Capra76

Aren't we missing the point? Every battle is now 5 BB per side, that's just too many.

Why did you free XP your way through virtually the whole line?

Not so much a case of "even matching", more a case of CV/AA power progressing much faster than for any other class. A T6 BB/CA/DD in a T8 game can still be effective, a T6 CV might as well go AFK, conversely a T8 CV in a T8 game (especially a mainly T6/7 one) is almost omnipotent. I'm no kind of CV player but it strikes me that the game would be better off with a much flatter power curve such that CV could face ships 2 or more tiers higher and still be somewhat relevant.

I'd say that frequently the BB would have more influence on the game, the DD might be the one that gets the cap but he relies upon the BB to keep enemy CA away from the cap and allow your own CA to advance, if red BB push and yours are camping on line J then you have no real influence whatsoever. Of course everything is always going to depend upon circumstances but I think the suggestion that DD have an advantage because of influence is at best debatable.

Better maneuverability for cruisers might achieve better survivability for them and let DD pack a bigger punch as well. What does Mr Flibble say?

I have to say that I wonder if this proposed split will ever actually take place. From my point of view the IJN gunboats only make sense as a counter to the existing torpedo-boat/hybrids, but with BB numbers already at epidemic levels does another effective nerf to its only serious counter make any sense whatsoever?

Stats are out for the first full week: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html

Maybe, maybe not. BB have HE too (and with a very high fire chance), angling is a very good idea but less effective if the ships are spread out and of course BB can use the same tactic against you whereas you always have the chance of one-shotting even the best angled cruiser. I thought we were talking about a proposed cap on BB numbers and whether that would amount to a buff for BB, in that context surely BB v BB is equally relevant as BB v CA. Going back to your original post: cro_pwr, on 30 October 2016 - 01:48 PM, said: Because 2-3 cruisers focusing on 1 BB will melt him in no time? which only makes sense to me if 3 v 1 focus is something that is unique to CA , but if BB can pull the trick equally well then in a worst case scenario the target BB is no worse off and in all other cases is better off.

Yes, I can see that, but it still works out as a buff to BB because there are then even fewer things that can really hurt them and lots more targets for them to shoot at.

Unless you want to argue that being focused by 3 BB is better it has everything to do with the discussion.

How about 3 BB focusing 1 BB?

In that case why are BB numbers so problematic? I forget the exact details but before the KMBB came out one of the developers said that BB accounted for about 35% of the games played, which equates to 4.2 BB per game, and this was at the limit of what they were prepared to tolerate (Dropsiq has part of the quote in his signature) I could be wrong, but I think you'll have to go back a very long way before you find 2-3 BB per side (except maybe at T3/4).

Problem is that limiting BB numbers to 3 per game is also a massive buff to BB themselves, CV - nerfed out of existence, torpedo-boats - nerfed to near pointlessness, what's left to hurt BB? Other BB so lets limit that to 3 per side. Why would anyone want to play anything else?

Sold the Caledon after 14 games of hurling abuse at my monitor, replaced it with Ognevoi so thanks for the port slot.

Just had a T5 game with 5x BB and a Danae on each side and that was it, both dead very early, both towards the bottom of the leader-board, if the developers are happy with those stats then just wow.

Finally won it and would've got a full house apart from the retarded DD that decided to sail into the circle then back out again

Region that is now part of Romania, famous for being the setting for Dracula.

Those are all balancing decisions made by WG. I think my point is that the developers are trying to pretend the fiasco is a result of the RN building weak under-gunned ships IRL rather then them making rushed, badly thought through, under-tested last minute changes in the game.

That's not unique to the RN though, so why are they the ones that are hard to balance?

Quote Q:How satisfied is Wargaming with the current implementation of the RN cruisers? From tier 2-5, many players regard RN cruisers as some of the worst ships in the game. They are very very squishy and are generally helpless against BBs. Their AP shells deal pitiful damage to BBs and torpedo attacks are usually suicidal. The RN cruisers are ok against DDs and other cruisers, but they don't perform much better than other nation's counterparts. Many players say that the RN line gets much better starting at Fiji, but that doesn't explain why the low tier CLs feel so painful to play. Especially when 5 BBs per side matches are not uncommon. A:Right now we are still watching the data closely but the higher tier ships seem to be in a fairly balanced place. RN Cruisers were particularly difficult to balance as they are the first full line of Light Cruisers. They are fragile with great RoF and they are a very feast or famine in terms on success. Sometimes you get to the right spot at the right time and its glorious, other times you are really struggling to find a place to make an impact on the map. All that to say, we really want to see how these ships perform over time as we know they can be amazing in a right spot but can we learn to find that consistently is the question. So why is it that the T6-10 that fight heavy cruisers are okay but the T1-5 that fight other light cruisers are unplayable s***?

Well, on your main account, your damage with Danae and Emerald is 10,000 - 20,000 lower than all other ships at that tier (Karlsruhe excepted).

What do you think would've happened if it was a T5 Ryujo or even a T4 Hosho instead? To be fair (especially if you've just left the Konig) the real problem here is the messed up T5/6 MM.

What ship were you sailing, what type of carrier and what were the other BB?

Apparently it's been denied on the RU forum, as a wild guess the heal was included at launch by mistake, they were going to take it out but are taking so much stick they've reversed that decision and will leave it in pending a larger adjustment to the line. Just finished a T3/4 game, 1 x Danae on our team, a Danae and a Caledon on theirs, players are voting with their feet.

Interestingly also covered in the link above. The battleships were moored at Scapa Flow, they could and did conduct live firing exercises whenever they wanted and as a result their gunnery was excellent, the battlecruisers were moored in the Firth of Forth and if you set off a 13.5" gun there you'd be blowing out every window for miles around and since there was a war on you couldn't just go out to sea for a bit of practice thanks to the U-boats, so their gunnery was less good. This is also possibly the reason why so many ships were lost, because they weren't getting the practice they resorted to short cuts to keep the rate of fire up that ultimately proved fatal.