Karasu_Browarszky

Just work hard to get your Karma to Zero like me. Problem solved! Thank me later.

Well, that's never been a problem for me.

Has WG actually thought their own game mechanics through.... wait what am I asking...

Well, if the BB's were able to engage each other at long ranges in a way that would allow them to score damaging hits, not necessarily citadels, although I imagine at that angle the shots would land from above and hit the deck... there would be no safe place on the map, camp in the rear or not.

Guns that have a very longe range, remain accurate at medium to longer ranges against capital ships (less so against light elements) and are capable of major damage?

Be careful with the good Colonel, @Pukovnik7 You sometimes find yourself arguing against your own arguments.

It is if I can't shoot back at it. We got skill based MM now? Wut? There is a point after which you cannot disengage. You can try, but it will probably end badly. Conversely, if you get focussed by an enemy that has pushed pass a certain limit, there is nowhere to disengage. Your team has failed. Well, if it leads, it's either going to be very quick or very very long. That's why I said with the wright sort of team.

Hmm... interestingly, I'd rather wager they are weaker in the game in relative terms as opposed to real life, because of the meta choices made by WG. True, they have the highest damage potential (after CV's, I think) but IMO they are crippled by a number of factors, especially seeing how BB's are heavily dependent on team play for their success, in a game where lack of team play seems to be a persistant issue. In a sense, I'd trade some of that potential strength for increased surviveability. Call me a bad BB player if you will, but I actually find most DD's easier to play than most BB's in the current meta. Yes, you are biased. And spoilt at that.

@Europizza are you saying we react to the HE spam but the underlying issue is poor teamplay?

I think that is one of the best analyses I've seen of the current state of the game. Correct. Currently. Which is what I find wrong with it. Won't work, and not just because of my lack of skill. What will happen is the BB and his nearby team mates will focus on my cruiser. The HE problem is not ship class dependent, it depends on factors such as range, maneuverability and detection, above all detection. Yes, I complain about HE spamming not about focus fire or numbers FFS. I sometimes do get sunk by numbers, sometimes by a lone 'Smoke Warrior' or 'Island Hugger'. The former is not fun, but acceptable if you are playing a wargame, the latter is not something I'm ever going to find acceptable under any terms. The problem with numbers and focus fire is to do with how it is asymmetrical. Maybe I get on the worst team way more often than on the better team, who knows? What I do know is I get this team: When I get focused, they do bugger all to help me in that situation. They wait for the enemy to sink me, and only then start firing at the enemy ships. Fun. They push in the most extraordinary manner. The lead ship pushes, others wait, watch for the lead ship get sunk by focus fire. Then the next ship starts to push, etc. You get the idea, and you know how it will end. Numbers matter but only when the action is coordinated, be it capping, pushing, defending, charging or whatever. We've touched on this subject before, I'm an advocate of the Ocean, not just because it is the best map out there, but because it is the best map out there for dynamic, tactical action. If you got the right sort of team with you, that is. My variation of your smart push is to start pushing sideways at that point. Many teams scatter around the map like a flock of hens, when the enemy team is made up of foxes, there's be a lot of feathers in the air before the show's over. I don't remember when I first reached tier X BB's, it's a while back though. Off hand, I don't see a huge difference when it comes to HE spamming, and if the stealth fire was broken, then it has to be that the overall game meta was superior to what we got now to the point where it did not break the game. Had it broken the meta, I think the game would never have survived. While we are on the subject, I remember something about reducing the time you can be detected after firing your guns, but IIRC that was never implemented (could be wrong here). Yes, I agree with you. The problem here is that elements that will attempt to cap and encounter the enemy units will expect you to provide support. When you do provide support, it is difficult to do that at range (effectively, except if you are super wiz with your guns or something) and approaching the mid map area where the caps are, will make you vulnerable to enemy fire (and torps). HE spam is a problem for BB's attempting to push. The HE spamming elements would need to be dealt with before the push can commence. You can improve the game a lot while staying plenty 'arcade' enough. There are some aspects that a 'simulation' would bring to the game, but they would probably make the gunnery too difficult for most users, so I'm not asking for full simulation type of game play. A game where the team with better tactics and superior gunnery wins the battle. You are half correct as far as, yes, I want a game that established proper combat roles for ships of varying classes (this maybe a simulation derived feature, but if it is implemented with arcade physics and controls there would not be much outward difference in how the game is played. If it is done in a smart way.) I am also aware that the BB's as a class are over popular, I just don't think it is a good solution to make them artificially weaker. It doesn't seem to have worked, the queues are still filled up with over proportionate numbers of BBs. Conversely, making them stronger would obviously not lead to better results, so if this is the core problem when it comes to the BB's, an another solution needs to found. I'm also aware that people develop different play styles and come to expect different things from the game. For me, the early meta was far better than what we got now. I'm looking for a dynamically paced, tactical game that let's me focus on my gunnery, not for having to play chicken coop or a fireman simulator.

I'd suggest thinking very carefully which silver ships you want to train captains for when it comes to 21 pt or otherwise experienced captains. Pick your best ships!

Yeah, other MMO's go really big on PvE modes and events, operations and whatever else... why not WoWS?

Let's put it this way, damage yes, cripple yes, sink no. Having cruisers (and potentially DD's) being able to sink a BB should only be possible with numbers, not one on one.

Sorry, but to me that sounds exactly like a very good argument for nerfing HE... they should have been able to sink you with AP, so IMO the whole ammo balance between AP and HE is way off the mark. IMO, the cruisers should specifically focus on fighting the enemy cruisers and DD's (with the support of other elements). We need a balanced MM, for this, of course, otherwise it can't work. Numbers should also matter, greatly, with several cruisers + DD's being able to face the BB's. I play style is hugely different in some respects. I rely on information about what I am facing when I think about tactical options.

... to the delight of the enemy team. Just think, if the MM were to match both teams with hopeless CV's, everyone would win! As for having a T8 in a T10 battle, as long as it isn't a cruiser I don't personally have any problems with this as long as you got a team that you can depend on. If you haven't got that team, it makes zero difference what tier you are playing, so the issue is not with the tier difference but with team performance, IMO. Just yesterday, I was bravely facing off Yamato in my Masachusetsu. I survived! Because I had team mates who took care of the Yamato. At least I helped.

Meaning if the BB's run away? That's the only smart tactic I know of. Under certain circumstances. @OP. Don't worry about anything ruining the balance. That's been keelhauled ages ago. The problem here is, those planes make zero difference against CV strikes, and are completely useless in no-CV battles. What the game is missing is 'recon' planes, the only realistic counter to CV's are CV's, as it should be... but, curiously enough, isn't.

It's a little difficult to pay attention to something you don't see. Curious, how exactly would you position your BB at various stages of the battle? Yeah... I actually think the stealth fire mechanic was less problematic in this regard than what we got now.... I get this problem with HE spam, and even in situations where I'm not yoloing at the start. Yoloing is a guaranteed way of getting into trouble, but it can happen with a 'weak push', players abandoning a flank too early (not allowing time for orderly withdrawal), players not wanting to abandon the flank till it's too late (interestingly...), it can also happen with your flank buckling under enemy pressure which is the only 'acceptable' reason because it's more due to enemy being good than you or your team making tactical miscalculations or complete mistakes. Why do the cruisers need to be able to 'deal with battleships'? Why do you have to artificially try to balance ships against ships that they should steer clear of as much as they can? Do you think WG is doing a great job with this artificial balancing? Don't you think the balance would be better if it was based on reinforcing the idea of 'combat roles' in the game. I'm talking about a real balance here, centered on the idea of strengths and weaknesses.

We really need historical scenario battles...

Sometimes the fires aren't a problem, sometimes they are. Personally for me, they are a problem in such situations where the HE spammer is avoiding detection (smoke and or island cover), the damage my BB gets under those circumstances is not sustainable for 4 minutes, not even close, and that's with every type of fire prevention piece of equipment and captain skills, minus the flags, cause I don't normally use those.

Though, the lack of decent fire prevention and fire fighting measures again make them more dangerous... The fires aren't a problem for those who don't repeatedly focused by HE spamming, but when that happens, just watch your BB literally melt like an ice cream cone on a hot summer's day. You will probably argue, that the player has made a tactical mistake before getting into that position, but I could argue that the mistake was trying to play a dynamic battle as opposed to camping with the campers behind those islands in the rear.

This, is understandable, from every point of view I think. While damage is always a problem, some forms of damage are also a problem from game play point of view. Well, the bugs will hurt your visibility, potentially leading you to a fatal crash. The odds of the deer running into your car are negligible compared to the odds of hitting swarms of bugs. To carry your analogy further, if HE are the bugs, WG is the thief that's swiped your windscreen wipers.

Well, let's agree to disagree. Fire is a problem in WoWS, fire is a problem in real life too. Ironically, WG has gotten at least one aspect of the game 'realistic' (well, sort of...), whether by accident or by design.

Happened to spot a fellow forumite, always a rare occurrence for me. @GulvkluderGuld and myself were enjoying a BB game, we thought we were effed up halfway through with only 1 dd left against their remaining 3. But the red team wasted their advantage!

HE spamming, though, is much more common than torpedo hits, and especially flooding. For the average player, HE is a bigger threat than torpedoes, IMO. Thunderers can be annoying, but fast firing cruisers (hiding) and fast firing DD's (hiding too) are far more detrimental.

Hmm.. actually merchant vessels have sunk because of fire, but they aren't perhaps directly comparable because they might be structurally different from warships. It is possible, that under combat fires will get out of hand and cannot be contained, but I'd imagine in those instances the ship might try to disengage from battle. This is not possible in WoWS.