Admiral_noodle

The idea of bonus xp for responding to a request like F3 has some merit, but I suspect it would be abusable especially in divisions. Perhaps if compliments gave xp The idea of a leader is horrifying in my opinion though. Yes it would be immersive but generally it sounds like a recipe for salt.

Please no. So while the team goes off on the "agreed path" and I'm left to defend the base because I'm aware it needs doing - I get less xp? The only way to produce more team play is to have specific and simple xp rewarding actions like smoking up your BBs/providing AA support and reflecting that xp in the game... WG are working in this direction - e.g. Potential and sporting damage. Trouble at the moment is the link between these numbers and xp gain isn't clear so it's not motivating the behaviour. If I could SEE my spotting damage and potential damage accruing in real time, AND I had a fair idea of the xp I was getting (hint, give breakdown of xp at end of game - xp from capping, xp from damage, xp from potential and spotting) then I would do it more. I don't need to know an exact calculation but I do want to see the proportion of xp gain from damage vs capping vs other.

Actually I think Pepsi is now bad via a self fulfilling prophecy. She's now got a reputation for being a floating citadel and thus xp piñata for BBs. Every YouTuber says this regularly. And now I see BBs players (me included) switch fire to a Pensacola as soon as one is visible - even over ships like Fiji! She probably does need some love from WG if only to improve her reputation...

Recently or at all? I've got over 100 games in tier 7 cruisers and that doesn't count any supertest ships. Granted a lot of these were before the influx of German BBs which pushed the number of BBs from 3/4 to 5 per game. As for tier 8 cruisers I have 27 games in them. A few quite recently as I want the ARP ships - again not including testing. Funny thing was my ST of Edinburgh was most fun. I've been hesitant to play lots of tier 8 cruiser games because you lot keep telling me I'll get nuked - but funny thing is when I do play I get reasonable games. However Chapy is infuriating as she turns like a brick, has no armour and her radar is only useful if you park behind a rock. Fun. New Orleans actually seems tanky and able to bounce shells, rewarding players who know where BBs are and who they are shooting at. The problem remains (IMO) too many BBs. If you're in a cruiser and your team has the potato BBs you're pretty much powerless, unlike cruisers at lower tier. Personally i would cap BBs at 4 per side.

I took out New Orleans yesterday to see how bad she was. Verdict: not bad at all. 60k damage or therecabouts. Survived. Was useful. Sank dds citadeled cruisers and set BBs on fire on two brothers map using islands as cover and disengaging using stealth. I don't even have concealment expert on that captain yet. Being top tier helped but right now with the tier 8 missions going on it feels like there are a lot less tier x games where your tier 8 is simply making up the numbers. Tier 7 MM isn't bad but it used to be better. Most of the time cruisers die because they take a risk and it doesn't pay off.

You also need to consider what is "best" for each player and play style. For example New Mexico is mine at tier 6 without question. The stats will give you an overall picture. Some niche ships with a high skill requirement are OP in the right hands. Imperator is flat out OP.

But it works both ways. BBs do a lot of damage to BBs. So fewer BBs actually reduces overall damage output. Fewer BBs per side also means each bb has to pull its weight in game supporting CAs. You won't get while clusters of BBs camping so a canping bb is (properly) vulnerable to CV or dd. Fewer BBs need their cruisers even more. I remember CBT when there were usually 2-3 BBs per side and it worked quite well. The balance is still right between classes it's just that sometimes the numbers are wrong. I find games as a BB much more rewarding when there are 4 or less per side. 2-3 is the best. Of course then lone BBs will be wolf packed by cruisers and complain about fire and he spam. At that point you know the balance is about right

...which is why I want to see a cap of 4. 4 per side max and the balance returns. Or make cruisers cheap to run. Effectively using the economy to soft cap BBs.

This thread is about battleships. Don't put words in my mouth. I said *some realism*. Of course it's a balance between realism and arcade game. But in the specific scenario I mentioned the CLs should lose. If you think a 2v1 should always result in a win for the two *in any situation* then you are playing the wrong game.

No. completely disagree. I specified in open water. Two cruisers can take down a BB and/or win the game. Some historical realism is needed otherwise it's just a shooting game with ship models. Which would be pointless. It's a team game. It rewards players playing to their ships strengths. Approaching a bb with two light cruisers ,over open water ought to result in two dead light cruisers.

BBs aren't OP. *too many BBs in a game* is just annoying. BBs aren't popular because they are OP. They are popular because they are battleships. They are also popular because they appear to be the most forgiving of mistakes (they aren't. You fail in a bb you don't die but you lose for your team just as much as screwing up in a dd) A lot of players like BBs. This can't and should be managed by nerfing them into oblivion so playing them is unrewarding and frustrating. BBs are not in themselves OP because an individual bb player has no more influence on a win than an individual dd or ca player. This is backed up by stats. I don't want mirror matches either and I usually dislike caps. But games with 5-6 BBs per side are inherently frustrating for cruisers which discourages their play even more. It's not about cruisers being weak but cruisers being boring in a BB dominated game. The best games for all sides are in my opinion with around 3 BBs, 3 dds and the rest cruisers. This is why I would favour moderate capping by class. And I've come to this conclusion gradually. It might fix itself anyway when more lines are released. But I don't want to see BBs made useless because too many people like playing them.

Of course the other means are - new lines of dds and cruisers. But you can bet when RN BBs come out we will be swamped with them. I don't think a 4 cap would lead to disastrous queue times to be fair. BBs aren't popular because they are too effective. They are popular because they are BBs. And because you are less likely to be one shot (ending your game prematurely) Sadly the latter mentality often means potatoes potating for longer, while in a cruiser they are early kills...

I don't like this. BBs did have great range. But having non linear dispersion would be better. Perhaps no in built aim assist at long range.

I would like a 4 dd cap and a rule that one side cannot have 2x the enemy dds as well. Just wait till German dds come out.

I think a cap of 4 would work well for everyone. Including BB players themselves.

Well first I'd like a 4 bb cap. Second in domination mode the caps are usually dangerous places for BBs to go. Third you need to enlist the help of your own BBs.

Has anyone told OP credits aren't real money?

I think it would be awesome. First introduce star shells. Probably for cruisers. You fire then at a point on the map and they work like radar. Night mode could use a simple mechanic. Low detection range for everyone but if you fire you're visible from miles away.

2 cruisers against a lone BB in open water isn't likely to go well especially if you're closing with the BB. It wouldn't be very historically pleasing if two CLs could easily kill a BB either. The best plan in this situation is to stay at near max range, dodge shells, use cover and make the BB irrelevant by keeping him away from cap zones etc. If he then charges you - use cover and torp ambush him. If he stays away then he's not going to win. This doesn't work so well on ocean map but that's why you need a dd or friendly bb to back you up.

It depends what "good player" means good at grinding? Good at getting personal scores? Or a good team player who knows what he can contribute to a win. There are many ways to be "good". I believe I am less skilled than a lot of players. However I have knowledge and a brain. I suspect I'm more tactically minded than many so the result is a high solo win rate of non spectacular damage stats. Similarly a collection of great solo players doesn't always make the best team. It also depends on ship. Some people are great in some ships and average in others. For me WR is the only stat that "matters" to me because I like winning

Seriously the only thing wrong with BBs is when there are more than 4 in a game. People like BBs and are still grinding German ones. I know I am. So I would like to see a cap of 4 BBs (and 4dds) in a game. Not because BBs are OP but because games are most fun when both teams are balanced with all classes showing up. All Wargames I know of have this "comp" system. I don't see why we can't in wows. Maybe if queue times get a bit longer for BBs people might think "oh I might try out a cruiser" Everyone gets a better game.

Well if you didn't get xp or a battle report did the battle even count? Very occasionally the server derps and the game is just "lost". For all players.

Point is your post is pointless. So you'll get trolled. What's your *point*? Else thread will be closed for breaking forum rules.

I agree with this though. Hydro is so powerful *for someone who knows what they are doing*. High tier German BBs are balanced by not having as accurate guns and taking reliable damage. But in the hands of a decent player this doesn't work. I'll wager German BBs win rates on good players are higher than their other BBs (goes and checks)

The problem isn't the class. BBs aren't OP. But games full of them are unrewarding - like games with far too many dds... Personally I'd cap BBs and dds to 4 per side. I believe that would solve 99% of issues.