I am tired of burning in every single engagement with my battleship

[VioletZer0]

I took all the anti-fire perks i could get and I still burn every time I engage an enemy with my battleship. Burning takes a significant portion of your health with it unless you want to spend your repair CD, but then you leave yourself vulnerable to much worse conditions which can and will happen.

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't burn at all of course, I just think that with the implementation right now it seriously shafts battleships a lot against cruisers. It should either be tweaked so that it doesn't last as long, perks are stronger, etc. 

[Red_Raven_168]

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/37938-news-from-the-ru-developer-thread/

 

notice items #10 and #14

[VioletZer0]

Cruisers don't unlock carriers.

[Sturmkurz]

Then just deal with it and keep grinding towards the carriers.

[Lancer1408]

Cruisers don't unlock carriers.

 

Deal the grind bro

Do your best.

[blasterion]

well at least you'll have a lot of fireproof flags

[pyantoryng]

Load AP..it's either 810 or 8100 damage to enemy cruisers and battleships...

 

...and a few fire is not a problem for a battleship, only manual extinguish when you catch 2-3 fire at once, not one.

[VioletZer0]

Still, it is nice to know that they're looking into making battleships not just XP pinatas. They should be something that I fear. 

[Special_Kay]

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/37938-news-from-the-ru-developer-thread/

 

notice items #10 and #14

 

I'm sure I get up your nose sometimes RR, but good link. +1

[Midnitewolf]

I took all the anti-fire perks i could get and I still burn every time I engage an enemy with my battleship. Burning takes a significant portion of your health with it unless you want to spend your repair CD, but then you leave yourself vulnerable to much worse conditions which can and will happen.

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't burn at all of course, I just think that with the implementation right now it seriously shafts battleships a lot against cruisers. It should either be tweaked so that it doesn't last as long, perks are stronger, etc. 

 

I want to point out this thumbnail screenshot of my to make a very BIG point.

 

In this match I did what I would consider a very large amount of fire damage.  12 fires started for 34,206 damage total.  You will notice that that is more damage than either I managed with AP or HE alone right?

 

By lets analyze what actually occurred:

 

• 12 Fires caused 34,206 damage. This means each fire only caused 2,850 damage each.  
• To get 12 fires started I had to hit with 97 HE rounds.  That is roughly 12% fire rate which is what the guns I was using were rated at.
• 38 hits with AP, by itself caused near as much damage as the fire did, 26,156 damage.
• HE damage managed to cause near as much damage as fire did, 29,812 damage, but took 97 hits to do it.
• AP damage averaged 688 damage per hit.
• HE damage averaged 307 damage per hit.
• If we take HE damage + Fire damage caused by the HE hits, it averaged 659 damage per hit.

 

So lets see what conclusions we can make:

 

AP damage alone averaged more damage per hit than HE + Fire did together.  688 damage vs 659 damage.

 

Ok so someone please explain how any of this is unbalanced?

 

What I am seeing is that HE + Fire damage is roughly equal to the same same damage firing straight AP would produce.  Basically if you can't pen with AP, you switch up to HE and that, plus the fire damage it will potentially do will roughly help you maintain consistent a DPM against whatever target your firing against.   How is this unbalanced?

 

 

 

 

[Special_Kay]

Ok so someone please explain how any of this is unbalanced?

 

1. You shouldn't be able to get AP-worthy damage at ranges where the enemy ship has immunity to your battery simply by switching to HE.
2. It defeats the point of having serious drawbacks in order to be heavily armoured if HE can bypass that armour with impunity (less of a problem now that HE has been adjusted to be affected by armour, although in my observation, the adjustment wasn't significant).
3. By Wargaming's own admission, battleships are supposed to be the hard counter to cruisers. However, at ranges where landing citadels is difficult, cruisers actually out-DPM battleships if they know how to dodge in the eight seconds it takes for shells to arrive. To see why this is so unfair one must look at the supposed hard counter(s) to battleships and see whether they suffer the same disparity to determine whether it is acceptable for a ship's main prey to be so effective against its main predator. Most agree that cruisers rebuff battleships better than battleships rebuff destroyers (if you don't agree, I encourage you to watch
   from about the four minute mark).

 

Of course all this intelligent conversation is already elsewhere, and while you may not get every single piece of it reiterated in reply to your arguments, that doesn't mean those points aren't expressed elsewhere. If you're truly interested in understanding all sides of the issue, I encourage you to get reading.

[UrPeaceKeeper]

Because HE has a higher damage to BBs from smaller caliber guns than AP does because HE ignores armor when it does do damage.

[Labrat93]

Use the damage control upgrade. Kills chances of fire by 5%. Also, obtain the fire reduction skills for your commander.  It really does help.  In the last 5 games in my Myogi only caught fire 6 times while engaging mostly cruisers at times.  

[Special_Kay]

Use the damage control upgrade. Kills chances of fire by 5%. Also, obtain the fire reduction skills for your commander.  It really does help.  In the last 5 games in my Myogi only caught fire 6 times while engaging mostly cruisers at times.  

 

Sadly, those modules are added together and then multiplicatively applied, whereas the demolitions expert skill is additively applied. They still help though.

[alex08060]

It's not fires that are the problem, it's those HE spam.

 

[Midnitewolf]

 

1. You shouldn't be able to get AP-worthy damage at ranges where the enemy ship has immunity to your battery simply by switching to HE.
2. It defeats the point of having serious drawbacks in order to be heavily armoured if HE can bypass that armour with impunity (less of a problem now that HE has been adjusted to be affected by armour, although in my observation, the adjustment wasn't significant).
3. By Wargaming's own admission, battleships are supposed to be the hard counter to cruisers. However, at ranges where landing citadels is difficult, cruisers actually out-DPM battleships if they know how to dodge in the eight seconds it takes for shells to arrive. To see why this is so unfair one must look at the supposed hard counter(s) to battleships and see whether they suffer the same disparity to determine whether it is acceptable for a ship's main prey to be so effective against its main predator. Most agree that cruisers rebuff battleships better than battleships rebuff destroyers (if you don't agree, I encourage you to watch
   from about the four minute mark).

 

Of course all this intelligent conversation is already elsewhere, and while you may not get every single piece of it reiterated in reply to your arguments, that doesn't mean those points aren't expressed elsewhere. If you're truly interested in understanding all sides of the issue, I encourage you to get reading.

 

See this is what people keep getting hung up on.  This is not real life, this is a game.  A cruiser needs to be able to damage a BB or else the team with the most BBs wins.  As it stands now just because the last two ships are a BB against a CA, it isn't a forgone conclusion that the BB will win even though the BB usually has a massive advantage in that situation.

 

Right now, BBs are absolutely a hard counter to CA/CLs.  In any sort of one vs one duel by a BB firing AP, the BB will win 95% of the time.  When a CA/CL wins it is almost entirely due to skill, usually a very bad BB captain vs a very good CA/CL captain.  Of course I will take close range torp strikes from ambushed out of this but in an sort of gun duel the outcome is virtually always the same, CA/CL scores about 30-40% damage on the BB (most of which ends up getting healed back), BB eventually lands some hard citadel hits and the CA/CL gets sunk.

 

Also, BBs tend to out-damage cruisers overall.  All of my BBs out damage my comparable tired cruisers, some by alot.  South Carolina is the only exception as it got out-damaged slightly by the Tenryu but it out-damaged my St. Louis by about 20%.  My Arkansas Beta is managing 47k damage per match, my Kuma, one of the best cruisers in the game, 38k damage.    My CBT results were the same too.  Played up to Tier 7 on IJN and tier 8 USN BBs and average damage across the board  was significantly better with BBs than CA/CL, usually by as much as 50% greater damage.

 

As for the intelligent conversation, I am reading and doing alot of it, but don't see much intelligent conversation going on.  Rather I see alot of subjective QQ in regards to people not liking being set on fire, regardless what that statistics are saying.  I mean I keep hearing how they get burned down to the hull, but my stats and those of WG aren't showing it happen.  I am also not observing it happen either. I mean I have 200+ matches in BBs between the CBT and now and I can only recall one or two times where fires have been a significant factor in me being sunk in a BB.  So a 1-2% frequency is causing all this QQ?  Seriously??   Hell even if it was doubled to 4% it shouldn't be causing this much QQ.

 

No what I keep seeing on the forums is people complaining about the BB playstyle.  They aren't having as much fun with them as they want so they are trying to come up with reasons why things should be changed without regards to balance.  Honestly, I am not opposed to them making BBs more fun as they can be kind of tedious at times and at times having a shot lined up perfectly only to see the shell land all around the target without hitting can be frustrating.  Also dealing with manual drop torps can really get me flustered as well, but none of those things change the fact that OVERALL, the BB is fairly well balanced within the game.  

[NerfBat]

 

1. You shouldn't be able to get AP-worthy damage at ranges where the enemy ship has immunity to your battery simply by switching to HE.
2. It defeats the point of having serious drawbacks in order to be heavily armoured if HE can bypass that armour with impunity (less of a problem now that HE has been adjusted to be affected by armour, although in my observation, the adjustment wasn't significant).
3. By Wargaming's own admission, battleships are supposed to be the hard counter to cruisers. However, at ranges where landing citadels is difficult, cruisers actually out-DPM battleships if they know how to dodge in the eight seconds it takes for shells to arrive. To see why this is so unfair one must look at the supposed hard counter(s) to battleships and see whether they suffer the same disparity to determine whether it is acceptable for a ship's main prey to be so effective against its main predator. Most agree that cruisers rebuff battleships better than battleships rebuff destroyers (if you don't agree, I encourage you to watch
   from about the four minute mark).

 

Of course all this intelligent conversation is already elsewhere, and while you may not get every single piece of it reiterated in reply to your arguments, that doesn't mean those points aren't expressed elsewhere. If you're truly interested in understanding all sides of the issue, I encourage you to get reading.

 

TY +1

[alex08060]

The only problem is American CA doesn't have any torpedoes so they are force to tweak HE shells to make them useful against battleships.

[NerfBat]

The only problem is American CA doesn't have any torpedoes so they are force to tweak HE shells to make them useful against battleships.

 

There's useful and then there's lol have 3-4 fires while at the same time eating 1k+ salvos of HE.

[Special_Kay]

See this is what people keep getting hung up on.  This is not real life, this is a game.  A cruiser needs to be able to damage a BB or else the team with the most BBs wins.  As it stands now just because the last two ships are a BB against a CA, it isn't a forgone conclusion that the BB will win even though the BB usually has a massive advantage in that situation.

 

Right now, BBs are absolutely a hard counter to CA/CLs.  In any sort of one vs one duel by a BB firing AP, the BB will win 95% of the time.  When a CA/CL wins it is almost entirely due to skill, usually a very bad BB captain vs a very good CA/CL captain.  Of course I will take close range torp strikes from ambushed out of this but in an sort of gun duel the outcome is virtually always the same, CA/CL scores about 30-40% damage on the BB (most of which ends up getting healed back), BB eventually lands some hard citadel hits and the CA/CL gets sunk.

 

Also, BBs tend to out-damage cruisers overall.  All of my BBs out damage my comparable tired cruisers, some by alot.  South Carolina is the only exception as it got out-damaged slightly by the Tenryu but it out-damaged my St. Louis by about 20%.  My Arkansas Beta is managing 47k damage per match, my Kuma, one of the best cruisers in the game, 38k damage.    My CBT results were the same too.  Played up to Tier 7 on IJN and tier 8 USN BBs and average damage across the board  was significantly better with BBs than CA/CL, usually by as much as 50% greater damage.

 

As for the intelligent conversation, I am reading and doing alot of it, but don't see much intelligent conversation going on.  Rather I see alot of subjective QQ in regards to people not liking being set on fire, regardless what that statistics are saying.  I mean I keep hearing how they get burned down to the hull, but my stats and those of WG aren't showing it happen.  I am also not observing it happen either. I mean I have 200+ matches in BBs between the CBT and now and I can only recall one or two times where fires have been a significant factor in me being sunk in a BB.  So a 1-2% frequency is causing all this QQ?  Seriously??   Hell even if it was doubled to 4% it shouldn't be causing this much QQ.

 

No what I keep seeing on the forums is people complaining about the BB playstyle.  They aren't having as much fun with them as they want so they are trying to come up with reasons why things should be changed without regards to balance.  Honestly, I am not opposed to them making BBs more fun as they can be kind of tedious at times and at times having a shot lined up perfectly only to see the shell land all around the target without hitting can be frustrating.  Also dealing with manual drop torps can really get me flustered as well, but none of those things change the fact that OVERALL, the BB is fairly well balanced within the game.  

 

I'm going to reply separately to your first three paragraphs:

1. We were never talking about whether a cruiser should be able to damage a battleship; that's a given. Opening with that risks setting a skewed tone for discussion. I also don't see what I said that supposedly relied on an appeal to realism, so I find your reminder that games are not reality to be a form of strawman. However, you don't seem to rely on that line of thinking as you go on, so I suppose it's not a big deal.
2. I reject your assertions. In 1v1 battles such as occur at the end of matches, many cruisers are capable of kiting a battleship at a range where the cruiser can easily dodge and simultaneously return fire at an effectiveness sufficient to maintain fires. In my opinion, this is the core of the validity of battleship complaints, and it could be fixed by not allowing cruisers to paradoxically have better range and dispersion than battleships. Going further with the scenario, if the battleship chooses to use AP, they are trading their meager likelihood of setting the cruiser on fire for a very slim chance of scoring a plunging citadel hit. I've had better personal success harassing battleships at long range when they're using AP, because it's largely trading a chance of fires for a chance of over-penetrations.
3. Battleships out-damage cruisers for you, perhaps. My battleships do not perform better damage-wise than my cruisers, with the exception of the T2/3 cruisers which I didn't bother to learn properly because of the brevity of their grind. I would suggest that your observations are different because you favour IJN cruisers, whose torpedo armaments result in less ability to apply damage via cannonade, which is more effective for the class given the state of the game.

 

Now, I grant you that there is more absurd and fallacious thinking on the topic than there is well-applied reason. I do not defend the poorly-argued whining, nor do I see it as a counter to the well-reasoned criticisms of battleship balance.

 

Regardless of our disagreement, I see you've given the matter honest thought and I don't begrudge you your differing opinion. You and I seem to have different observations in our mid-tier experience.

[Special_Kay]

Here is an example from today of a Kongo failing to be a hard counter to my Omaha. I will state right off that both the Kongo and I are at roughly 2/3 health when the encounter begins, and I don't do the bulk of the subsequent damage to the Kongo (I set her on fire, but she absorbs a 18 100 damage battleship salvo at 10:43). However, the Kongo utterly fails to deter me from approaching, and subsequently fails to punish me for approaching. Had I regarded her as a more serious threat and been more cautious with my torpedo aim, I would have been able to sink her single-handedly.

 

The Kongo encounter starts roughly at time index 9:20:

[VioletZer0]

I'm starting to see WG's point about how fires work as intended. The problem isn't fires, fires are the only way a cruiser can put out reliable DPS on a battleship.

 

No, the problem is that battleships are outclassed in so many regards by Cruisers. The only reason why you play a battleship is to roll the dice and hope your guns and the RNG in general like you enough today to score citadels.

[VioletZer0]

I gotta say, there is something I both love and hate about Wargaming's flippant attitude towards its whiny community. (Myself included of course)

[flounder2760]

I took all the anti-fire perks i could get and I still burn every time I engage an enemy with my battleship. Burning takes a significant portion of your health with it unless you want to spend your repair CD, but then you leave yourself vulnerable to much worse conditions which can and will happen.

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't burn at all of course, I just think that with the implementation right now it seriously shafts battleships a lot against cruisers. It should either be tweaked so that it doesn't last as long, perks are stronger, etc. 

 

this isnt the game for you then please move on and stop cluttering up the forums with your whine.

 

a bb in combat will get set on fire and the solution is that a bb with skill and correct ammo usage can end a cruiser in one volley.

 

does it always happen that way?  no but the point is bbs are not the be all and end all of this game and all the threads whining about it will not change that.

 

that being said i do agree that low tier bb rng dispersion needs to be looked at and the arkansas' ap rounds need to be examined for under-performance as the wyoming's ap rounds with the same guns are markedly better by comparison.

[alex08060]

The Arkansas is actually decent after you load up all of its module which would cost millions of credits.