Vaderan

The biggest flaw/issue/drawback with BBs just comes in the most noticable in operations: gunhandling. In combination with their (relatively) poor agility, BBs need to be positioned well in operations and also require to land punishing hits on targets frequently, to be of value and fullfill their role. As already has been pointed out, missions without "repair spot" require BBs to "tank" damage. This requires the BB to play aggressively and make it´s stand. This again requires the BB to be able to effectively deal with enemies, firing at the BB, so the BB stands a chance to actually reduce the enemies, withering the BB down. With the ever present BB-RNG lottery, BBs usually fail to deal damage reliably. Especially in escort missions (like raptor), this RNG can be (and often makes) the difference between victory and defeat. I cannot recall the times, i lost raptor (or at least one or several stars for victory), just because my BB shells refused continiously to score crucial citadell hits, while the bots were showing broadside. Especially in the final stage, when the Raptor moves towards the escape point, and 2 BBs show up, effective damage on those is elementary. Missions like raptor, where players are depending on "allied" bot behaviour, factors that limit the impact of players skills (=RNG) turn out to be highly frustrating. I can somewhat understand (but not support!) the requirement of the "RNG-balancing-factor" within the PvP gameplay, but vs. bot/ai, it is completly misplaced. This goes for all classes in operations/coop/PvE gamemodes. A drastical reduction of RNG for PvE gamemodes on all classes would be enough, to make these encounters less frustrating. Especially in operations, since all players in all classes, need to make their actions count. At least, for the regular PvE/operations game mode, because there will always be those pro-players, who desire the challange provided by RNG, so the increased difficulty game modes might remain untouched...

OP is either trolling, or has no clue what he is talking about... vote for close, since there is nothing of value to be expected in this thread... Everything of matter regarding BBs is being discussed elsewhere anyways...

I´ve been no particular friend of CVs back since alpha. They still hold a little too much of strike power, in terms of potentially instant deleting any target. However, on the other hand, i consider CVs the most challanging class in this game, if you want to master it. Compared to the "easy access" to other classes (don´t put too much weigth in this, it´s just for comparison reasons), CVs are really hard to master. All classes bear responsibility and require some degree of skill and intelligence, to be successfull with them, but the micromanagment, the increased demands on map awarness, the skill/experienced required for well coordinated, manual drops on target, thats a complete different level in comparison to sitting in a cloud of smoke and spamming shells, or "sniping" from the borders of the map. I dare to say, that CVs are the last, real skillbased class in this game. I tried both lines several times, but i never got comfortable with the playstyle. In my opinion, one real dicrepancy between CVs and the rest of the classes is, that skill in a CV actually can make a (game carrying/match ruining) difference, while all other classes are exchangable and expendable in these terms, because game mechanics/RNG more or less balance them out towards each other. Even the most skilled BB/CA/DD captain will be balanced by RNG sooner or later. The biggest difference might be, that CVs are the class which can choose their fights, and can fight them on their conditions. They set the stage. DDs can do this to a certain degree aswell, but most BBs and cruisers are more or less forced to make their stand where they are confronted, since they lack the mobility to quickly move accross the map unseen. Less RNG on all classes, and more impact of player skill could be a solution.

I required HDD space when uninstalling the game, so i deleted all replays with it. The ribbon system is flawed, but thats no secret. It can display ribbons that do not corelate with the inflicted damage. It has something to do with armor layers. AP might overpen the first layer (triggering overpen ribbon) but then again penetrate another, inner layer of armor plating and trigger the fuse to "detonate" the shell, resulting in "regular penetration" damage. Its about doing the correct math. If you know the modificators and do the numbercrunching correctly, things are easy to explain. However, i also took the time and went through some youtube replays, focusing on replays with lots of AP use. I did not find a single case of "wow, how did that happen?". If anything was really remarkable, then, how much damage was lost through "damage saturation". But i could not make out a single case of extraordinary, "multiple" damage. This, in the end, leaves me exactly at the point where i came from: my initial posting. The logical conclusion: your lack of knowledge doesn´t make it a fact! So, unless you can provide something really groundbreaking that prooves me wrong, i consider this done. No need to go any further with this.

I played my last game like 2-3 weeks ago, i doubt the game has changed in a revolutionary way since then. I missed that citadell below waterline penetration issue, and the introduction of french BBs. Anything else? Even if i read your quote 10 times, it doesn´t change a thing. You are still sitting there with a theory, you obviously cannot proove. If our topic in here, the multiple damage of any AP hitting any ship, would be a real issue, and not just simply one of imagination, why is there nothing to find out there, that actually confirms this? And, just to make it clear: even IF BB AP vs low HP DDs is only the "most noticable case", where are all the other cases? And what do those cases look like? Could you finally provide anything to confirm your claims, instead of act lecturing, arrogant and delivering empty words? Proove me wrong, or at least show anything that supports your theory, and i will shut up, i promise.

I am reading very carefully. Thats why i don´t see anything beyond wild speculation, theories and a failed attempt to proof any of this. Don´t try to lecture me without delivering something solid. All i can see until this point, is the desperate attempt to make a theory look valid, without providing anything that confirms this theory. Trying to make me look dumb, doesn´t help to support those theories. It just undermines the credibility of those who try. No facepalm-fish"required.

Just to get you straight: your point is, that a BB AP shell, fired every 25-35 seconds, deals too much damage when hitting a target with a low healthpool? Until now, we were discussing wether or not the 6k damage is a bug or a feature. Now, that we might agree that it is intentional, you consider it "too much"? DDs already get the special treatment of "no citadell", they have the best stealth, the best dodging capabilities, they can outrun most other ships and smoke up and go cloaked, if it gets too hot. Last but not least, they have these nasty things called "torpedoes", which on the other hand can end any target just as quick, as a devastating AP strike can on them. I require no lecture about countermeasure gimmicks, situational awarness, engagement distance and all the other stuff, since i am aware of it. And yes, i am just as freaked out in my DDs, when that nasty 50% hit strikes home. But whenever you decide to take out your DD for a ride, you agree to the tradeoff of survivability for all the other advantages, a DD brings. Demanding, that BBs should only do overpen damage, whenever they hit a DD (or AP, for that matter), is completly out of balance. Yes, many BBs feature 9-12, one even 16 guns, and with proper RNG, those can delete a DD pretty quickly. But there are enough BBs with 8 guns around aswell, and with an average hitratio of 1-2 shells per broadside fired on a DD, the demandment of, lets say 10-20 overpenetrations to sink a DD, is just ridiculous, considering the ammount of reloads required. DDs already have only limited respect when going against BBs. With AP permanently reduced to 10% damage on DDs, BBs would be almost incapable to defend against a dedicated DD, before the DD can brin in his torpedoes. Not to mention AP from cruisers, which would be reduced to a constant hail of just a few hundred damage per hit. I would agree to that 10% AP vs. DD mechanic, if, as a tradeoff, citadells on DDs would be brought back, with a mechanic that those DD citadells are only vulnerable to HE. This, in the end, would make switching between ammunition viable again.

Thing is, since i cannot test your theory, and since i never experienced it, i still consider your point flwaed. Nothing personal, but from Alpha to beta to release version, there have always been patch notes, and i cannot remember the installment of the 10/33/100 mechanic on DDs. I tryed to do some research on youtube on this, and the most renown video i could find, was one from Notser (6 months old, though), complaining about BB AP on DDs. Within the first minutes, he scores 2 hits with his GK on a Shimakaze for some 9000, with the ribbons showing one regular penetration and one overpen. The basic (100%) damage of his GC is ~12000. We now can take two approaches, on how the damage is applied to the Shimakaze. The first approach would be: ~1200 Damage from the overpen, and ~7800 mythtical damage from the regular pen. With this approach, the ~7800 damage cannot be explained properly, since 33% of 12k damage would be ~4k. Double damage from a regular pen would not match the number aswell, since the shell base damage is above 12000, so 66% would above 8000, not below. So, maybe the overpen then? But how? And how often? The second approach would be: we have a regular 50% pen for ~6000 damage. This hit causes the first stage of damage saturation. When the second shell (with the overpen ribbon) hits, it scores the damage saturated hitbox and triggers the false ribbon, displaying the overpen ribbon instead the regular penetration ribbon. Since damage saturation stage 1 reduces damage by 50%, the damage of hit two is reduced from ~6000 to ~3000 damage. 6000 Damage for a non damage saturation 50% hit, and another hit with 50% malus from damage saturation on the same 50% hitbox results in ~3000 damage, for an overall damage of ~9000, exactly the number of damage, the Shimakaze received. I don´t know about you, but for me, approach two appears to be much more reasonable, since it can be all explained by existing mechanics and maths, while approach number one includes the idea of bugs, broken stuff and mystical mechanic behaviour... Approach number 2 would also explain, why it is a feature.

Its always the question, where you are coming from. As an BT, you may know BBs from the point, where their Dispersion was at the worst state ever, as far as i can remember, at least. So, from your point of view, every change to BB dispersion can be considered as a buff. Now take a look at my profile. It marks me as an alpha tester. I remember BBs a a class, that could, the skill given, snipe another BB from 20km distance. Or aim straight for the citadell of an opponent and score the hit more or less, where it was aimed at. In other words: great aiming skills, big success, low aiming skills, no success, since there was almost no RNG to compensate for low skill. This made wiggeling DDs hard to hit, and straight forward charging DDs predictable and an easy kill. It was the time, when DDs also had a citadell, so it did take maybe 1-2 shells to nuke that DD out of the water, which was necessary and balanced, because, if you missed the DD, it would kill you with his torpedoes, since BB maneuverability was by far more sluggish back those days, and got buffed dramatically with beta. As a compensation for the citadell removal, DDs received a citadell similar hit zone accross the ship/modell. A hit into this hitzone would cause 50% of regular shell damage. I think, this change was subject to alpha, but i am not completly sure. As such, even an overpen at this section could cause that 50% damage, but since those (alpha) patch notes are several years in the past, my memories might be flawed. @wilkatis_LV : as i just wrote: DDs received a 50% damage hitbox back in alpha. Unless this hitbox has not been changed since back then (an i cannot remember a patch note that declared something the like), i still stick with the conviction, that this mechanic is still active. The regular 10%; 33%;100% mechanic for overpens; regular pens; citadells does not work with DDs. This would also explain MrConways "its a feature" response in the link, you provided. Just because something appears to be wrong, it does not necessarily mean it is wrong. Maybe, anyone can provide a replay link for youtube? I have WoWs uninstalled, so no chance to test your hypothesis. However, over all the time from alpha until a few weeks ago, before i uninstalled, i never ever had one of those "magical multiple damage hits", no matter which class i played or fired at...

Is this multiple hit issue officially confirmed by WG (source, quote?), or just imagination based on wrong information? Because, afaik, DDs, due to their lack of a citadell, have (or at least had) a different damage mechanic from all other classes. An AP shell which would cause 1k damage with an overpen can cause 5k regular damage on a DD, which has nothing to do with "mutliple time damage". This is simply working as intended. IF there is in fact a confirmed 2x/3x damage thingy going around with BB-AP exclusively, then, however, the OP did it´s best to make it look like a pointless, biased DD-fanboi rant, since he did not simply refer to this damage mechanic, but also complains about "BB accuracy buffs", which is simply hilarious, since, besides a neglectible, because absolutely useless, "below 3km engagement range" accuracy buff, BBs still suffer from the big, bad accuracy nerf-bat they received in alpha. Yes, there has been a time, where BBs were a respected, skill based class, not this rng based lottery game for everyone... So, if you could provide a source for this "2x73x damage BB-AP" thingy, please share, because i am always eager to learn. If nothing like this exists, there is nothing wrong with what i said before. Otherwise, i will freely apologize for my personal lack of knowledge.

Oh, look, another DD Fanboi complaining that BBs don´t simply sit in the water and wait for torpedo-yolorun-instantkills an perma-HE-spam + barbecue. If BBs are soooo OPOPOPOPOP powerfull, why do you focus on squishy cruisers and DDs? All i can read from your statistics, is a personal preference in playing the game as cheesy as possible, with BBs obviously being your prefered prey, and complaining because your prey actually can and will bite back, if RNG allows for it. No point in discussing anything like this from your biased position, sorry...

Besides the obvious RN-BB example: HE is the easy way to play for simple minded players. To be successfull with AP, you need to aim properly (skill requirement). When shells are fired, you need gracefull RNG to connect with to the target (RNG requirement). If shells connect with the target, you once again need gracefull RNG to actually hit, where it hurts, no just simply overpen (RNG requirement). Last but not least, while AP might work wonderfully against targets showing broadside, AP can become useless, if the target turns into an angle that allows it to bounce/deflect AP shells (correct prediction requirement). All these requirements for the chance of scoring a citadell hit = max damage, and even this chance is a tradoff for the chance of causing fires and inflicting module damage. HE, on the other side and in comparison, requires less aiming skill (lower skill requirement) and more or less simply needs to connect with the target, to show results (RNG requirement). BB HE shells simply overmatch most lightly arored surfaces and are allowed to cause moderate damage that way, why still having the chance of fires and module damage. BBs and some cruisers/DDs might be able to repair fire damage, but the majority of non BB class ships cannot. So, while giong HE exclusively is the wrong way for maximum success with a BB, HE spam has become a viable alternative for those who seek constant progress with less effort, compared to the high risk - low yield - rng game with AP...

In WoT, most regular "missions" are like "play (enter random number) of matches with (enter specific class, tier or vehicle), win the game and belong to the top (enter random number from 3 to 10) players of your team. I don´t understand, why WG does not follow this policy in WoWs. I think, the WoT way encourages for much better teamplay and contributional playstyle than "sink 3 cruisers with a BB" or "hit BBs 12 times with torpedoes", which primarily encourages selfish, achievement orientated gameplay...

Du übersiehst bei Deiner Argumentation ein kleines Detail: der AP-CV muss im besten Fall Glück beim Abwurf haben, um den Oneshot zu performen. Das Risiko für einen 60000+ HP Oneshot: die Möglichkeit, ein paar Flugzeuge zu verlieren. Die Position des CV bleibt in der Regel dabei vor dem Gegner verdeckt, die HP des CV bleiben unangetastet. Außerdem ist der RNG faktor lediglich der Bombenabwurf. Die Verteidigungsmöglichkeiten des BBs gegen AP Bomben sind extrem beschränkt. Anwinkeln? Fehlanzeige. Panzerung zum Bouncen? Nein, denn dafür sind die AP-Bomben ja gedacht. Flak? Sofern HE Spam nicht die Flak zerschossen hat, hilft die ein wenig. Also bleibt bestenfalls die Hilfe vom Team, wobei wir wieder beim Problem des Teamspiels wären. Am Ende bleibt: Das CV-Manöver ist in etwa so mutig, riskant und ehrenhaft, wie der 1-shot in der alten WoT Arty-Meta. Das Schlachtschiff muss sich in Feuerreichweite begeben, seine Position preisgeben, mit Gegenfeuer rechnen und darauf hoffen, dass mehere, kritische Zufallsfaktoren zusammenkommen: Winkel des Gegners, Spielerskill des BB, Dummheit oder Unaufmerksamkeit des Kreuzerfahrers, um nicht doch noch auszuweichen, und last but not least, der wichtigste Faktor: die Gunst des RNG Gottes. Eine Zitadelle mag ja gehen, aber nen 40000k HP Kreuzer brauch ne Multi-Zita, und die ist deutlich seltener, als nen gebündelter AP-Bomben Drop. Zu guter letzt: es ist ein Unterschied, ob man ein "fragiles" 40000hp Schiff wegnuked, oder ein 60000+ HP Schiff, das von vielen ja auch gerne fälschlicherweise als "Tankklasse" bezeichnet wird... Dass man Dir das noch erklären muss...

Amarandh Mostly plays aircraft carriers, especially high-tier and is excellent in them Deals a large amount of damage Extremely rarely uses torpedoes Key vehicle - Saipan *Schaut auf den Kalender: nein, es ist nicht der 1. April...* Echt jetzt? Meinst Du das ernst? Also so wirklich? Alles? Du behauptest, Schlachtschiffe seien "leicht zu spielen", aber sie sind bei Dir, der diese Hypothese aufstellt, die im Verhältnis erfolgloseste Klasse. Deine guten Statistiken basieren hauptsächlich auf erfolgreichem Spiel mit Flugzeugträgern oder als overpowered/inbalanced geltenden Schiffen wie Belfast und Chabarovsk, und Du willst uns erzählen, dass Flak, Torpedoschutz, Geschwindigkeit, Beweglichkeit, Gunhandling, Schadenspotenzial der BBs, also im Prinzip alle wesentlichen Parameter generfed gehören, um eine "Vormachtstellung" zu brechen? Ich geb Dir nen Tip: Du hast vergessen, zu fordern, dass BBs keine Reperaturmannschaften mehr haben sollten, denn Feuerlöschen und Lecks stopfen ist auch OP! Wofür haben BBs denn so viele HP und supi Panzerung, nicht wahr? Wenn Du schon so um die Ecke kommst, sei doch wenigstens ehrlich. Was Du willst, sind fette, harmlose XP-/Cashcows, die am besten still im Wasser sitzen und gerade so attraktiv auf die Patatoes da draußen wirken, um für Dich beim Statpadden aus Nebelbänken heraus massenhaft einfache Ziele zu bieten, oder um Dich im Träger weniger Flugzeuge zu kosten, bevor Du sie mit AP Bomben oder manuellen Torpedodrops instant killst. Ok, streichen wir die Torpedos zunächst, die scheinen Dir ja noch Schwierigkeiten zu bereiten. Dafür brauchst Du ja die geforderten Nerfs. Also lediglich Bombenabwurf-Autodrop? Ich kenne die WG Statements, und ich stimme zu, dass es bisweilen zu viele BBs in einem Match gibt. Das Gleiche gilt aber auch für alle anderen Klassen. 5 BBs pro team sind zu viel, genauso aber auch 5 DDs, und abhängig vom Typ, auch (Radar-) Kreuzer. Das Problem ist aber nicht die "Qualität" des Schiffs, sondern die Masse. Und wie Du schon ausgeführt hast, ist das WG Statement, insbesondere auf die Überlebensfähigkeit der BBs bezogen, sehr alt. Praktisch veraltet. Deine Behauptung, BBs seien seitdem ausschließlich gebuffed worden, während alle anderen Klassen vernachlässigt wurden, ist absoluter Humbug. Gerade durch AP-Bomben (dürftest Du als ambitionierter Enterprise-Spieler ja kennen) und Tiefwassertorpedos sind sehr wirksame, aber auch fragwürdige Gegenmaßnahmen zu BBs ins Spiel gekommen, da diese Gegenmaßnahmen zunächst den aktiven BB-Spieler an der Front bestrafen, bevor es die Camper erwischt. Alleine die pure Behauptung, BBs seien einfach zu spielen, und vor allem die Genauigkeit der Geschütze (welche Genauigkeit?) gehöre generfed, zeigt, dass Du null adäquates Verständnis über diese Klasse besitzt. Das wird auch wunderbar untermauert von Deiner Liste an Forderungen für Nerfs an der Klasse. Wenn überhaupt, dann muss man sich anhand Deiner mittelprächtigen Statistiken bei high-tier BBs Fragen, ob Deine Forderungen schlichtweg auf einem aus Unverständnis basierendem Hass auf die Klasse basiert. Der Grund, warum BBs so gerne von schlechten Spielern frequentiert werden, liegt an anderer Stelle. Natürlich ist es auch ihr Bekanntheitsgrad. Vielmehr liegt die Popularität, spielbezogen, aber darin, dass sie ermöglichen, auf Grund ihrer "Fähigkeiten" lange Zeit außerhalb der Nebelwand und Torpedosuppe Meta zu operieren. Zwar nicht erfolgreich, dafür aber länger als 5 Minuten. Denn wenn die Spielerfahrung der letzten Jahre eines bewiesen hat: Schlachtschiffe, die aktiv gespielt werden (also Pushen, Teamplay, nicht Campen) sind wahre Torpedo- und Shellmagnets und haben eine deutlich verkürzte Lebensdauer. RNG trägt dazu nur bei, denn es ruiniert beim BB Spielerskill im mittleren Bereich und Nahkampf und fördert die Zitadellenlotterie beim Campen. Wenn etwas dazu beitragen würde, die BBs vom Campen abzuhalten, dann eine drastische Reduzierung des RNG. Denn es ist nunmal RNG, dass mit steigender Distanz positiven Einfluss auf "Lolzitas" nimmt, und nicht der Spielserskill. Aber das versteht keiner, und will auch keiner hören, denn auch wenn weniger RNG auf Range = weniger Lolzitas bedeuten, so würden BBs im Nahkampf an effektivität gewinnen, zwar nicht so viel, wie Schiffe mit Torpedos, aber immerhin. Und das will ja keiner, der in BBs Cashcows sieht. Deine "Lösungsansätze" brechen keine "Vormachtstellung", sie machen eine Klasse nur noch mehr zur Beute der anderen Klassen, insbesondere für die Schiffe, die Du besonders gerne spielst. Dir geht es nicht um eine grundlegende Verbesserung des Spiels, sondern um ein persönliches Wunschbild, wie das Spiel für DICH sein müsste, damit es DIR am meisten Freude bereitet. Es ist halt auch schon echt unbalanced, wenn Du 5 Minuten unsichtbar in einer Nebelwolke sitzend HE auf so nen OP-Pott spammen kannst, und dieser Dich dann in 1 von 20 Fällen instant wegnuked, nur weil Du den Nebeltimer aus den Augen verloren hast und plätzlich Breitseite parkend mit heruntergelassenen Hosen erwischt wirst. Voll OP, diese Schlachtschiffe. Also...manchmal...wenn man sich dumm anstellt und das Schlachtschiff diesen 1 von 100 RNG-Luckshots bekommt...