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

Encouraging Brawling

An alternative to Nerfs.  

56 members have voted

  1. 1. You agree that changing experience earned as explained below is preferable to a general nerf?

  2. 2. Do you believe nerfing BB armor will encourage sniping more?

  3. 3. If BB captains earn less at range and more close-up, will timid BB captains be force to change?


50 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
27 posts
6,518 battles

 

 

 

I believe we all know by now that huge numbers of BB captains would rather snipe at max range rather than close the distance. Part of this is due to unmanageable fire and out of control torpedo soup.

 

Rather than debate fire and t-soup, I propose a change that leaves ships alone and instead focuses on encouraging the desired action and discourages the bad.

For Battleships targeting other battleships and cruisers, introduce a exp multiplier that takes range into account of experience and credits earned.

Max range sniping would earn only 15% of normal. What risk is being taken?

Reduce the penalty as the ship closes range.

By making sniping a fruitless and not rewarding endeavor, you can force the captain to decide if hanging out at max range is really what he wants.

 

I would suggest the golden zone of 100% normal experience to sit around 12 km at t8, maybe 14km at t10

This would also allow introduction of a risk reward to getting in close. At t8, get under 12km and start earning 5% more exp for every Km closer.

 

My point here is to find a way to give everyone what they want. BB captains right now see little reward for brawling. This would not only reward brawling but also force the timid to saddle up or earn virtually nothing.

Also consider the closer range engagements where smaller caliber shells can more easily pen the thick BB hulls. Isn't that what WG wants?

My above figures are just example figures but with them, I believe you can understand the aim of my suggestion.

Nerfing armor punishes the players already playing as they should. Instead of changing the ship, change the environment that encourages this poor play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,363
[HYD]
Members
7,105 posts
5,289 battles

Easy solution to stop camping: bring back carriers. No one's going to sit still with planes around. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
4,007 posts
14,539 battles

that should do good , as epicenter the closer you are to the center you ger more xp but i bet that will never happen :D or people will care less as epicenter can prove bbs are still camping at max range

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,605
[HINON]
Beta Testers
3,931 posts
8,150 battles

The players who you are concerned about are ones that really don't care about how they do.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
[SPTR]
Members
4,023 posts
1,090 battles

This is simple: Nothing would change.

 

If your likelihood of being sunk is exponentially higher than when you snipe, you won't want to close the distance. I like charging in as often as i can, but i really don't ever see the point when there is always a good chance that i get killed by torpedo spam. If there are a pair of competent DDs, it doesn't take much effort to create a cross of torpedoes and makes it impossible to dodge them all. But constant torpedoes being launched at me are just a personal issue, there are obviously better BB captains than i.

 

But ignoring the threat of DDs, charging forward in a BB means leaving CA support behind because they don't want to get too close to the enemy fleet and have their thin armor shredded by X amount of ships. Once your CA is unable to provide any AA assistance, you're pretty much food for any enemy CV that targets you. But again, this will be an issue on a player by player basis.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
165
[OTG]
Beta Testers
593 posts
10,771 battles

Easy solution to stop camping: bring back carriers. No one's going to sit still with planes around.

 

:medal:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
267 posts
4,277 battles

The players who you are concerned about are ones that really don't care about how they do.

 

this....

 

also do we really need 100 threads on the BBabys Angst of a nerf to their BBig toys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,363
[HYD]
Members
7,105 posts
5,289 battles

 

this....

 

also do we really need 100 threads on the BBabys Angst of a nerf to their BBig toys?

 

It's not really a nerf anyways. BBs counter BBs better. That's not really a nerf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
[SPTR]
Members
4,023 posts
1,090 battles

 

this....

 

also do we really need 100 threads on the BBabys Angst of a nerf to their BBig toys?

 

It's literally just nerfing the ability to brawl, Yamato will still have it's strong deck armor to camp you with after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
766
[SPTR]
Members
20,155 posts
6,159 battles

IMHO one should do a repair bill discount, like 0.1 credits per hp, for every hp taken/bounced off the armor and increase the repair bills for lower tier. And buff the side armor a little for the high tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
1,532 posts
2,084 battles

   So having been here since the beginning, I've learned one thing: Hits equals XP!!! You will not get lots of hits without brawling. Sitting way in the back and trying to get hits isn't going to get you anywhere. Winning with a low hit count gets you very little, loosing with a high hit count gets you much more, simple math. From distances over 20 km, you are lucky to get one hit in two salvos of 9 shells each on average. That's a little more than 5% hits to shots fired. My average gun fire hit rate is over 24% That's one in 4 hits to shots fired. In order to get that percentage up, you have to get in close! What works for me: Beginning, start out with HE at distance until the DD's are spotted. I have no problem dueling with DD's so the whole time I'm headed in closer. Once the DD's have thinned out, switch to AP and head in. Even if I die, my goal is hits, hits, hits!!! Even if you don't get any kills, knocking the enemy down so they are easy prey for your team is still helping the team. The Scharnhorst is a great ship for this tactic. Also the Atlanta, but being a little softer, you need some cover as well. I've had over 100 hits in a game and that number is what I strive to increase. There is no benefit to surviving a battle you didn't participate in and hiding in the back isn't helping you or the team either...

Edited by Sampsonite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
[SPTR]
Members
4,023 posts
1,090 battles

Revamp the carriers, rethink there operations and get them back in the game.:look:

 

First thing to do for carriers: get rid of bomber stacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
766
[SPTR]
Members
20,155 posts
6,159 battles

 

First thing to do for carriers: get rid of bomber stacking.

Their only viable way of doing guaranteed damage? :/ TBH I have been utterly wiped by a Lexy, but I had no Air cover then... WASD avoids all without then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
274 posts
1,495 battles

I support your idea, somewhat. There is a factor in WoT which takes into account damage by distance...you have to do like double the damage of an up-front brawler in order to get more xp than him...

 

I would not mind a similar system coming to WoWS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
[SPTR]
Members
4,023 posts
1,090 battles

Their only viable way of doing guaranteed damage? :/ TBH I have been utterly wiped by a Lexy, but I had no Air cover then... WASD avoids all without then.

 

It's an exploit as it guarantees that AA fire can't force a wide spread drop on the incoming torpedoes. And if the person knows what they're doing with their bombers, they can easily force make you use your damage control to stop fires so their sinking damage from torps finishes you. In the end it just comes down to the fact that exploits are just a crutch for CV captains who don't really know how to fully utilize their ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
766
[SPTR]
Members
20,155 posts
6,159 battles

 

It's an exploit as it guarantees that AA fire can't force a wide spread drop on the incoming torpedoes. And if the person knows what they're doing with their bombers, they can easily force make you use your damage control to stop fires so their sinking damage from torps finishes you. In the end it just comes down to the fact that exploits are just a crutch for CV captains who don't really know how to fully utilize their ship.

Ah, you mean the one where bombers stay atop each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
[SPTR]
Members
4,023 posts
1,090 battles

Ah, you mean the one where bombers stay atop each other?

 

Yes, and torpedo drops are grouped up ontop of each other so if one line hits you, you're hit by multiple.
Edited by 6Xero9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
819
[WOLFG]
Members
4,300 posts

I'm all up for brawling when I'm on a ship that can do it, and I think mid-range shooting (12~16km) is close enough to have great accuracy as long as you're good at leading maneuvering targets. Some ships are simply better from mid ranges than they're from up close, it's really risky to be within 6km of a fast battleship when you have glacial turret traverse... I actually had a North Carolina outmaneuver my Yamato guns once and get a ram on me because of it. Brawling can't be the only option available for BB captains, but I do agree that people who shoot from 17km+ are missing out on a lot of damage since most people can't really hit things well from that far out and even if they do, it won't always be for great damage, a playstyle that sits too far out can't be encouraged.

 

The bow nerf is not going to fix camping at all and we all know that, the only effect it's supposed to have is reduce BB population by making them potentially less attractive to play. I still think the whole "we nerfed bows to prevent bow-on camping" is nothing but an excuse to hit the class somewhere they actually just wanted to change for the sake of future adjustments that will still be made to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,363
[HYD]
Members
7,105 posts
5,289 battles

 

Yes, and torpedo drops are grouped up ontop of each other so if one line hits you, you're hit by multiple.

 

Well on the other hand, if you dodge one spread, you dodge both spreads. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
766
[SPTR]
Members
20,155 posts
6,159 battles

 

Yes, and torpedo drops are grouped up ontop of each other so if one line hits you, you're hit by multiple.

Ah, right...

i need to try that sometime don't i...

*COUGH COUGH* oh wait, where was I? Oh yes. Nerf it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
449 posts

My advice, if you wanna play in-your-face team deathmatch then go play a game like Unreal Tournament or Quake III or whatever other shooters there are out there with mindless, drone-like random deathmatch killing for hours on end.Better yet, install GTA5 and just cause mayhem if that's all you want.

 

Imagine if the military actually fought like you are suggesting in real life. The closest that came to ever happening was at Jutland, and to a lesser extent, at the Battle off Samar It was very rare during the age of the battleship that you actually had pitched, throw-down battles between nations using their dreadnoughts and battleship in large brawling forces. It just didn't happen. Much like the tank started life, and still has spent much of its life, with the primary role of infantry support and rarely engaged in massive, tank battles (again, like WWII ships, there were very few colossal tank brawling battles in WWII, Kursk was the exception, not the rule) simply because many tanks in WWII were never designed to fight each other. And those that actually were are called TDs, or tank destroyers, for a reason.

 

I don't like the range penalty simply because there are too many scenarios in which you could have a big impact on the match but be given little to no XP under your system. A BB falls back to repair and regroup, buy time. Or a BB that drops back in support of the CV with a DD on its tail. Or a BB that simply does what it was designed to do, guard the CV in a convoy formation in which BBs form a citdal or keep structure of steel around the central CV with the ring of cruisers and destroyers further out. In a proper formation the first ship you will encounter is a destroyer, they are the picket line, the screen, the scouts. Then come the cruisers who either charge forward and assist the DD or fall back and assist the BB/CV, depending on the situation.

 

The BB, and this might come as a shock to you, was actually designed with the sole purpose of both protecting the heart of the fleet while having the ability to fling shells great distances to destroy targets mile inland to assist a ground invasion force, or to ward off an enemy fleet that is far out at sea. There's a reason why the Battle off Samar is a great case study that could be used as a basis for this game. Was there some brawling? Yes, but not directly by the ships you'd think should be doing the brawling. It was actually DDs and CLs that were doing the in-your-face brawling at close range. And that's only part of the reason the DDs of either fleet never even got close to the enemy fleet during the engagement, BBs in 1944 were just too damn accurate and their shells, like the 16" of the Nagato at Samar, would overpenetrate to the extent that it sank one US destroyer by splitting it completely in half with just a single 16" shell. Even the BB caliber secondary guns, (which in real life could fire farther than in the game, perhaps you should ask WG to increase the secondary range if you want actual brawling) and cruiser primaries, over-penetrated 2 other DDs and caused at least one to sink via flooding just from below-waterline shell hits. Why isn't that in the game? Your shells hit the water 1 inch from a ship in the game, it stops completely. Why? Shells should be able to cause flooding too!

 

Anyways, DDs were called tin cans for a reason as it seemed even a child's bb-gun would over-penetrate the side of one and cause it to fill up with water. Ever wonder why when you buy canned vegetables at the grocery store there's water inside? Now you know!!

 

 

Edited by Destin65

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
[SPTR]
Members
4,023 posts
1,090 battles

Imagine if the military actually fought like you are suggesting in real life

 

Don't bring real life to a video game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
449 posts

 

Don't bring real life to a video game.

 

Phew, for a minute there I thought this game was based on real life!

 

Imagine having ships like the Iowa and Bismarck in the game, wouldn't that be so stupid?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
[SPTR]
Members
4,023 posts
1,090 battles

 

Phew, for a minute there I thought this game was based on real life!

 

Imagine having ships like the Iowa and Bismarck in the game, wouldn't that be so stupid?

 

 

Tell me how long it took before the crew of the Bismarck decided to scuttle her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×