Oely001

Das Video von Ichase ist 20 Minuten (!) lang. WG hängt sich dabei an ganzen zwei (!) Sätzen auf, die himmelweit von irgendeiner strafrechtlichen Relevanz entfernt sind. WG steht in der Öffentlichkeit. Wie oft bekommt eine Merkel, ein Winterkorn, ein Zetsche gesagt - ganz direkt, mit Namen - dass er gefeuert gehört? Wer nicht in der Lage ist, eine solche Kritik, sei sie auch unangebracht, auf einer Backe auszusitzen, der hat den falschen Job! Dazu noch ein paar Hintergedanken: Ich denke, dass sich bei Ichase einiges aufgestaut hat, das sich im GZ-Video entlud. Er fährt gerne CV, auf die GZ hat er sicher sehnlichst gewartet. Und WG hat dieses Schiff seit einiger Zeit im Test und ist scheinbar völlig unfähig, es gebalanced zu bekommen. Und dann wird in einer Nacht-und-Nebel-Aktion auch noch alles umgeworfen, dazu eine völlig unbrauchbare Mechanik bei den AP-Bomben eingeführt, und das Schiff ohne Vorankündigung in den Verkauf gebracht. Wozu testen sie überhaupt wochenlang, um alles in zwei Tagen umzukrempeln? Das Verhältnis von WG zu seinen CC sollte auch eines auf gegenseitigem Vertrauen sein. Als CC würde ich mir, auf gut deutsch, grob verar.cht vorkommen, wenn ich was testen und bewerten soll, und WG es dann einfach so kurzfristig abändert. Wertschätzung sieht anders aus. Und WG hat sowas nicht zum ersten Mal gebracht. Und die Reaktion seitens Wargaming auf das Video war sowas von unprofessionell! Wie mache ich aus einem PR-Desaster ein noch größeres Desaster? Genau, indem ich die Kritiker bestrafe! Wie professionell unterbelichtet muss man sein, um auf eine solche Idee zu kommen. Zumal man nicht einmal zwei Tage später heftig zurück rudert, sich ganz doll entschuldigt und damit endgültig zum Affen macht. Man hätte Ichase eine wohlverpackte Rüge geben können, die wäre auch nicht öffentlich geworden. Ichase hätte ein Video gemacht, in dem er sich entschuldigt und WGs Rücktauschaktion ankündigt. Alles wäre in Butter gewesen. Anschauungsbeispiel: Audi in den USA. In einigen Audi-Modellen mit Automatikgetriebe war das Bremspedal ungünstig angeordnet, es gab einige Unfälle, weil Fahrer das Brems- mit dem Kupplungspedal verwechselt hatten. Reaktion von Audi: unsere Autos sind ok, Ihr seid nur zu dumm zum Autofahren (das war in diesem Falle sogar zu 100% richtig). Ergebnis: Audi hat in den Folgejahren 90% weniger Autos in den USA verkauft.

That's the point: Wargaming wanted something to sell at GamesCon. This is normal business. GC is in Germany, so the long waited German carrier is the obvious choice. GC date is known years before. If I was any manager, I would draw some timetable, with the end of the development process before GC (with some margin if possible), and all other steps before accordingly. They were testing Graf Zeppelin for how long: weeks? Months? And days before the release they change its main weaponry. Without further public tests. That's more than unprofessional, that's insanely stupid. It is exactly the same story as with German DDs, but this time they did it with a premium ship, the most expensive one by the way.

Economy changes is not the solution to the whole problem but some important part of it. I just wanted to say that you can/must rebalance the classes, but you cannot nerf the iconic status of battleships. Making BBs some kind of "premium" class in terms of costs could reduce BB numbers without nerfing them into the ground.

Wargaming is acting highly unprofessional on several levels, and most of the discussion is about two sentences Ichase said in his video while being highly emotional. Don't you think this is a little inapropriate? I think Ichase was mostly annoyed about this short-term change which Wargaming has done at the GZ. In his opinion this was not just a little balancing issue but made this product simply a faulty product. Wargaming has done this before, with German DDs for example. It shows me that coordination of development and publishing process does not work at all in this company. And it tells me that they don't care about product quality, they are more interested in short-term profit. And about the following PR distaster - I don't have to talk about this, do I!? Ichase used words he maybe should not, but if Wargaming staff hasn't the guts to just ignore these two sentences in a 20 minutes video - well, no more words about this.

Again: You can fight the iconic status of battleships only with economics. Increase maintenance costs of battleships, decrease maintenance costs of cruisers. Good BB players will still not lose credits while playing BBs. Bad BB players will have to play cruisers to finance their hobby of being a BB potato, at least to buy the next ship in the line.

Must have been one year ago; just read some words about it. AFAIK they tested to remove autobounce completely, which would have been the instant end of bow-on in this game.

Die Russen-BBs bekommen Stalinium-Autopenetratoren: Anwinkeln zwecklos, immer mindestens Penetrationsschaden. Quasi HE mit AP-Schadenswerten.

We will see whether RN BBs will work as intended. My bet is: no. It's not that you are wrong with your explanation. It's about players think differently than WG devs (and CCs). My experience from watching other players (after myself being sunk) is that full-HP BB potatoes are often killed within a minute once the enemy reaches them. Not from overwhelming fire, just because of showing broadside, swallow every torpedo, etc. In the end there is not much difference whether this potato starts his "final run" with 90% or 70% HP left. But you're right of course: potatoes never camp! It's always the team dying so quickly making him the last stand. But tell me: Why did WG drop this change of autobounce after supertests?

Das mit dem "weich wie Brot" kann ich so noch nicht erkennen. Für mich wirkt es so, dass WG einerseits HE-spam-BBs bastelt (aus den oben genannten Gründen) und dann versucht, mit allen möglichen goodies Nahkampfschweine daraus zu machen, weil sie massenhaften HE-spam aus der dritten Reihe befürchten. Ergebnis sind OP-Schiffe, 20% der Fahrer werden damit die Erde beben lassen, und die anderen 80% pimmeln hinten rum und spammen HE.

Sehe ich auch so. Das mit der guten HE erhab sich wohl zwangsläufig aus den kleinen Kalibern auf Tier VII/VIII (KGV und ihre Klone), genauso der heal, da wenig HP. Im Gegenzug sollten sie aber andere Schwächen haben.

@Vaderan: I understand your idea. However, you must be aware, that with less dispersion there will be more dead cruisers. Cruiser drivers will not become better from one day to another. IMHO reducing BB dispersion alone will end in disaster, you must compensate it at cruisers in some way, by limiting citadel/overpen damage for example. Maybe there is some way: WoWs widens dispersion if you aim incorrectly. WG never confirmed this, but from my gaming experience I am 99% sure that this happens. This feature should be killed, what would be a significant decrease of dispersion in many cases, especially the ones you have in mind. @landryn_k: IMHO you think too much from the unicum player's perspective. Ask any BB potato why he camps. Answer will be like "prevent flanking", "focused away in seconds when I push", "I do my damage anyway", "avoid torpedo soup". All answers are about dying soon when pushing. BB potatoes don't care about being useless. And, as there are more potatoes than cherrys, you should think about how to make the meta work although there are so many potatoes. Battleships are the heavy tanks of the seas, not the artillery. Make everyone feel it like a heavy tank, and not being deleted by HE spam and/or citadels within seconds. Make its strenghts (resiliance) stronger, make its weaknesses (mobility, concealment) even more weak. Edit: I like your idea about limited number of damage control parties. However, this must not be compensated with shorter cooldown! And introduction of RN BB line will show you that players will not push more only because they are HE-spammed at max range while they camp. Edit2: If you want BBs being more vulnerable, then rework autobounce mechanics. WG tested this, but it never reached live server - why?

Problem is not just that there are too many BBs; there are too many camping BBs. Reducing dispersion will make BB players camp more. Reducing BB resistance will make bad BB players camp more. Limiting number of DCPs will make bad BB players camp more (OktiRe may be some good idea in principle, but DCP cooldown is rediculously short). Giving a new BB line strong HE with high chance of fire... will make BB players camp more. Reducing BB dispersion is very dangerous, regarding cruisers. RNG may give you random citadels at high range, but it also gives you misses and overpens at close range. In addition, dispersion helps bad players and limits good players. Without skill-based MM, this has to be taken into account. What is the real difference between a good BB player and a bad BB player? A good BB player understands WoWs damage mechanics, and can survive longer under enemy fire. This enables him to deliver more damage, to play the objectives, to be more relevant in general. If you want bad BB players be more aggressive, then you have to make received damage more predictable for him. This is why citadel damage should be reduced; this would also help cruisers a lot. Wargaming has one big problem: how to balance this game both for good and bad players at the same time. Maybe flattening the mechanic is sometimes the only way; good players don't like this idea. Or we get some skill-based MM; Wargaming does not like this idea.

We do not have a lack of good suggestions how to rebalance battleships. There is a lack of will to do something the BB mafia (no, I'm not a member) could not like. Starting with economics (the more HP, the more maintenance costs) may be the least unliked way to start with. And WG should reconsider the RN BB line (concealment, citadel geometry, fire chance).

Fully agree. And buffing CVs very very hard would be to wipe out a plague with another plague...

Nürnberg has turtleback armor. Therefore you can do very little against long range citas. At close range she is quite sturdy.

@Schorch62: Da muss ich widersprechen! Als die Nassau rauskam, habe ich zum Vergleich ausgiebig die SC gespielt, mit der ich mich ganz gut auskenne. Der Punkt ist, dass die Nassau gegenüber der SC keine Nachteile hatte, weil ihre Kanonen auf Distanz einfach zu stark sind. Die SC hat mittlerweile einen Reichweiten-buff bekommen, womit sie zumindest auf große Entfernung der Nassau überlegen ist. Gefallen hat mir der buff aber nicht, weil er nur zum Snipern erzieht. Mit der Belo ist das Thema aber ohnehin hinfällig, weil die scheint über allen anderen zu stehen.

@Vaderan: Dito! Lack of damage output is not a problem, in none of the discussed classes. Wargaming loves to buff weaponry, which is most often a stupid thing to do. For example, they buffed German cruiser HE. What's the most difficult ship in this line: Nürnberg. This ship has absolutely no problem with its weaponry, it never had! Her problem is that she turns like a brick and has the smallest HP pool of all T6 cruisers. Buffing turning circle and rudder shift time would have been a much better buff. Wargaming buffed concealment on New Orleans; that was a very smart buff.

Das, und bereits die Nassau ist auf Tier III ziemlich OP.

This discussion shows that many people don't like the actual meta, but many of them not really know where the causes are. Problem is not attack capability of carriers, problem is not the attack capability of cruisers. Problem is also not attack capability of battleships. Carriers should be paper to BB rock, they in fact are. But does "paper to rock" mean that for a BB driver it makes no difference how good he is, he will be killed by the CV anyway? In lowtier a BB can outmaneuver planes and - at least - limit the received damage to some tolerable amount. At hightier you can spec AAA to its limit, and that's it. I cannot see that this is some enjoyable game mechanic. It is just an arms race becoming faster with every patch (more AAA -> more planes -> more AAA). Even a solo Montana should not be able to defend successfully against a carrier; however, giving a single CV player that degree of power, Random gameplay becomes simple lottery: the side with the better CV player wins. This is the case at the moment. In the moment a CV attack delivers less damage but the carrier can execute more attacks per battle (less plane losses due AAA), good and bad CV players will come closer in terms of damage delivery. The better CV then is the one who spots, attacks the right targets, reaches air superiority. Battleships are rock to cruiser scissors, they in fact are. However, CA scissors have reached a degree of BB killing capability which is amazing. Yes, a Yamato can kill a Zao with one salvo, but a Zao with a competent driver can kill even a well played Yamato over time. The scissors became quite sturdy against rock when played correctly. Yes, BBs have become too versatile, but in that way that they are too forgiving and not because they are too good in killing cruisers; that's their job! And they simply have become too many; more dogs does not make a single rabbit weaker but will shorten its life anyway. Making cruisers the better damage deliverers by nerfing BBs would not be the solution. Yes, BBs should be nerfed (AAA, turning circles, concealment (!!!), secondaries), but that alone would not break their iconic status; changes in economy and/or a simple BB hardcap must follow. This is my point of view. I want less BBs in the game. You are free to argue about my ideas as long as it is not only stupid polemics.

This is simply not true. As a cruiser I can deal with a BB in a 1 vs. 1 situation, in least case by becoming undetected. With some BBs vs. a CV you are helpless, totally helpless. Problem for cruisers comes from the number relation between cruisers and battleships.

Maybe CV drivers should more think about doing decisive damage instead of just farming damage. Damage numbers are defenitely not the problem with carriers at the moment.

@mtm78: I want more CVs in the game! More CVs -> more CV damage on BBs. More consistent damage, not one CV with 20k average damage and Pape sailing around farming 200-350k every battle. I know, that's probably difficult to understand; try it. But hey, let's nerf AAA and keep CVs as they are, so CV drivers can play god and nuke any ship they want to. Would be a great improvement of the current meta.

You better think before you write. From my experience, if any good CV driver wants a BB dead, then the BB is dead. What does the BB mafia: shouts "buff AAA!". As a consequence, CVs get more planes. This way is a dead end. My approach is that CVs should do more consistent damage (nerf AAA) but should not be able to nuke other ships at will. Of course we can let the meta like it is, with <5% CVs but only Unicums nuking stupid BBs, but not enough to rebalance the meta.

Problem with CVs is that you should be able to counter a balanced CV only with teamplay, i. e. some AA cruiser covering you. What makes a CV either useless or borderline OP, depending on the degree of teamplay on the enemy's side. This is an inherent flaw of carriers in this game. One solution could be to reduce alpha damage potential of CVs drastically and reduce AAA for some compensation. Carriers then would be hard to counter but could not decide the battle on their own.

This is Wargaming speech. Wargaming also says that German cruisers all have good AP...