people have spent a lot of time grinding coal and steel to get these ships

To be fair, by selecting an odd tier, they are basically banning CVs for the season.

I understand that some might see this as a good thing but objectively and aside from that point of view, one could be equally as upset about the banning of an entire class of ship in the game from the season.

[ArIskandir]

26 minutes ago, Paladin1954 said:

After reading yesterdays news with all the hype about Italian battleships they slipped in this little nugget about the upcoming tier 9 Clan Battles. There might be a possibility of some ships being banned totally from being used. The examples they used were the Kita and the Kron. I don't know how the rest of the community feels but I think they are setting a dangerous precedent. They're the ones who buffed the Kita and now they say you can't use it. Same with Dockyard, steel and coal ships. If there's no discussion on the forum they'll just assume that everybody's good with it and push it through. They weren't worried about balance at tier 10 so they shouldn't interfere with the tier 9's after people have spent a lot of time grinding coal and steel to get these ships

People are prone to panicking without a reason. This change is intended to prevent boring metas like the all Petro, all Venezia and stuff like that. In case they ban a ship, it will be because such ship is limiting the options for varied comps, in which case would be good overall to have such ship banned. If this season start being 5 Alaskas per side, I really hope they ban the thing, even being the case that I bought the thing specifically for CB. Rigid and stale metas are far worse than having 1 or 2 ships of your fleet banned for a CB season. Much better too than having them nerf because CB popularity.

[Paladin1954]

2 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

People are prone to panicking without a reason. This change is intended to prevent boring metas like the all Petro, all Venezia and stuff like that. In case they ban a ship, it will be because such ship is limiting the options for varied comps, in which case would be good overall to have such ship banned. If this season start being 5 Alaskas per side, I really hope they ban the thing, even being the case that I bought the thing specifically for CB. Rigid and stale metas are far worse than having 1 or 2 ships of your fleet banned for a CB season. Much better too than having them nerf because CB popularity.

Then put a limit on the ships in question, say one Kita and one Kron. That should give enough diversity to the matchups

[Wye_So_Serious]

6 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

If this season start being 5 Alaskas per side

If?! Almost assured.

[ArIskandir]

1 minute ago, Paladin1954 said:

Then put a limit on the ships in question, say one Kita and one Kron. That should give enough diversity to the matchups

iirc that's stated too, it is not only bans, also limits in numbers. I think it will depend on the severity of the disease

[yashma]

Ship bans are a great addition to competitive that could make this one of the most interesting seasons in a long time.  My only worry is that WG doesn't end up banning the right ships, but we'll get there when we get there.

[ToxicSymphony]

Heck yeah. Can't wait for the inevitable outcry the week the Alaska and Musashi get put on the naughty list. 😁

[Pirate_Named_Sue]

I agree that ships should be limited and not out right banned, but if Musashi happens to be on the list it won’t hurt my Jean Bart’s feelings. Wait. Is Jean Bart on the list!? 

[Furia__]

In my view inline ships or ships that people can get should not be banned. Everyone has the option to run that meta.

 

Challenges arise when people start using ships others cant get and abuse that meta.. (you know the ones..). Make the fight fair by leveling the plain field.

[monpetitloup]

Banning ships is idiotic. It’s a never ending circle. Ban one, they will all go to the next one. If wg is intent on manipulating ship choice then just limit each ship to one per team. Even the you will see the same linups mirrored on each team. So in reality it’s still idiotic.

[Crucis]

19 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

Banning ships is idiotic. It’s a never ending circle. Ban one, they will all go to the next one. If wg is intent on manipulating ship choice then just limit each ship to one per team. Even the you will see the same lineups mirrored on each team. So in reality it’s still idiotic.

I don't think that the problem is banning ships, per se.  It's seeing the same ships and  team comps, battle after battle after battle seemingly ad infinitum. 

I think that one alternative would be to limit ships to one of each specific class (not ship type) to force some variety on team comps.

Another alternative could be to go the old school route from WoT, and put some sort of "repair timer" on ships that have been sunk (with the caveat of not requiring a repair timer on clan battles rental ships).  An issue could become that veteran players with deep ports having an advantage over those who do not have deep ports.  Also, there'd be the issue of just how long should such repair timers be.  30 minutes?  Enough time (say, 12 hours) to effectively remove the ship from use for the remainder of that night's CB's session?  More than that?  This would really give players and clans who have deep ports an advantage over those who don't have such ports.

 

And lastly, I don't see trying to force some variety into team comps as idiotic.    Specific outright bans of individual ships, yeah, I might agree on this, but not total bans.

[Edgecase]

As someone who owns all the ships in question, but also has played through the Season of All Venezias, the Season of All Kievs, the Season of All Petros, the Season of All Stalins, the Season of all Moskvas, and the Many Seasons of All Henri... I think that staking out the right to bandaid ship balance mid-season is long overdue.

Would I rather see them actually fix the balance of said ships? Yes. But:

1. Some ships are only problematic in comp modes and nerfs would cripple them in Randoms
2. Some ships are only problematic when you stack them

So assuming WG uses the bans wisely (big if, of course), it might be the right shape of tool for the job.

[SFNL]

I think I would feel better if there was some kind of discussion about the stacking and bans -- I mean does anyone really want to relive the Kleber or Aki season?  

[monpetitloup]

18 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I don't think that the problem is banning ships, per se.  It's seeing the same ships and  team comps, battle after battle after battle seemingly ad infinitum. 

I think that one alternative would be to limit ships to one of each specific class (not ship type) to force some variety on team comps.

Another alternative could be to go the old school route from WoT, and put some sort of "repair timer" on ships that have been sunk (with the caveat of not requiring a repair timer on clan battles rental ships).  An issue could become that veteran players with deep ports having an advantage over those who do not have deep ports.  Also, there'd be the issue of just how long should such repair timers be.  30 minutes?  Enough time (say, 12 hours) to effectively remove the ship from use for the remainder of that night's CB's session?  More than that?  This would really give players and clans who have deep ports an advantage over those who don't have such ports.

 

And lastly, I don't see trying to force some variety into team comps as idiotic.    Specific outright bans of individual ships, yeah, I might agree on this, but not total bans.

The thing is in practicality the linups will reflect each other. Whether it be the proverbial akizuki, musashi, stalingrad linupe for exzmple. Ban this and everyone will go friedland, Missouri, alaska for example. Ban that and they will go —- fill in the blank comp. in the end the homogeneity will reign just with a different comp being installed as the new definitive lineup. That’s why i say it’s idiotic because it will mearly force another « must run » lineup.

your idea of a dead timer is a good one although for it to really work there should be no way to bypass it- ie no paying silver, dubloons, coal steel or whathave you. Everyone must wait out the timer the same. But as you say this would bias against players/clans with few tier 9 ships.

i just do t see the point in trying to « fix » the linup problem whenit is imposed by the players themselves when left to their own devices. So forcing their choce will only lead them to identifying another solution whick will then make everyone adopt it and lead to less diversity all over again. On the contrary the only way out would be for only one lineup to be allowed. But this of course would be boring and also bias against clans who do not have the ships imposed.

[Edgecase]

8 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

in the end the homogeneity will reign just with a different comp being installed as the new definitive lineup. That’s why i say it’s idiotic because it will mearly force another « must run » lineup.

This argument is circular. It assumes it is literally impossible to balance the game for multiple viable comps. If you buy that from the very start, then of course all you'll ever find is a single optimal comp at any given time. I don't believe such an assumption is warranted, personally.

But more importantly, that argument also misses the most important aspect of metas: a healthy meta is one that is evolving. Continual change is what matters, as competitive players find strong comps and strats, then develop new methods to counter those. This process is not instant. In WoWS, it usually takes several weeks. And that is the key to the modern approach to meta development. Rather than seeking the mythical Perfect Balance, online game designers just use artificial means to periodically disrupt the established "best" comps. This is cheaper (and cheesier) but far more reliable at keeping the meta from settling, and I'm rather sure that's what WG intends to do with their new ship limiting tools.

TL;DR: You don't need Perfect Balance if you're willing to just stir the pot occasionally, and that's what WG is setting up here.

[yashma]

41 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

As someone who owns all the ships in question, but also has played through the Season of All Venezias, the Season of All Kievs, the Season of All Petros, the Season of All Stalins, the Season of all Moskvas, and the Many Seasons of All Henri... I think that staking out the right to bandaid ship balance mid-season is long overdue.

Would I rather see them actually fix the balance of said ships? Yes. But:

1. Some ships are only problematic in comp modes and nerfs would cripple them in Randoms
2. Some ships are only problematic when you stack them

So assuming WG uses the bans wisely (big if, of course), it might be the right shape of tool for the job.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up the seasons of all Kleber.  Personally I found that to be the worst of the bunch.

[Edgecase]

1 minute ago, yashma said:

I'm surprised you didn't bring up the seasons of all Kleber.  Personally I found that to be the worst of the bunch.

Just when I finally had that memory suppressed. Thanks.

[CFO3]

I would like to see each side banning one ship and no duplicate ships....easy. 

[Edgecase]

4 minutes ago, CFO3 said:

I would like to see each side banning one ship and no duplicate ships....easy. 

It's not that easy because teams have to set their comps before they queue. Adding a pick/ban phase would be a massive change.

Plus what if you wanted to change your captain skills to counter what they were picking? The game isn't really built for that.

[monpetitloup]

23 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

This argument is circular. It assumes it is literally impossible to balance the game for multiple viable comps. If you buy that from the very start, then of course all you'll ever find is a single optimal comp at any given time. I don't believe such an assumption is warranted, personally.

But more importantly, that argument also misses the most important aspect of metas: a healthy meta is one that is evolving. Continual change is what matters, as competitive players find strong comps and strats, then develop new methods to counter those. This process is not instant. In WoWS, it usually takes several weeks. And that is the key to the modern approach to meta development. Rather than seeking the mythical Perfect Balance, online game designers just use artificial means to periodically disrupt the established "best" comps. This is cheaper (and cheesier) but far more reliable at keeping the meta from settling, and I'm rather sure that's what WG intends to do with their new ship limiting tools.

TL;DR: You don't need Perfect Balance if you're willing to just stir the pot occasionally, and that's what WG is setting up here.

That’s delusional at best. The « metas » are driven by none other than the release of an op line at the start of the clan battle season. The flavor of the month is then nerfed at the end making way for the next one. Wg has made this their business model, which is fine but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking it’s « balance » or evolution. And let’s face it right’iw in this post you and others are already trying to define the next lineup. So the ban is accomplishing nothing other than imposing a different linup.

[CFO3]

4 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

It's not that easy because teams have to set their comps before they queue. Adding a pick/ban phase would be a massive change.

Plus what if you wanted to change your captain skills to counter what they were picking? The game isn't really built for that.

I see your point....ok no duplicates and only ships currently available...easy.

 

 

 

[Edgecase]

4 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

And let’s face it right’iw in this post you and others are already trying to define the next lineup.

Did you miss that that's the point?

[monpetitloup]

7 hours ago, Edgecase said:

Did you miss that that's the point?

Then by definition banning ships to diversify linups is a failure. 

[Crucis]

3 hours ago, monpetitloup said:

The thing is in practicality the lineups will reflect each other. Whether it be the proverbial akizuki, musashi, stalingrad linupe for example. Ban this and everyone will go friedland, Missouri, alaska for example. Ban that and they will go —- fill in the blank comp. in the end the homogeneity will reign just with a different comp being installed as the new definitive lineup. That’s why i say it’s idiotic because it will nearly force another « must run » lineup.

I think that one of the things that need to be done (for the sake of comp variety) is to limit the number of ships of any individual class to one.  This would prevent too much shifting comps.  Comps would really just become 7 different ships, out of however many different ships exist at that  CBs  season's tier.

 

3 hours ago, monpetitloup said:

your idea of a dead timer is a good one although for it to really work there should be no way to bypass it- ie no paying silver, dubloons, coal steel or whathave you. Everyone must wait out the timer the same. But as you say this would bias against players/clans with few tier 9 ships.

The only bypass should be for CBs rental ships, which should have no dead timer.  Why?  Because the rental ships should be the ultimate fall back for players with shallow ports to allow them to play.  And besides, rental ships tend to be tech tree ships anyways.

 

3 hours ago, monpetitloup said:

i just don't see the point in trying to « fix » the lineup problem when it is imposed by the players themselves when left to their own devices. So forcing their choice will only lead them to identifying another solution which will then make everyone adopt it and lead to less diversity all over again. On the contrary the only way out would be for only one lineup to be allowed. But this of course would be boring and also bias against clans who do not have the ships imposed.

The reason is that "player imposed" metas tend to create incredibly boring comps, that make playing CBs less fun to play due to a lack of variety.  Furthermore, player imposed metas tend to favor perceived advantages as seen by top clans, and give clans that have the favored ships those advantages over clans that do not have those ships.    These can be steel ships, or ships from the most recent tech tree to be released, and so on.