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

Poll: is BB bow armor nerf would make stop them from "camping behind map"?

A simple yes or nay.  

56 members have voted

  1. 1. would BB bow armor nerf would make them stop camping

  2. 2. Is new T8 CA/CL 6th slot mod (-40% ruddee shfit, -80% repair time, IIRC) balanced


23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

39,262
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,724 posts
26,569 battles

According to the other several dozen threads about this very subject, no. No it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
110
[TACO]
Beta Testers
562 posts
10,626 battles

Are CAs going to follow BBs pushing in the new mechanic? No? Then what do you really expect to change? 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
231 posts
5,846 battles

According to the other several dozen threads about this very subject, no. No it's not.

 

i don't remember a poll inside it though.

more objective way to tell what users like and hate IMO.

The new module is quite balanced, as you trade +10% concealment for ruddershift and rudder repair.  I'd rather just not be seen, personally.

 

Thought this same, I can't decide if i want to WASD or just go ninja.

This is such a unique thread.

 

:trollface: (not actually trolling. I just made a poll, that is all)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,116
[BOSS]
Beta Testers
2,762 posts
16,839 battles

All that is going to change is BBs are going to hide more at the back, not bow on.  If you cant drive at the enemy without risk of being citadel'd how the hell do they expect anyone to push.

 

No, this is going to end BBs at high tiers, because it will simply be unfun and too expensive to play them..and perhaps that's the goal... and if it is, well, shame on WG for making this move of ending high tier BB play.

 

...I guess they feel they have grabbed enough Xp conversion out of the two main BB lines, as those who wanted them would've got them by now, so it's time to smash them into unplayability so people focus on other lines that are playable.   See a trend here Maus/E100 <insert tier 10 WoT tanks at will>  

 

This is the kind of stuff that makes people mad at WG to make them flock to other products.

 

 

 

Edited by TurboT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,116
[BOSS]
Beta Testers
2,762 posts
16,839 battles

This is such a unique thread.

The only way our beloved developers will see the irritation in their player's is by flooding these forums with anger over these proposed changes.  The more threads the merrier. The more withholding your wallet the merrier.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
5,281 posts
12,191 battles

Of course it won't stop them from camping in the back, if anything it'd likely increase from what I hear. Reason for the nerf was aimed more at the ships apparently being near unstoppable head on and getting rid of that - I don't know, last time I played high tier BB was a couple months ago during a PT session. 

 

What typically keeps BB's in the back, usually according to them, are Torpedo's - to which my opinion is get better at dodging and anticipating them, and Fires - which I kinda understand because fires are a bit out of control. Taking fire prevention skills and modernizations almost seems necessary along with flags for them. Somewhere in Alpha and Beta there was a range where they were something you didn't want, but weren't super frequent and absolutely devastating. It really does need to go back to that style or at least closer to it because between times I've been burned and burned others - it's a bit insane.

 

But thats what I hear, I take a BB I push in toward the enemy, especially because I prefer the German BB's, my bigger issue is usually no one backing me up and running from 3 ships. And the fires. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
231 posts
5,846 battles

Well, im looking at polls atm.

it seems like the majority hates change of bow armor nerfs, though most of those people likes new rudder upgrade.

Would be nicer if more people can vote, so developers can have more samples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,202 posts

The new module is quite balanced, as you trade +10% concealment for ruddershift and rudder repair.  I'd rather just not be seen, personally.

 

New Orleans can now throw it down on the dance floor with the Sims! :aqua:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
231 posts
5,846 battles

Who cares about campers? I say let them. I don't want folks stealing kills while I'm in my Bismarck and Grosser Kurfurst :trollface:

 

 

New Orleans can now throw it down on the dance floor with the Sims! :aqua:

 

Dancing_Atago_Dodging_Scary_Shells.avi

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
725
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
11,692 battles

As long as the reward incentive does not favor a more aggressive style of play, BBs or any other ships will NEVER play aggressively.

This is the same issue encountered in WoT, for example, where an entire team's stopped behind a rock to poke one enemy tank guarding a corner. Because no one wants to take damage.

 

A team based game, where each team has 12 players, should really reward participants based on the outcome of the match ONLY. This reward mechanism has already been in WG games, see clan wars in WoT, no one camps around a corner and if there is a few campers around a corner the attacker simply overwhelm them with a group push. That happens in clan wars because reward is solely based on the outcome of the battle not individual performance.

 

Again, as long as WG does not make team work and aggressive style plays rewarding, everyone will poke behind an island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
231 posts
5,846 battles

As long as the reward incentive does not favor a more aggressive style of play, BBs or any other ships will NEVER play aggressively.

This is the same issue encountered in WoT, for example, where an entire team's stopped behind a rock to poke one enemy tank guarding a corner. Because no one wants to take damage.

 

A team based game, where each team has 12 players, should really reward participants based on the outcome of the match ONLY. This reward mechanism has already been in WG games, see clan wars in WoT, no one camps around a corner and if there is a few campers around a corner the attacker simply overwhelm them with a group push. That happens in clan wars because reward is solely based on the outcome of the battle not individual performance.

 

Again, as long as WG does not make team work and aggressive style plays rewarding, everyone will poke behind an island.

 

basically what I hear from everyone is that WG removed tank's ability to tank damage for team and expect tanks to take damage for teammates.

I would, if i can make my horrid 44% winrate to a purple winrate. 

I can't say for people who can' afford yammie repair bill. though.

you give people a ship that needs to hug island to annoy people (atlanta) and they sail broadside to everything..

 

Then you give people a ship that doesn't need to hug island to annoy people, and they try to hug island..

 

???????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,973 posts
13,731 battles

 

But thats what I hear, I take a BB I push in toward the enemy, especially because I prefer the German BB's, my bigger issue is usually no one backing me up and running from 3 ships. And the fires. 

 

Sums it up exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
231 posts
5,846 battles

 

Sums it up exactly

 

I like my Tirpitz because of this, I can disengage easily if nobody on my team have balls to support me on a charge (12.3Km detection range).

maybe the solution is to buff BB concealment so BBs can safely charge without being spotted..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
725
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
11,692 battles

Buffing rudder is not the answer to BB being aggressive. A ship cannot be maneuverable, speedy, and deals tons of damage. The reason there are classes of ships is due to their role in a fleet.

 

Ideally, BBs shouldn't worry too much about torpedoes because at the forefront, you have your own DD's screening, and beside you there are your cruisers offering detection as well as fire support for screening DDs to take out enemy DDs.

 

But the game doesn't play like that, because it has no incentive to.

If WG makes the game reward based solely on the outcome of the match, instead of purely on individual's own performance than a team based game will truly be team vs team. Under current reward mechanism, it would be more profitable for a player to team kill then hog the damage done rather than to help a team mate. Hell, Smoke Screen COST MONEY, and gives no reward... (winning gives extra is [edited]argument, as long as on average damage done plus money saved > extra earned from winning but dealing less damage and costing more credit, then the individual benefits. Given how the game rewards heavily based on damage done, it is entirely the case that more damage, despite match's outcome, will always benefit on average. Unless you have significantly higher win rate, which few can achieve by statistical definition)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,973 posts
13,731 battles

 

I like my Tirpitz because of this, I can disengage easily if nobody on my team have balls to support me on a charge (12.3Km detection range).

maybe the solution is to buff BB concealment so BBs can safely charge without being spotted..?

 

I don't think that would work, a DD you can't see would spot you, and you'd be in exactly the same situation as you were before.

 

One possible part of a fix might be to buff gun accuracy when moving at high speed, and penalize it when slow or stationary. (Using real world physics, ships at low speed or stopped tend to pick up a rolling motion and as a ship picks up speed a ship normally becomes more stable) It would make it harder to get anything for hiding behind an island, and if what the camper is shooting at can get a shot back, make the return fire from the moving ship that much more effective.

 

Maybe add bonuses or penalties for XP and credits based on range and target type (If you're in a brawling ship, you'd get more rewards for a given amount of damage at short range than at long. If you're in a scouting ship, you'd get a bonus to spotting XP when that goes live, If you're in a DD hunter ect...)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
231 posts
5,846 battles

 

I don't think that would work, a DD you can't see would spot you, and you'd be in exactly the same situation as you were before.

 

One possible part of a fix might be to buff gun accuracy when moving at high speed, and penalize it when slow or stationary. (Using real world physics, ships at low speed or stopped tend to pick up a rolling motion and as a ship picks up speed a ship normally becomes more stable) It would make it harder to get anything for hiding behind an island, and if what the camper is shooting at can get a shot back, make the return fire from the moving ship that much more effective.

 

Maybe add bonuses or penalties for XP and credits based on range and target type (If you're in a brawling ship, you'd get more rewards for a given amount of damage at short range than at long. If you're in a scouting ship, you'd get a bonus to spotting XP when that goes live, If you're in a DD hunter ect...)

 

 

This mechanic would be coupled with "horn" dispersion effect that someone wrote on forum, although I cam remember his/her forum name. IIRC, dispersion increases above certain range (say, around 16km). Basically anybody who tries to camp at max range won't get any damage, though this might also prevent people from engaging under X kilometer because of increased chance of being shot at by BBs and Battleship Moskva.

Perhaps this might be a horrible idea; I guess less disperion while moving fast might make sense, but BBs might just disengage and run away at full speed.

Agreed, a DD spotting you can't be avoided; which is why I hate any form of planes flying over me in my atago for same reason. I guess it's called as being outplayed.. though others might dislike it (like how DDs hate carriers trying to scout them, which is valid form of outplaying them)

 

Edited by KopaZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,973 posts
13,731 battles

 

This mechanic would be coupled with "horn" dispersion effect that someone wrote on forum, although I cam remember his/her forum name. IIRC, dispersion increases above certain range (say, around 16km). Basically anybody who tries to camp at max range won't get any damage, though this might also prevent people from engaging under X kilometer because of increased chance of being shot at by BBs and Battleship Moskva.

Perhaps this might be a horrible idea; I guess less disperion while moving fast might make sense, but BBs might just disengage and run away at full speed.

Agreed, a DD spotting you can't be avoided; which is why I hate any form of planes flying over me in my atago for same reason. I guess it's called as being outplayed.. though others might dislike it (like how DDs hate carriers trying to scout them, which is valid form of outplaying them)

 

 

Could also change how the spotting mechanic works slightly.

If you can see the target yourself, things work exactly like they do now.

If someone else is spotting for you, there's penalties to accuracy (similar to camo)

 

At least if people start moving, then it'll look like ships, instead of ship-shaped-tanks on water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,360 posts

I actually think it's going to further increase engagement range to the extreme limit, as the higher susceptibility to damage will further repel everyone who hates getting shot at

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×