Reduce Battleship Shell damage, Increase Battleship Accuracy

[AirshipCanon]

Right now, even if BBs are topping charts, you can't say they're consistent in doing so-- or anything for that matter.
Given you can fire on a stationary target and completely miss given no fault of your own, the Dispersion Factor is far too high.
A BB can one-hit kill you, yes. But with the same shot in the same place they also could do nothing.
 

BBs should pay for their damage with their Cooldowns, not with "MISS!"
Remember a BB has a 30+ second cooldown on firing their guns.

 

So a simple solution would be to say, reduce the shell damage of BBs by say 20-30% (So Yamato would have about 11840, as an example) and increase their accuracy to be comparable to that of cruisers.

[EasyMode]

Alpha damage is the only thing keep me playing battleship , so , I'm not ok with this idea.

 

The problem of battleship is survival ability not damage output.

[DemonsofRazgriz]

In order to stay at the top of the charts, you literally have to do consistent damage...

 

sniping at max range is what makes so many players miss. I'm averaging 42k damage in my Kongo at 23 percent accuracy.... And i suck at battleships lol

[Dragral]

In the Test Server 0.4.1 has an adjustment to increase Battleship accuracy..

http://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/developer-bulletin-041/

[supershutze]

Wouldn't that just make them slow cruisers with a crappy rate of fire?

[AirshipCanon]

Wouldn't that just make them slow cruisers with a crappy rate of fire?

 

No, because even losing 20-30% of their individual shell damage, they're still hitting absurdly hard. [Let's take the T4 Myogi- 10000 AP damage current. Bringing it down to a clean 7000, it can still alpha strike for 42000-- enough to sink another Myogi in two salvos-- and any even tier Cruiser in one.]

That kind of reduction is about the point of look at all the damage a cruiser does over 30s.

A Battleship alphas that then has to wait 30s.

It'd be even damage with CL/CA, but a BB frontloads it.

 

Right now, a BB has the potential to hit a lot harder than a cruiser [far greater than same time of engagement], but it's literally hit or miss with the RNG. Which can wind up with the BB hitting for maybe a grand for it's 30s cooldown, while the Cruiser can just put on the damage. Or it could go hey, **** you, 60,000 because lol-- you have 24,000 HP, but **** you and your cow.

 

In order to stay at the top of the charts, you literally have to do consistent damage...

 

sniping at max range is what makes so many players miss. I'm averaging 42k damage in my Kongo at 23 percent accuracy.... And i suck at battleships lol

 

 

If an attack at the same rate has a 0.1% chance to do  10,000,000 damage and another had a 100% chance to do 1000, which is better?

A simple numbers game would tell you that the 0.1% for  10,000,000 would statistically outdo the 100% for 1000 every time-- the 0.1% is on average 10 times stronger.

However, it's impractical.  That scenario would have something highly inconsistent top charts.

And while clearly hyperbolic, it's the case for BBs.

 

BBs top charts because they can just go "nope, you die" every now and then.

 

Sniping at max range has little to do with the inconsistency of BBs- when you get inconsistent results at 8Km.

 

Alpha damage is the only thing keep me playing battleship , so , I'm not ok with this idea.

 

The problem of battleship is survival ability not damage output.

 

A large problem with BB survival comes from "can't fight back". When you face a Cleveland-class Flamethrower, and start firing salvos only netting 1000s because RNG is not liking you today, you burn.

 

If a BB was consistent with it's ability to inflict pain, a lot of the survival problems would go up in smoke.

 

But, of course, if a BB was consistent with all of its current damage, that'd just be overpowered.

[Noth]

Alpha damage is the only thing keep me playing battleship , so , I'm not ok with this idea.

 

The problem of battleship is survival ability not damage output.

 

This idea, the BB would still be kings of alpha.

[Gasboy]

I'm not having an issue with accuracy, I move to a range where I can do consistent damage.  I would not appreciate a decrease in my alpha, kthnxbai.

[Mesrith]

My damage feels pretty consistent.  No thanks.

[Kaeldian]

I used to feel this way.... then I decided to stop fighting at 20km and started fighting at 15km or less.  Then the Citadels starting coming in constantly.

 

I'm fine now, no changes necessary.

[QuicksilverJPR]

In the Test Server 0.4.1 has an adjustment to increase Battleship accuracy..

 

http://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/developer-bulletin-041/

 

3km and under....yeah.

[SilverforceX]

I have no issue with dealing consistent damage.

 

Any major increase in accuracy is going to make BBs so OP.

[DSA_Corsair114]

This would be much appreciated. The RNG in the game makes BB's waaay too streak-y. I'd take reduction in alpha damage for more consistent patterning in a heartbeat. When I can fire at an unmoving, broadside-to-me Myogi at 6km with the Wyoming and hit one shell-in-ten for a couple thousand damage and throw everything else short into the ocean or long into the island it's run-aground on, wait 30 sec for a reload, fire again, and have the same result happen... naw, forget it. Even a sawed-off shotgun is at least accurate when you jam both barrels into the gut of the person you're killing before you pull the trigger.

[BKKnightRider]

Alpha damage is the only thing keep me playing battleship , so , I'm not ok with this idea.

 

The problem of battleship is survival ability not damage output.

 

But that alpha damage is purely an issue of luck - as in a roll of the dice.  Even with perfect aim BBs can still miss a full broadside, even at close ranges where cruisers (except or the low tier CLs with relatively few guns) never miss completely.  There is no basis in history, logic, or reality for BBs to have significantly worse precision than cruisers at any range, let alone at close range.  Then even IF the fickle RNG gods are generous enough to grant the player with perfect aim a high portion of hits they still might stab the player in the chest with terrible damage.  The worst example I have seen was getting 8/10 hits on another BB with AP but doing only 1600 points of damage.  Getting such poor damage results is just as good as a complete miss. 

[BKKnightRider]

This would be much appreciated. The RNG in the game makes BB's waaay too streak-y. I'd take reduction in alpha damage for more consistent patterning in a heartbeat. When I can fire at an unmoving, broadside-to-me Myogi at 6km with the Wyoming and hit one shell-in-ten for a couple thousand damage and throw everything else short into the ocean or long into the island it's run-aground on, wait 30 sec for a reload, fire again, and have the same result happen... naw, forget it. Even a sawed-off shotgun is at least accurate when you jam both barrels into the gut of the person you're killing before you pull the trigger.

 

How about doing that at 1.8 km and getting only one hit on another BB in spite of perfect aim?  How about doing that at 2.3 km and missing entirely even with perfect aim?  And how do we know when we miss in spite of perfect aim?  We bracket the target with some rounds going over and some splashing short and none miss wide.  Or getting 8 hits out of that broadside but doing only 1600 points of damage.  That is obscene.

[BKKnightRider]

I have no issue with dealing consistent damage.

 

Any major increase in accuracy is going to make BBs so OP.

 

Then use better teamwork in conjunction with better tactics.  Effective naval combat requires both.  But far too many players act like Rambo.  If they want to run and gun alone like Rambo then they should be playing an FPS where that is reasonable.  WG should not be dumbing down what should be and could be a great a tactical naval wargame to pander to them.  Arcade style FPSs are already a dime a dozen, and that is what I pick when that is what I want to play.  Ergo I have been playing a lot of Fallout recently (granted, it is both an RPG and FPS).

[DSA_Corsair114]

 

How about doing that at 1.8 km and getting only one hit on another BB in spite of perfect aim?  How about doing that at 2.3 km and missing entirely even with perfect aim?  And how do we know when we miss in spite of perfect aim?  We bracket the target with some rounds going over and some splashing short and none miss wide.  Or getting 8 hits out of that broadside but doing only 1600 points of damage.  That is obscene.

 

I'm pretty sure my post was agreeing with the op, and I believe you are as well, but it's not entirely clear. Your follow on post would seem to indicate that you'd prefer more reliable, still-powerful, and far-less see-saw performance of BB weaponry, though.

 

Also, multi-quote is your friend.

[Braize]

Try actually being in the fight for once in your Battleship. There are so many BB players who just skirt the edges at 15k-20k as if they are some kind of world class marksman or something....

 

Then they come to the forums and complain about this "dispersion".

 

To buff BBs accuracy would make them just stupid overpowered. And yes, to nerf their damage in order to do that would just make them an oversized cruiser.

 

If a cruiser shows me a full broadside anywhere from 5-12k, I am going to hit him very very hard. Even a straight up 1 shot is possible if he is sailing like a drone. Just think of what better accuracy will do for the players who already know how to shoot.

[Braize]

 

How about doing that at 1.8 km and getting only one hit on another BB in spite of perfect aim?  How about doing that at 2.3 km and missing entirely even with perfect aim?  And how do we know when we miss in spite of perfect aim?  We bracket the target with some rounds going over and some splashing short and none miss wide.  Or getting 8 hits out of that broadside but doing only 1600 points of damage.  That is obscene.

 

Pretty sure this is already changed on the test realm, so why even use this as an argument?

[AdmQ_17th_Fleet]

@ OP,

 

how about NO.

I do fine in my BB, sure at times salvos dont seem to hit all that great, but if they do, its awesome.

I rather keep it as is, i dont see an issue.

But i do feel cruiser accuracy is a little to high

[CaliburxZero]

I've personally been asking for the same thing.  Perhaps something like a 10% increase in accuracy for a 15% damage reduction.  At the very least, I'd like to test how this would feel/play out for at least 50 matches.

[Peregrinas]

I used to feel this way.... then I decided to stop fighting at 20km and started fighting at 15km or less.  Then the Citadels starting coming in constantly.

 

I'm fine now, no changes necessary.

 

Kind of the same with me. I was comfortable engaging at 13-15km with the New Mexico, but engaging at that range with the Colorado was too ineffective. Now I like engaging the enemy between 7-11 km with the Colorado and it gives me a few citadels per game. The only problem is getting that close, of course.

[Menemy]

Yeah... no thanks.

 

I play cruisers for consistent damage, i play battleships to make ships explode

[BKKnightRider]

In other words, those great hits are pure dumb roll of the dice luck.  At close ranges my BBs should always be hitting just as often as my cruisers do - about 50%-75% with every broadside when my aim is perfect.  At close range the ONLY question when my aim is perfect should be about how many of my turrets hit, not IF my broadside will get any hits.  My cruisers don't miss full broadsides at close ranges so my BBs should not either.

[BKKnightRider]

 

Pretty sure this is already changed on the test realm, so why even use this as an argument?

 

Because I have not yet seen any evidence that this has changed.