Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About Vaderan

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location


Recent Profile Visitors

1,140 profile views
  1. Prinzipiell ein sehr interessanter Ansatz. Ich befürchte jedoch, dass sich über Deinen Vorschlag nicht konstruktiv disskutieren lässt, da die Lobbyisten der anderen Klassen alle etwas zum Meckern finden werden. Die AAA der aktuellen US BBs wird ja schon als zu stark empfunden. Hinzu kommt, dass Dein Vorschlag die BBs der Support Linie einem großen Teil ihrer "Tankyness" beraubt. Auch leiden die US BBs jetzt schon unter dem permanenten HE Spam aus verschiedenen Quellen, so dass der vermeintiche Vorteil durch viele und stärkere Flakgeschütze durch den HE Regen schnell relativiert wird. Am Ende bleiben dann abgeschwächte BBs mit zerschossener Flak und nur noch mehr Gimmicks auf dem Feld. Insbesondere die Reduzierung der Widerstandsfähigkeit, in Verbindung mit mehr Unabhängigkeit durch stärkere Flak, würde das Campen nur noch stärker fördern. Ich würde daher eher einen anderen Ansatz vorschlagen: da die Refit-BBs alle auf eine stark erhöhte Anzahl an 128mm Geschütze setzen, könnte man in Erwägung ziehen, diese Schiffe eher für den Nahkampf auszulegen. Die pre-washington Schiffe mit ihren kurzen Reichweiten gelten gemein hin eh schon als Brawler, können diese Rolle aber nur schwerlich bedienen. Die Refit Schiffe wären dazu jedoch geeignet. Was ihnen an Rohrzahl gegenüber beispielsweise den Deutschen bei den Sekundärgeschützen fehlt, könnte durch RoF, Präzision oder Schaden angepasst werden. Dadurch müsste dann auch nicht an den Zitadellen geschraubt werden, ebenso wenig würde es neuer und mehr Gimmicks brauchen.
  2. Loyalty?

    Your friend basically got shafted aswell. Around christmas last year, long time absent or PvE only players got several premium ships, premium and stuff, worth around 80 EUR. Uninstalled the game, now i am curious, what i might get... And: loyalty? You get rewards for simply logging in every day on other games, but not over here. Your reward for being loyal to WoWs are campaigns, which force you do endure countless PvP missions, or some "haha, no supercontainer in your 374th attempt again, lol!" containers with flags and colours, which you have to earn by playing, of course! Your loyalty reward is being priviledged to play this wonderfully balanced, completly skill based game! Cheers!
  3. RNG and individual gameplay eperience

    RNG is the main balancing factor of this game. This way, poor design and programming can be shrouded a little. RNG beginns balancing you (and everyone else) the moment, you press your "battle" button. 1. Step: matchmaker - top, middle or bottom tier? Well mixed teams in terms of classes or overpopulation of a specific class? Good or bad players equally spread on both team? Does the map favour your ship or team composition, or that of the red team? Are there divisions and are they spread equally? Are essential gimmicks like Radar, Hydro, Smoke equally distributed ammong the team? Besides your own ship choice and maybe that of your division, you basically have limited (carrier myabe) to no influence on this first RNG, so no real advice possible here, maybe with the exception of "choose your ship wisely!" 2. Step: player behaviour - will your team or the red team coordinate? Will they stick to the plan coordinated? How will players perform, once combat starts or/and escalates? On this, experience (or addons) will allow for some predictions, like BBs camping, british cruisers very likely to smoke up and fire from smoke, AP carriers most likely trying to go on any german BBs first, etc. Besides this experience, everything else is basically RNG aswell, since individual player behaviour is unpredictable. My personal experience from this is: every single time, i tried to inspire my team by fullfilling the designated role of my ship (scouting, tanking, brawling etc.) my team thankfully accepted my role and my acting, but left me alone and/or watched me die, simply abusing the timespan i survived and provided spotting/distraction to "support" me from distance and/or run away, as long as i endured. However, whenever i played passively for the first minutes, kept quiet and simply watched the battle develope, i was often able to support at critical stages, plug holes in our lines or lend the necessary support, with enough health left. I sacrificed my teammates and played selfish, but as long as personal RNG was with me, i usually could carry my team better than by inspiring them. 3. Step: personal RNG - the best playstyle, the best planning, the best skill doesn´t mean anything, when RNG starts screwing around. Your repair/fire extinguishing skill just went out, you are almost in cover, but the one, last 140mm Kuma shell connects and causes a fire again? Bad luck! You fire a full salvo towards the broadside tanking target, but shell rng does only result in overpens, and bounces, while the bad player who is tanking broadside sinks 8 out of 9 shells into the island next to you, but the last shell somehow finds your citadell? RNG happens! You can go on with this for bombs and torpedoes aswell. RNG is everywhere, and skill is of almost no importance, as long as you more or less manage to left-click near your target. I have no advice, how to deal with it. Maybe just endure it, maybe tell youself: "this time, RNG screws me, next time, it will screw my target." My personal consequence was to uninstall the game...
  4. First of all, i absolutely agree with your position considering german BBs. Designed as brawlers, even the torpedo armed units are sometimes abused as long range shotguns. I have no explaination for that, i can only guess. My first guess would be: players don´t know better. They are used to snipe, as they do with other BBs. They beleave, since german BBs are supposed to be very accurate (at least in their imagination), sniping must work with them aswell. Another guess would be, they are still afraid of DDs/torpedoes, so they still try to avoid those, despite being (at least in BB terms) rather capable of dealing with them. My third guess would be the omnipresent camper-intention number one: avoid damage at any cost, no matter, how bad your personal performance is. After all, a Bismarck on 18km range might not hit anything, but won´t be hit aswell. Those players indeed will get teached a lesson, when BBs CAN precicely damage them even at range (since the campers usually are either stationary or rather predictable in their behaviour). If you ask me, wether or not BBs can properly support from close range, i say: no! At least, not in a properly, reliable way. You see, since alpha i always belonged to the active BB players. As such, i usually stick with the team and push, or try to push, if the situation allows for it. However, and you might understand what i am talking about, once you made your choice in a BB, you have to stick with it. There is no quick turning back or running away, once you dedicated to the frontline. More often than not, the ships you intended to support turn around and leave you burning and vulnerable to DDs, once the situation gets a little bit too hot. Trapped and left alone, any BB is completly depending on RNG. You can have a floating citadell like a Phoenix, Murmansk or Yubari roght next to your broadside and showing broadside, unleash a perfectly aimed 8-12 shells salvo, and RNG turns it into a 3k tripple overpenetration damage roll, where a devastating strike was, what you were planing for and required, to survive. In return, the cruiser will simply throw some torps, which, for sure, will neither bounce, overpen or fail to fuse, once they manage to connect. This unreliability is probably the main reason for camping. Why go into the heat of battle, if damage received is more certain than damage dealt? Why rely on incredible RNG influence, despite risking it all and doing the best you can, to maximize damage, getting screwed by rng in the worst possible moments, if you can completly stay out of harms way and let RNG work to your favour at long range? So, to provide an answer: yes, BBs are so unreliable, that, in comparison to proper brawling, sniping and camping is the more viable and enjoyable strategy for any average or below average player. Because, thanks to damage avoidance and RNG, BBs are a very easy to play class at range, whereas they become probably the most challanging and demanding class to play, once you go for a brawl. It might taste better for you, if you don´t consider the proposed Yubari accuracy change as a buff for short range, but as a nerf for medium and long range combat... well, as long as you claim for yourself to be an objective, neutral player with similar interests on all classes and a good balance in this game. In case i am talking to a DD-statpadder or fanboy, i can fully understand if you don´t like the idea of BBs being able to defend themselves reliably within the comfort zone of DDs... just in case...
  5. No offense intended, but, at least to me, you leave the impression to have a very limited view, on how this mechanic would work out. At first, neither me nor you are the benchmark for the average player, who is part of the majority who play this game. No matter if you or me have 30%, 40% or even 70% personal hit ratio with the Yubari, it is the overall result of what the playerbase achieves. And i claim to say, that at least 2/3 or even more have only limited skills in proper aiming. Second, as already pointed out: my argument is the hitratio, not the number of hits. If Yubari"s hitratio would dramatically above all others, it would be a clear indicator for the OPness of her accuracy. Following your conclusion, the hitratio of the Yubari must be much higher on average, but it isn´t. If we go for the shells that connect, 33% of 900 shells are for sure more than 33% of 400 shells. We have a 33% hitratio with both ships, but the 9 gun ship firing 100 salvos conects ~300 shells, the 4 gun ship firing 100 salvos connects roughly 130. Following your conclusion, and to call out the increased Yubari accuracy as a buff/op factor, the Yubari´s accuracy must result in ~ 80-90% hitratio to match the number of shells connecting from the 9 gun cruiser, to make up and compensate for the lack of guns. But it doesn´t. Yubaris hitratio stays within the range of other cruisers with lower accuracy. So, after all, she connects the same percentage of her shells fired, while the number of actual shells fired is far lower. Translated to BBs, this would mean, that it is highly expactable to notice no significant change in the overall hitratio of BBs. As you already pointed out: you do not struggle to "eat DDs" at close range. And that, my friend, is the point. You need to get close. And that is, what we want to achieve: to remove the BBs from their far away camping positions. Which leads me to point three: Sniping from far behind will just become ridiculous difficult. The Yubari cannot hit reliably any cruiser or DD of her tier withing mid to long range, which is 8-12km for that cruiser. Simply because the few seconds and the distance to target allow for minimal corrections and far more miscalculations by the gunner, leading to misses. And it doesn´t matter, wether 2, 4, 6, or 8 shells go wrong. They simply miss. Or they connect. Then again, BB shells have to deal with all the overpen and bounce mechanisms. Long story short: with the exception for a few super-unicums, mid to long range sniping with BBs vs. moving targets will become highly unreliable, especially if the target uses the perk for long range fire detection. The only type of ships that will suffer greatly from this mechanic at long range will be those sitting still or just slowly moving. Which are? Camping BBs! On the other hand, of course, BBs will become pretty dangerous at medium to close range. Especially broadside to broadside might end in oneshots. But, usually, there are BBs on both teams. And since each BB poses an unpredictable thread to each other, priorities will shift towards deleting red BBs asap. The intentional question of the OP was, how to get rid of camping BBs in particular, and the camping meta in general. This is the answer. Don´t sit still, and you will be save from BB salvoes, until you get too close or make a mistake. It would also just be a big step towards true balance in this game. Right now, regarding the three classes involved in surface combat, DDs, cruisers and BBs, DDs and almost all cruisers have their highest damage potential, the closer they get to the target. BBs have the doubtbable priviledge, to be more or less equally (in-)effective at all ranges, thanks to "Spray and Pray" RNG, with only slightly increasing chances to hit, where they aim at, when distance decreases. With the Yubari effect, BBs would be put under the same rules like all others. Increasing efficiency with decreasing range. Closing in on a DD or torpedo cruiser has been a high risk-high rewards game ever since, only BBs were "special". With the Yubari effect, they would be equals. Being devastating at short range should not be an exclusive right for torpedoes. Bringing BBs back to close quarter combats is, what many players are demanding for a long time now. This could be they way to achieve it. Or did anybody expect (and consider it "fair"), that BBs would come back to brawling without bringing weapons? This could only be the wish of those, who want BBs being and staying cash cows...
  6. Ich verstehe Dich schon. Ich spreche die Lyon auch nicht heilig, ganz im Gegenteil. Es hat den Anschein (ich habe keinerlei Spielerfahrung mit der Lyon, daher spreche ich von "Anschein"), dass die Lyon, wie bereits gesagt, in der Summe ihrer Eigenschaften die Speerspitze der noobfreundlichen BBs übernimmt. Schlachtschiffe sollten generell die Klasse sein, die am härtesten austeilt. Nur halt "based on skill", und nicht "spray and pray". Auch spreche ich nicht dagegen, dass ein DD einem BB auf kurze Distanz mit Torpedos mächtig zusetzen können sollte. Das ist ja ein Teil seiner Rolle. Inwiefern nun tatsächlich die unterstellte, besondere Agilität der Lyon für das Verfehlen Deiner Torpedos verantwortlich ist, kann ich mangels Replay nicht beurteilen. Ich spreche aber aus eigener Erfahrung, wenn ich sage, dass auch meinen Torpedos schon auf kürzeste Distanz ausgewichen wurde. Passiert halt manchmal. Ich befürchte halt nur, dass die Lyon zunächst für tier 7 gesetzt bleiben wird. Dass ein BB mit 16 Rohren dem Spiel nicht guttun wird, steht auch für mich außer Frage, aber WG hat sich entschlossen, diesen Weg zu gehen. Wenn sich ausreichend Widerstand gegen die Lyon manifestiert, wird er das Schiff kaum entfernen. Ich könnte mir eher vorstellen, dass WG an den Stellschrauben spielt. Turmdrehrate, Manövrierbarkeit, Nachladezeit, oder, was fatal wäre: Streuung/Sigma.
  7. 1.) I own the Yubari since preorder. I consider myself a very skilled player when it comes to aiming/leading my shots. I still struggle massively to score consecutive hits, even at (Yubari) medium range, which is around 6-8km range. Yubari shellgrouping is that tight, that it leaves no space for miscalculations. You hit, or you miss. As a result, even the slightest change of direction by the target results in a successfull dodge of the shells. Applied to BBs, this mechanic would require a drastical change to how they play and require to be played. Because you alredy pointed out: Yubari has fast firing guns, so you have at least a chance to get your aiming within a few salvos. This will not work with 30 seconds reload. Now add the turret traverse and size of a BB, and it will cost BBs a lot of defense capability in close combat. BB shots at close range will be "all or nothing" business. Now add overpens and bounces, aswell as the maneuverability of ships that are especially nimble and dangerous at close range, and in the end, nothing will have change, except for one thing. These days, close combat from the perspective of the BB and its attacker are decided by RNG. The BB simply needs to point into the targets direction and RNG decides, wether the shells are misses or result in a devastating strike/detonation. Neither the aiming skills of the BB, nor the dodging skills of the target are of considerable weight. With Yubari gun accuracy, the BB now can take aim. It basically gets on shot. All or nothing. The attacker will/can/should be aware of this and has a predictable risk he can work with. Dodging skills become valuable. Aiming skills become valuable. Stupid/ignorant behaviour like broadside-tanking can be punished. When refering to Yubari accuracy for BBs, only one factor really matters: hit ratio. Does the Yubari, with its fast firing guns, have a significantly better hit ratio than other tier 4 ships. No, wait, thats the wrong question. Tier 4 is compromised by inexperienced players a lot. The Yubari is a rare veteran premium. Does it perform significantly better than other veteran ships in terms of hit ratio? In PvP, i have a 37% hitratio with my Iwaki Alpha, 35% with my Yubari, 33% with my Königsberg, Omaha and Murmansk. 39% with my Leander. So, at least from my personal statistics, the super accurate Yubari compeltly lies within the range of all other cruisers, with the difference, that 35% of Yubari shells connecting means 1-2 shells, while 33% of the 9 Königsberg guns mean ~3 shells connecting on average per salvo. I don´t see, where this will or could be a significant buff to BBs. The difference, if at all, will be, that average BBs won´t hit a barn from the insde when camping at range, but will score more hits at close range, where they are still dealing with bounces, shatters and overpenetrations. I take any bet: if these mechanics would be implemented with all consequence (and i will repeat myself again: for god´s sake, no half-hearted OP change to Giulio Cesare accuracy, that would break the game indeed!), the dramatic reduction in "lolcitas" and the increasing ammounts of misses by all the below average BB players out there will result in countless posts in the forums, how WG could nerf BBs to death. Camping relies in great parts on BB "spray and pray" mechanics. Exchange this against a totally skill based mechanics, and camping effectiveness will degenerate drastically...
  8. Vorsicht, Antwort mit satirischem Ansatz und sarkastischen Tendenzen incoming! Man könnte natürlich auch sagen: die Lyon ist das erste korrekt gebalancte BB. Ich meine, einen Tier V DD in einem tier 7 BB mit 16 Rohren auf knapp 4km immerhin um 90% seiner HP bringen (sind das schon 10000 Schaden?), ist doch jetzt ehrlich gesagt nicht zu dreist, oder? Was hast Du erwartet? Dass bei 16 Rohren mit Spray und Pray Mechanik dank RNG, wie gewohnt, nur 2-3 Granaten einschlagen, und DU mit einem 2 Tiers niedrigeren DD das BB ungestraft einfach abfrühstücken kannst? Im Prinzip zeigt das doch im Kern die Einstellung, die weitestgehend zu Schlachtschiffen vertreten wird: OP, wenn sie Dich treffen, aber bitteschön nichts anderes als dicke, fette XP und Cashcows für alle im Regelfall, denn so wird es gewünscht und gefordert. Man muss sich mal die Verhältnismäßigkeit hier auf der Zunge zergehen lassen. Wir reden hier von 16 (!) Rohren, bei denen es als OP und frech betrachtet wird, wenn sie in der Summe nicht ausreichen, um ein -2 Tiers Schiff der angeblich schwächsten und fragilsten Klasse des Spiels herauszunehmen, sondern lediglich schwer zu beschädigen! Ja ist es denn ein Exklusivrecht der Torpedoklassen, andere Schiffe auf kurze Distanz mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit rauszunuken? Bei sowas fällt mir immer nur Barlows WoW-Blog / "Der Schurke" ein. Jetzt bitte nicht falsch verstehen. Inwiefern das Spiel ein Papership mit 16 Rohren brauchte, ist mir schleierhaft. Klar, die Franzosen hatten in den 1910er Jahren viele 4-Rohr-Türme Phantasien und Designs, aber dem Gameplay ist das nicht zuträglich. Anstatt BBs endlich mal aus der "Lowskiller´s-Favoutite" Ecke wieder in die "Skill-benötigt" Schiene zu heben, gibt es nun quasi ein "lowskill-compensating-to-the-max-RNG-shotgun" Schiff. Absolut unnötig. Vermutlich Wargamings Lösungsansatz zu dem omnipräsenten Problem "wie bekommen wir die BBs aus der Camperposition heraus?". Man implementiere BBs mit so vielen Rohren, dass bei Spray und Pray einfach was treffen muss. Natürlich nur im Nahkampf. Und auch nicht richtig. Also ich würde ja ausflippen, wenn es mit mit 16 Rohren auf 4km nicht gelingen würde, nen -2 Tiers DD rauszunehmen. Wäre für mich wieder das perfekte Beispiel für "(aiming-)skills mean nothing with RNG!"
  9. I am totally serious. Because i thought about this idea over an over again. First, long story short: simply take a look at the statistics of the tier 4 IJN cruiser Yubari. It has basically laserlike accuracy, exactly what i am demanding for BBs. You will quickly find out, that the Yubari, despite it´s accuracy, does not overperform with its guns, despite being accurate, having fast reloading guns and being a short ranged cruiser. Now make it a 30 second BB reload, double the range and add BB turret traverse speed aswell. At range, almost all BB-patatoes will fail miserably in "sniping" fast moving targets, like cruisers or even BBs, not to mention DDs. However, they will hit camping/stationary BBs with ease. This alone will shift the anti-cruiser-BB-behaviour towards BB-vs.-BB again. In addition, just as Turin7 pointed out, it will become much easier to dodge BB salvos at range. If we don´t test this method, we will never find out. It can be reverted with any patch any time again. Fact is: everything else, WG tried for the last 12 or 24 months, didn´t help the situation anyways. Just to provide some backround, why i support the accuracy idea: You see, it´s always aswell a question from where you are coming from when you suggest a change, because your suggestion is based on the overall of your experience. I play this game since the days of closed Alpha test. Some in here are playing this game since the closed beta, some since open beta, maybe the majority since official release. Its an undeniable fact, that the longer you stuck with the game, the more different builds/metas you have experienced. I was told, that alpha test had a meta, where BBs even had properly working secondary guns. Not sure, what that means, but it must have been quite devastating to lighter vessels, so they changed it. However, when i once joined the closed alpha, the game wasn´t nearly as elaborate as these days, but the meta was different. BBs were clumsy, but precise. DDs were agile and stealthy, torpedoes deadly. Cruisers were the perfect allrounders, and carriers a thread to everyone, even worse than today. Besides all that, the game never was as campy and static, as we know it today. For several reasons: BBs could hit stuff at long range reliably, especially other BBs. BBs were a real counter to their class. Not what we have today. In addition, BBs were way more sluggish. If you decided to stop, it took forever to get moving again. And they were by far more slowly to maneuver, so dogging torpedoes was a pain, which made IJN DDs extremly powerfull. Each class had elaborate strenghts and weaknesses, but those made maneuvering a must. Of course, since besides the cruisers, no class was a jack of all trades, people complained. WG reacted. The first step was another huge nerfbat to BBs. Accuracy went down horribly, even worse than today. Therefor they received some maneuverability. This was one of the last major changes in alpha test. With the inability to hit reliably on any range, BBs removed themselves more and more from brawling. With them retreating from the frontlines, cruisers and DDs had to fill the gaps. When beta players flocked in, they found an enviroment with powerfull DDs, well balanced cruisers, strong CVs and the freshly nerfed BBs. Since they were new to the game, they took BB maneuverability and bad accuracy as a given. Since BBs have a major attraction ever since to (new) players, it did not take long, until the majority of new beta players in their iconic BBs met alpha veterans or fresh but dedicated DD and CV players. Due to the latest changes to the BBs, which the fresh beta players were not aware of, those beta-BB-fans suffered horribly by CV and DD attacks. The forums were full of threads about complains regarding DDs, CVs, how OP they were and how devastating torpedoes and their wall of skills were (and compared to today, they were even more powerfull!). It took a while, but WG eventually listended and implemented plenty of changes and gimmicks. Those changes and gimmicks basically were nerfs to DDs, CVs, torpedoes and the addition of stuff like hydroaccustic search. Those changes went on till well after the release, and still continue. Meanwhile, WG appears to have completly lost track of what they are doing. Gimmicks fail, changes failed, the meta is more screwed than ever. Thats what i am talking about, when refering to the origins. A Beta or release player usually can only see, what happened to the game since he/she joined in. Depending on that, he/she might only be aware of specific nerfs or buffs to specific classes or mechanics since then. So, on his point of view, everything must have been fine or better before the changes. To make it worse, you will always find players who got used to strenghts and weaknesses of specific classes or ships, and rely on them to experience, what they consider fun and success. Those players will always try to prevent changes to the game and hinder any developement, that might have an impact on their personal playstyle. Something, that will always have a negative influence on the developement of this game, or games in general. Thats why i pledge after all for high BB accuracy. I like all classes similar (although i have no clue of CVs). I have experienced many different builds, and from all i were priviledged to experience, was the alpha meta the best. It was not perfect by any means, but it had a certain balance, that enforced and supported teamplay, valued player skills and never was even close to that camper meta we have today. I know a bunch of veterans from alpha/beta, who left for good long ago. Every single one of them would return immediatly, would we get back a meta like we had it in alpha. So, if we just hypothetically go back to alpha, where things were more or less okay, but BBs appeared to be "too powerfull" with their guns (which must have been the case, otherwise the accuracy nerf made no sense at all), we have to take that BB-accuracy-nerf as the big point that changed it all, that set the stage for the camper developement for today. Since the nerf did make everything since then worse, the logical consequence must be: revert everything back to before (especially that nerf), or take a new approach, and make BBs more accurate. The nerf did not work, since it broke the game. Maybe the buff will achieve, what must have been the intentional goal, whatever it might have been. However, such a change would basically end up in a complete overhaul of the game, which is pretty unlikely to happen. So maybe, just maybe, Yubari accuracy on BBs it all it takes to kill the camper meta. If BBs are barely capable of hitting anything at range, besides stationary targets maybe, unless you are a super unicum in terms of aiming and you find yourself an unaware target, BBs will loose most of their damage potential and thread at range, but will become more respected in a brawl. In the end, it could be reduced to the question, what do you prefer: camping BBs with shotgun-rng-accuracy, which are afraid of closing in but can shotgun anything with lucky hits across the map, which can make even the biggest patatoe annoying and a thread, or BBs with laserlike accuracy, which immediatly turns BB in a completly skill based class, challanging, if not even hard to play at range, but potentially dangerous at mid to close range, if the player knows how to position his ship. And, lets not forget: the more skill demanding a class, the less popular. BBs are the patatoes choice because they are forgiving and provide moderate success, thanks to RNG lol-citas. Remove that success and make them completly unfogiving to precise BB-counterfire, and the overpopulation will correct itsself, removing the players to more fogiving classes, which, in this case, might become the cruisers once more. I personally would prefer the later. First, it would BBs generally make more predictable for me. I could take its movement and turret position into considerations and plan my approach. I would know, that dodging could be of use but yolo runs also could be of risk. And on the other hand, when playing a BB, i would knew, that if i plan carefully and move smart, it would be my skills (or the lack of them) that make the difference between complete missed salvos or success. Of course, this would only work, if implemented properly and with all consequence. Just slightly adjusting accuracy, or even worse, turning all BBs in Giulio Cesares, would definitly break the game completly.
  10. Should I start IJN BB's line

    First, in my opinion, the Colorado is not as bad as rumored, although it did receive a small nerf to gun accuracy for no obvious reason. In addition, once you get by the Colorado, things only get better. IJN BBs...well, not sure what to say. Kongo, Fuso, Nagato, i quite like(d) them. Yamato has a reputation of it´s own, but Izumo was and still appears one hell of a gaming experience, and biting through a tier 9 ship will be much harder than passing the tier 7 Colorado. Owning the Ishizuchi means, you have a ship to train your IJN captains, but it will not allow you to skip Kawashi and Myogi. You have to grind through them aswell...
  11. Sorry, Genai, i did not expect to demand too much of understanding. You took it personal, my fault. I should have stuck with rule number one: "Never argue with a person about WoWs, who claims BBs are OP." @Turin7: indeed, BBs are a good BB counter (and they should be the primary counter for BBs, imho). The reason, why players appear to forget about that, is the fact, that BB players, just as all other simple minded players, work like this: what can i damage the most with lowest effort? The answer within this target-priority range is simple: cruisers are much easier to damage than BBs. If rng screws your shell-dispersion, you still can have that lol cita/devastating strike. On a BB, armor might be hit and shells bounce, which results in less damage done. The nice side effect is, that much damage on a cruiser usually results in its removal from the battlefield, which is nice aswell. Thats why i, besides my suggestion within this thread, preach for brutally increased accuracy on BB guns. Not this forgiving Yamato or Guilio Cesare accuracy, but really, really accurate guns. Like that of the Yubari. With a spread/dispersion that tight, it would become increasingly difficult for BBs, to shotgun cruisers or DDs at range, while BBs could be much easier hit at range. But non-understanding or just selfish players never see the advantage of a mechanic like this, because they always fear for the one accurate salvo that might hit them, be it luck or skill. Players like them demand for rng and low BB accuracy, because they hope for their personal advantage out of this, the avoidance of damage, based on a BBs ability to hit them. They simply fail to see, that exactly this (rng-based) meta causes those unpredictable "lol-citas", allows for area covering shotgun-fire at range and drives BBs away from brawls, where they cannot hit a barn from the inside reliably, but live in the fear and danger of eating torpedoes. @Culiacan_Mexico i am aware of that citation. And if you read my previous postings carefully and without preoccupation, you will recognize that i basically don´t disagree. However, this citation should not suffer from misinterpretation. BBs don´t live "too long", because they are OP. They live too long, because all the camping players simply somehow manage to avoid to take damage, until most of their company (cruisers and DDs) are gone. The BB as a single ship itsself, in the wrong position, goes down just as quickly as all other classes. However, if you are not in a torpedo armed vessel or controlling some torpedo or AP-bomber squadrons, it is for sure much more difficult to bring a BB down with shells. But, on the other hand, thats one of their design features. A single BB is not op. It is no problem either. I dare to claim, that 8 out of 10 players, if asked, which ship they would prefer to face in a one vs. one, would ask for a BB. Slow, predictable in movement, and usually easier to spott than most other ships. But masses of them are op. But that goes for anything. In the end, i think BBs are not better in surviving, than DDs. The difference between them is, that the DD might survive through stealth, while the BB survives through tankiness. But how would you like to adress that? Nothing that WG tried so far, worked out. AP-Bombs and DW-torpedoes won´t remove camping BBs aswell. In alpha, we never had that proble, because BBs were capable of reliably going on each other. They were less maneuverable but hat way more accurate guns. It was fun to slugg it out that way. But the crybabies demanded nerfs, and with the nerfs came the tanking. A fact and a sad truth, but no truth the anti-BB movement wants to hear... This thread has already take too much of my lifetime. All i wanted, was to propose and discuss a solution, but it just turned out into another "lets talk about (op) BBs" thingy, the exact same stuff that brought the game down to where it is now... no point to go on...
  12. Spoken like a true anti-BB DD or cruiser fanboy. Whenever i read "BBs are OP", that person usually disqualifies for any further discussion. Now, don´t get me wrong, although you might have personal motivations, i don´t consider your intention wrong. We already got a balance problem between the classes, and at some point, the whole game suffers from a BB or DD overpopulation (though the BB-overpopulation appears to be the bigger issue). Clocky comes up with some valid points, but they are only valid to a certain degree, and while any of those points might remove one or several annoying aspects from the game, it/they would just exchange the annoying aspects for other annoying aspects (like even more BBs, maybe). None of them, and thats where i agree with you, would probably remove the camper meta. However, adressing (once more) the camper meta, is what we are here for, and in my opinion, that step requires some drastical measures, not just a little tinkering around. Because thats what we have for almost two years by now. Tinkering around, introducing new gimmicks, hitting specifec classes or ships with the nerf-bat or buff-bat, but never adressing the real issue of the actual meta: the stupid, camping enforcing, rng-dominated mechanics. As long as any patatoe can sit at 20km range, save from most smaller guns shells, protected by armor that allows for bounces when camping bow forward, and occasionally scoring the RNG-presented, ever annoying "lol-cita" for the feeling of personal satisfaction, nothing will change.
  13. Don´t you recognize the efforts by WG to work against this camper-meta? Full anti BB-carrier layouts, deepwater torpedoes, changes to the smoke meta, new premium BBs with strange gun behaviour. If you ask WG, they will tell you, that they are working hard and every day, to make the game more enjoyable and rewarding, and that they released and changed tons of stuff to improve the situation. After all, we cannot disagree. WG Implemented and changed a lot. They simply failed utterly from the perspective of the playerbase, of course, but hey, thats WG. It took them over 6 years to rework WoT, and the clickers still ruin the gaming experience, despite players telling them since 2010, what to do. The solution to eliminate camping could be, at least from my point of view, so easy. It almost lays at hand, it´s obvious, but...yeah, it would not be profitable in terms of making money. Simply rework the current rng/target system. Dispersion on targets is the same for all classes. You have a min-max value of dispersion, and rng decides for the rest. The more distance shells or torpedoes have to cross (excluding single fire torpedoes), the bigger the rng influence, the wider the spread and dispersion. This mechanic ignores the status of the target (speed, moving at all, stopped, reversing). To RNG, a moving target at 15km range is the same as an immobile target at 15km range. The difference (and balance) is made by the players skill, his ability to aim and lead shots, to perform correct calculations. And this is basically all the skill influence, the player gets. This is, in my opinion, a major source of frustration, a skill-limitation and supports camping maybe more than anything else. The solution? A speed depending dispersion mechanic, in combination with the introduction of real plunging fire. Just for easy understanding: any gun in the game, starting from low caliber secondary guns, up to the main batteries of the Yamato battleships, get a base dispersion of 0, and a max dispersion, depending on gun calibre or whatever appears to be fitting (a 1935 designed 38cm gun, supported by 1940 targeting systems might have less max dispersion than a 1916 design of 38cm gun, for example). This means, the gun hits, where it is aimed at. With laserlike precision. Now to the influence of speed: To make camping less attractive and movement more rewarding, two factors influence target accuracy. Speed of the target, and speed of the gunner. All ships have a potential forward max speed, and a potential maximal angle for rudder shift. Those two factors would allow for a mechanic like this: Regarding the actual speed compared to the max speed of the targets ship, increases the dispersion of guns, aimed on the target. We can call this a "defensive bonus", just for better understanding. A ship at its specific top speed will gain a maximum defensive bonus, which results in increased dispersion for all guns, aiming at the target. A simple version could be: full speed = 100% maxspeed = 100% defensive bonus = 100% dispersion rng for a ship firing at the target = any shell fired at the target can have a dispersion between 0 and maximum (based on current rng mechanics regarding range etc.) = Maximum RNG, just as we know it. This would reduce the attraction of being a stationary, camping target, since being active would provide a great bonus to survivability, while remaining stationary or moving very slowly would turn you in a very easy to hit shooting practice. But this would not affect the stationary, unspotted camper, right? Now add an offensive bonus aswell. Ships moving and maneuvering receive a bonus to accuracy, depending on their speed. Yes, i know, this is somewhat unrealistic, but we have so many unrealistic aspects in this game for balancing reasons, why not add another one, which actually helps the situation? This "offensive bonus" gives an accuracy bonus/dispersion reduction to gun batteries of 0,5% for any 1% of maximum speed. In other words: 50% dispersion reduction at full speed. This way, a moving target with 100% maxspeed will only have a 50% bonus to defense, yes, but this way, camping fire will be less rewarding than firing on the move. Of course, this mechanic could be influenced by rudder shifting aswell, since 100% topspeed are impossible to achieve, while constantly maneuvering. So, the mechanic could be adjusted in a way, that speed in combination with actual rudder position summ up to a total defense/offense bonus. However, this should be speed depending, do prevent campers sitting stationary with rudders at full angle and gaining a bonus this way. The result of this mechanic would be, that stationary ships receive a massive "debuff" in terms of survivability, while active, moving players receive massive bonuses to survivability and combat efficiency. The positive side effect will be, that skill becomes more valuable, while RNG still remains a compensating factor. Last but not least, implement working plunging fire, and BBs will learn the hard way, that sitting stationary at max range can quickly end their existence. But what about torpedoes? Well, torpedoes are less influenced by RNG. I suggest two approaches: reduce the maximum spread of a torpedo volley, or reduce the torpedo detection, depending on speed. A stationary target should receive a massive reduction of torpedo accquisition, like down to 5 or maybe 10%, targets at full action should have the regular detection range or could even receive a small bonus to detection range. I think, this could be a good approach to deal with this very sad and stationary meta...
  14. Mission impossible ... aka "having fun"

    Since when are we supposed to experience anything similar or close to "fun" in WG products? For some unknown reason, i stick with WG stuff since 2010 (WoT closed beta), and if i learned one thing, then it is the fact that any new content, any change and any mechanic, although claimed to feel "more rewarding" or "more satisfying" are only good for one thing: make you upset, make you feel screwed, make you feel cheated. The majority of those emotions basically result out of an overdose of RNG elements/bad luck, may it be matchmaking, teamplay, or the way your shells/torpedoes/bombs act, but non RNG-mechanic influenced factors like player behaviour or bad map design and bad design/balancing add to it aswell. I get your point, but by now, you should be used to this, don´t you?
  15. Manuelles Feuern der Sekundärbewaffnung

    Ist letztend Endes natürlich auch eine Frage des persönlichen Spielstils. Wenn Du auf fast Max-Range hinten stehst, ist der Skill natürlich sinnbefreit. Auf Scharnhorst und Tirpitz ist er meiner Ansicht nach höchst effektiv, da beide Schiffe auf Grund ihrer Torpedobewaffnung sehr ordentlich im Nahkampf sind. Gilt auch bis zu einem gewissen Grad für die Gneisenau. Da ich meine BBs sehr aktiv spiele (also kein Campen), setze ich diesen Skill, in Kombination mit anderen Sekundärbewaffnungsperks und Upgrades (Reichweite!) bei KM und IJN ab tier 7 ein. RN und USN sind mmn mit AAA oder verringerter Aufklärungsreichweite jedoch besser bedient. Wenn ab 7, respektive 10+ km die (Sekundär-)Hölle losbricht, kann das schon ganz ordentlich schaden machen, vor allem gegen leichte Ziele. Ist auch ein relativ probates Mittel, um DDs von Yolo-rushs abzuhalten...