Elgerino

This is gaming culture, it's not going anywhere and you should be used to it by now.

What's 10x zero? Still zero. BB's being at their most accurate now is not unlike being voted most handsome man...in the burns unit. I just don't see much evidence you care at all about BB's. Where-as I clearly play both, not only have I played a lot of BB's, but I used my 150k alpha exp to skip straight to New Orleans. Originally the plan was to play cruisers exclusively, but more of my friends got in the CBT than I expected, so I played the BB's with them. Turns out I understand each class very well, particularly the limits of each and how easy it is to kill one with the other. Your version of events, where CA's are constantly one hit, I know to be either a ridiculous lack of awareness and selective memory or the general experience of a bad player. ...I know you think you sound smart, but I would re-evaluate. It doesn't matter how much range a BB has. It matters how much Effective Range he has. He isn't going to hit you whilst you close to 15km. What's more, if you are dodging and timing your movements to the targets shots as you claim, there's no reason for them to get an entire salvo on you outside of 12km besides blind luck or unless he successfully guesses exactly where you're going to be once you're done evading and holds fire until you move to broadside, this should only happen if you're being predictable. Of course you have to hit it a lot of times. It's a battleship. What do you expect? It wouldn't be a believable nor fun game if BB's were just as vulnerable to 203mm shells as cruisers are. That said, BB's are still vulnerable. On the upside, you can kill everything else much easier than a BB can. You actually wait for the muzzle flash to dodge? You think 6-7k hits are rare? You're definitely doing things wrong here. Keywords, little bit. The absolute maximum of which is nearly 15k on the Yamato, which you can wipe out with two decent salvos. That will not be difficult with Des Moines, trust me on that. It would be a pretty ridiculous game if you could be totally immortal with a bit of artful movement. Again, I need to point out, BB's maximum range is not the same as their effective range. Even against other BB's, you can't reliably hit at greater than Cruiser max range. If you are one shot at 20km, it is nothing except your fault. No, my definition in this context is correct. You're probably reading the ''metagaming'' wikipedia page, which is a different term and a slightly different context, which refers to a different practise of acting outside the parameters of a game for an advantage, mainly a pen and paper RPG sort of thing. This is different to ''The Metagame''. Even if was wrong, your original use of the term would be wrong too wouldn't it? No-one denies they have the greatest damage potential. That doesn't make them OP. They score most of that damage on eachother, not laser one shotting cruisers at max range. I would say you say it how you think it is, not how it really is.

One instance is not an OP class make. Oh, on the contrary. You can one shot BB's too. But the reason this happens so rarely is because it's not practical to land every shell on the citadel, just like it's not practical to citadel cruisers at range. There's no other ship that can pop smoke (Apart from Iwaki Alpha), no other ship that can buff it's AAA, no other ship that can launch planes. Why are BB's not allowed a unique trait? Because it's the class you don't like, that's why. BB's can't even repair a lot of the types of damage it takes. Yes, let's introduce more RNG, if there's anything BB's need more it's even greater randomised damage. Over-penetration isn't really a thing anyway, standard AP naval rounds had an explosive filler on a fuse, they weren't just a chunk of metal you fired at the enemy as far as I know. Maybe you'd see over-penetration on a destroyer, maybe.

Because each ship has it's own unique function.

I think that's just because if you're at full you drift much longer in the water, rather than the turn circle being slower.

It would be a cool addition to combat if you could slow and decrease your turning circle, though. Maybe it's just a step too far in unrealism, but it would give us different options for dodging incoming fire.

Convenient. Someone who happens to believe BB's are more accurate than they are, have this super heal ability they don't and are more effective snipers than they really are happens to have played a single BB game in another patch, the validity of which we cannot confirm. They can take out bad cruiser players in two shots...Actually I tend to pop people who get within 12km and sail in a straight line in one shot. An opinion widely refuted in this thread. Niche situation and one that could have been avoided had the CA player thought about things for a second. Aggressive play is fine, to be strived for infact. Stupid play is to be frowned upon. What's more, a BB cannot fire back once and except to one hit anything unless the CA player is making it easy. It's no good labelling bad play as skill based play to disguise the fact you made a bad judgement call. I would question someone who's trying to setup close range ambushes with CA's as being a skilful player. Especially when the only CA that person has is a Pensacola, good luck taking on BB's with that under-powered trash. Everything you say further convinces me you don't know this game well enough to talk about what's effective and what isn't. No, you just claimed that's the meta-game as if you understood the term. The meta-game is the current most effective known strats and tactics, a list that CA ambushes at one shot range and long range BB sniping are not currently a part of. I don't lose many battles. I am a BB player and this does result in a lot of draws because I can't be as aggressive as smaller ships can and force a win with objective play. My stats back this up, because I have a huge draw rate, a draw rate which mostly consists of CV's avoiding combat to force a draw in what would have been a win. One of the many downsides to playing mostly BB since the beta started. Seeing as you've gone for the e-peen comparison let's follow this through. I am apparently distinctly average, but even though the vast majority of your games are played with what's considered by alpha testers to be the most over-powered ship in the game outside of Des Moines, the Cleveland, I'd consider your performance as a player to be absolutely woeful, if mine is average. Yeah, [edited]me right. Demanding cruisers play their role instead of setting up close range ambushes and getting oneshot as if it's skilful play. Do you know how much easier it is for BB's to be aggressive when they know they've got a cruiser covering them? I doubt you do, because you do very little talking about how vulnerable BB's are without cover and a lot about how generally invincible we apparently are. This sounds contrived. But I suppose we all make mistakes. Maybe I did that, maybe there was a reason you couldn't glean. I'm afraid I don't remember your performance in those games, probably because it was utterly forgettable. How is lobbying for a nerf of the class you have the most trouble with less sinister than defending that class? You're the one trying to increase your performance. I actually believe the balance between the two is pretty good right now, cruisers were never meant to be especially effective against BB's, though smart cruiser players can be, they were meant to be effective against everything else. Which they are. I wonder if we'll see you in here defending cruisers once Des Moines is more prevalent and the inevitable forum whining begins. It can't be long now, I'm seeing plenty of Baltimore's in the queue. Who knows. You may even see me in the T-X cruiser before long. Will we find you nailing yourself to the cross again in an anti-cruiser thread, or defending them? I'll certainly enjoy the opportunity to expose what a damned hypocrite you'd be in either case.

You're being instakilled by BB's because you're either sailing in straight lines or you're getting too close.

It can't be repeated. It only repairs a certain amount of soft damage, it can't for instance repair a citadel hit. If you tried to use it twice in a row, it wouldn't work or it would repair a tiny amount the second time. You can only use it once every couple of minutes, that's a very long time in combat especially against Cruisers. Tell me again how this is OP? Can you not pretend you understand the meta-game please? Camping and sniping at long range with BB's is how you lose games, not win them. Long range BB fire is woefully ineffective even against other BB's. I checked your stats, not that I need to judging by how you view the current ''meta-game'' but you haven't played a single battleship. This is a common trend with people shouting OP this, OP that. People like you can't remain objective, you remember that once in a blue moon occurrence where a BB did something totally ridiculous and extrapolate that it's always like that, ignoring nearly every instance where it isn't. Actually play the class.

The repair barely heals a single decent BB volley.

At least the 6 minute fight is over quickly. CV's dragging a game out to force a draw in the other game mode is a prolonged and torturous ordeal.

It is very hard to score hits at long range. It's not about skill either, before you make that claim. The dispersion values and the travel time are simply way too high to be combat effective at those ranges. If you're being hit at those ranges, I guarantee two things. You are exaggerating and you are not dodging. Lemme repeat again what I've always said since I started playing, just because you have the range does not mean you can utilise it. Armour does bounce shells, plenty of them. Cruisers might be able to penetrate a BB's deck, but they can't penetrate a citadel that way. Other-wise Cruisers would be doing 15k hits. The citadel bounces the vast majority of cruiser shells, even on Amagi.

Citadel hits are not random at close range, they just need to fire AP and hit the right spot and you'll take a crapload of damage.

This is so wrong. BB's are not effective at such long ranges. Anyone who tries to fight exclusively at maximum range is going to have no effect on the battle. Cruisers who avoid distances below 12-14km and effectively dodge will rarely be hit hard by enemy BB's. I think it's strange that you expect armour to bounce plunging shells, given that the armour required to bounce such shells in real naval warfare was practically impossible. But it doesn't matter anyway, because everything you just said about long range BB accuracy is just not true.

That's a good way of putting it. Something that has concerned me for a while is the fact that shell size is not representative of potential damage in the way you'd expect. Fuso 14'' AP Damage: 11k. Nagato 16'' AP Damage: 13k. Yamato 18'' AP Damage: 15k. The increase in damage should be exponential for size but it seems to be diminishing returns. Only an increase of a third in damage over-all and only 2k per shell between the 16'' and 14''. Isn't this a little homogenised? The Jap 16'' are a little more accurate than the 14'' and there's a little more damage, but eight 16'' are vastly inferior to twelve 14'' with the odd way shell damage is scaling. Yamato pays the biggest price here, the 18'' guns are woefully inaccurate and it only gets a couple extra thousand damage per shell. The solution has to be a larger scaling in HP and a larger scaling in shell damage to differentiate tiers. Do this and Nagato would be a superior ship with better accuracy, a chunk more HP and comparable potential damage.

Personally I like domination, seeing as the basic game mode is a bloody draw generator.

I find this odd seeing as BB's are actually weaker now then they were in Alpha. I feel like you're experiencing some other problem and rationalising it as ship balance. If I was to have a guess, it would be because Cruisers rose to prominence in Alpha where-as BB's are currently more prominent in Beta, because people generally haven't realised how powerful cruiser packs are yet. So now you have to deal with far more BB volleys than you did before and because more of them are blowing you up, you believe they're more powerful than they were. But the fact is, a cruiser outside 12km range is still very difficult for BB's to hit, just like it was in Alpha.

Nagato seems to be tougher than Fuso, but gets the same speed. So you're offsetting more damage and deal less. Kongo through Amagi are all about as strong as eachother, besides obviously Kongo/Amagi, they just have different strengths and weaknesses. I don't know where the devs are trying to take this game. Maybe they want homogenised tiers, in which case they're doing a good job. There are few occasions where upgrading tier actually results in a big power increase, most tiers are sidegrades rather than upgrades. If they want tier to equal power, then they should scale HP more rapidly. Perhaps put Yamato at 150k HP and have the battleships scale up to that point. Fuso would have more guns but less armour and 40k less HP, for example.

Again, not uncounterable. DD's are pretty much useless when the target is aware of their presence.

Nice try bud, but our capture stats are very similar. You can't explain this away so easily. If you want to change them, fine. Suggest it. But don't suggest the shotgunning tactic is OP, when it's actually situational and dependant on the incompetence of the target.

You counter it with awareness. I've been shotgunned once in like, 120 games of BB gameplay.

But that's a myth as well, which is what I said in the first sentence. (Firing method) Neither switching to ripple fire nor slowing down actually improves your accuracy, as far as testers could tell.

Can we stop perpetuating the myth that movement speed and firing method affect accuracy please? In WOT, the increased spread when you move simulates the fact that the tank rocks and shakes at speed and that the gun is not steadied. At sea, the environmental effects on your accuracy are the same whether you're moving or stationary. So its wrong to assume both games are the same in this respect. This myth is getting on me nerves, I'm sick of seeing ships dropping anchor to fire. All they're doing is making it easy to shoot them.

Why?

Firstly stats are not meaningless, they mean exactly what they say. It's stupid conclusions and logical leaps based on them that are meaningless. Toxicity is an attitude, removing game stats doesn't affect it. People like that leave games anyway, they just base it on different information like tier balance or the tanks they're up against. Don't punish those of us who like stats by removing them and not fixing the problem.