Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Budget_War

ideas to change bb playstyle

95 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[DPRK]
Players
14 posts
3,396 battles

I recently found out (wikipedia) that battleship torpedo protection was not a damage reduction measure but that your battleship would be immune from torpedoes up to a certain warhead size.

If we would implement this or something similar into the game it could encourage certain bb's to be more aggressive. if you play a bb with a good torp belt than you can be almost certain of going full ham and surviving multiple torpedo attacks instead of being obliterated instantly.

this will also make bad dd' s with good torps more powerfull and good dd's with bad torps less.

How about we just expand on the torp dmg system instead of replacing it? that torps with large enough warheads (for the respective torp belt) will just punch straight trough and do full dmg?

 

As a bb only player i can tell you what makes me decide to kemp island instead to man up and tank for my team.

1: the map. If the islands in the map are in a line perpendicular to the spawn placement, this greatly encourages me to kemp. Its almost impossible to get to the middle of the map (to tank and engage in close quarters combat) because you are going to get noticed and focussed down.

no seriously, some maps are just made to kemp, i hate them all

 

2: ships on enemy team that you stand no chance against. These ships involve mostly op HE spammers, with to little armour for reliable dmg and smoke. (also they often accelerate so fast that they can dodge most of your shells with ease)

ships like Kutuzof, belfast, kidd and many russian cruisers.

at mid to close ranges its just not fun to play against these ships, where other cruisers will set 1 or 2 fires these two ships wills set 3 or 4 with ease... and if you got no cover, repair and dmg control on cooldown and they sit in their smoke... there is just nothing you can do (besides crying on the forums:-P)

 

3: too many destroyers on enemy team. this one is self explanatory.

How about a mm where there can only be 3 or 4 dd's cruisers and bb's per game? (+1 or 2 cv)

Also, if to many of one ship enter the battle que... how about a [insert ship type here] only battle? to much dd' s? put 24 of them in one battle! to much bb's? put 24 of them in a battle!

 

4: its to difficult to flush out a dd or cruiser thats sitting in smoke. i find it highly discouraging to go and get close up when i have almost no means of safely flusing out dd' s. i think the base detection range should go up to 3km (4 or 4,5km with target acquisition)

ok, maybe its the whole point of smoke to be difficult to flush out

 

5: to little bb playstyle diversity. especially at the high tiers, camping is just to rewarding and to safe. id say we should devide the battleships into two groups based on their armour scheme and and reworked bb penetration mechanics. whereas one group of bbs will take much less dmg at close ranges and more at long range and the other group will take more dmg at close range and less at long range.

 

6: to much dmg! at mid to close range you become exposed to HE spam which often discourages me to get any closer. i think a rework of how bb' s take dmg is needed. I think a portion of the bb' s hp (say25%) can only be taken away by bombs, torps and ap dmg to the casemate or citadel. this is to limit the amount of dmg a bb will receive due to small caliber HE spam.

 

7: safe from aircraft. far in the back you are relatively safe from air strikes. id say we introduce a new type of aircraft: the heavy bomber! this plane will be able to defend itself against fighters and it will carry some serious ap bombs (the current ap dive bombers should be removed though). these heavy bombers are a true menace since they can fly through your cv' s fighter blanket with only minimal losses. to counter this new aircraft it will be extra vulnerable to flak fire from 76mm guns and up.

which means that bb' s with poor aa that like to kemp (ijn bb's and french bb' s) will need a cruiser escort otherwise they will be at serious risk. thus, it motivates them to get closer to the front line to stay close to their cruiser escort.

also the ap bombs should have high pen so that they will overpen all light cruisers and dd' s and do only minimal dmg to them.

 

8: the secondaries dont protect you enough. often at very close ranges (less than 5km) the secondary guns of some bb's just seem to miss nearly all of their shots. this is especially true at the lower tiers.

the accuracy of tier 2-6 bb's could be improved slightly, say 10% less dispersion from what it is now.

 

 

9: some bb' s just need some buffs. Mutsu, torp tubes break to easely, secondary range is to small, a range of 5km instead of 4 would make a small but noticeable difference. ashitaka: the front and aft end of the ship could use an armour buff from 25mm to 32mm. Kii: it takes to much citadel hits, rendering the ship almost useless when facing higher tier bb' s. New York: guns turn to slow, aa is kinda meh and the accuracy of the guns could be improved. mikasa: the main batteries are just... useless and your strongest suit: your secondaries only have a 3km range. an extra km on the secondary range and improved rate of fire and accuracy of the main battery could turn this terrible bb into a competitive ship. gascogne, it rides sliglty to high in the water and eats to much citadels to feel comfortable at close ranges.

many us and ijn bb's could use some minor buffs to make them more competitive against the newer bb lines and please buff mikasa!

 

10: an extra consumable. Suppose you are almost gone but you still have 2 or 3 heals left but its on cooldown... what now? wish you would have stayed at the back? no! Budget_War is now introducing a brand new bb only consumable! the: emergency repair!

how it works: once activated it wil for 60sec increase gun reload by 50%, increase dispersion by 15% add 4 sec of ruddershift and use up all the heals you have left +1 instandly! after the 60 sec are over you wont ave any more heals and the negative effects will continue to last but will be reduced by half. its only an idea, i have no clue if this is going to work or not but it makes being aggresive to early in the game much less punishing. also if you have used this consumable to early in the game to save your ship... yur going to be kinda useless the rest of the game...

how about a more balanced option: that you can equip a different heal, one that heals 20% less hp but has a short action time and half the cooldown?

also i think all ships should have heals but bb heals ought to be/remain better heals than the other.

 

11: kemping can be too rewarding. reduce credits and xp earned from dmg slightly (for bb's) and implement a system that for tanking dmg and the max potential dmg you gain credits and xp. also make it that in the post battle results screen you can see how much tanking and absorbing dmg has earned you. (keeping in mind some bb's are better at it than others)

 

Im not sure if all these complaints/ideas are valid or good but i do think that at least one or two of them are worth looking into.

do keep in mind this is from a bb only player...

 

aslo to balance the game a bit further i recommend looking into using bots to control planes launched from either cv's or land airstrips (that can be destroyed)

 

 

 

 

Edited by Budget_War
didn't do my research:/
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
13,781 posts
19,466 battles

Clearly the most survivable class that can already sit 2-4 minutes in the most devastating crossfire before it goes down needs more survivability buffs. :Smile_facepalm:

 

Here's the harsh truth: Regardless of what buffs you give BBs, they will always camp. WG has already given them hypersurvivability, murder secondaries, extreme concealment, braindead offensive weaponry and cruiser consumables. What has changed since then? Abso-:etc_swear:ing-lutely nothing. If anything BBs are camping even harder since then.

 

Thus the only way out of this without nerfing BBs is to rework the reward system so that camping and damage farming become economically unsustainable at all but the lowest tiers. Rewards should go to team based actions such as capping, defending, spotting and tanking instead.

But ofc WG will never do that since it would wipe out ~90% of their playerbase.

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
Players
4,372 posts
18,493 battles

Nothing you suggested here would make BB players camp less.

 

The only measure that would indeed help in that regard is, humiliate BB players by giving them chicken points with a Player X is a chicken text in flashy red letters and message pop-ups in the chat.

Also, make them visible in the stats and base the XP and credit gain of BBs on the number of accumulated chicken points, not on damage done. 

 

This will either motivate them to be less campy or drive the chicken player away. Personally, i'd prefer the latter.

 

What our suggestions have in common is, that WG will never introduce anything like that.

Chickens with a credit card are WGs target audience after all.

 

EDIT: Ninja'd by El2aZeR

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RL7S]
Players
248 posts
3,276 battles

Could make the maps bigger, so flanking is much easier and there is no "safe-zone" sitting at the back where the bad, bad DDs can't come kill you...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
2,522 posts
5,980 battles

Honestly, the only change I can see that will cause people to get closer in their battleships is to reduce their firing range :Smile_hiding:

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,844 posts
14,993 battles
44 minutes ago, Budget_War said:

3: too many destroyers on enemy team. this one is self explanatory.

DDs should be capped... no more than two per side.  :Smile_smile:

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
5,061 posts
8,562 battles
53 minutes ago, Budget_War said:

I recently found out (wikipedia) that battleship torpedo protection was not a damage reduction measure but that your battleship would be immune from torpedoes up to a certain warhead size.

If you do another search you might also find that ships didn't actually have hit points :Smile_trollface:

 

Gameplay rules over Historical Accuracy

 


 

Skimmed over the rest of it, and the reactions / answers to those points are the following 3 - "it already works like that", "yeah, no" and "that's completely unnecessary"

 

8 minutes ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

DDs should be capped... no more than two per side.  :Smile_smile:

4 - both DDs and BBs. Much more realistic goal, and removes the cancerous "there's frikin 5 of them!!!!" MM :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HABIT]
Beta Tester
1,568 posts
57 minutes ago, Budget_War said:

I recently found out (wikipedia) that battleship torpedo protection was not a damage reduction measure but that your battleship would be immune from torpedoes up to a certain warhead size.

If we would implement this or something similar into the game it could encourage certain bb's to be more aggressive. if you play a bb with a good torp belt than you can be almost certain of going full ham and surviving multiple torpedo attacks instead of being obliterated instantly.

 

And it would make torpedoes even less effective against BBs as they already are. You know... the weapon which is meant to counter BBs. The torpedoe belt already reduces the amount of damage a ship takes from a torpedoe hit and BBs are already well-hung in that department. So why make them immune?

 

Quote

this will also make bad dd' s with good torps more powerfull and good dd's with bad torps less.

 

Without having looked into the specifics and which torpedoe belt was meant to stop what warhead size...

This makes kind of sense, however, and I will only compare tier X DDs here to keep it simple, all nations but the IJN field 533 mm torpedoes. The Shimakaze fields 610 mm torpedoes. This is already reflected in their damage which is higher compared to other DDs which means they will also do more damage when the torpedoe belt is taken into account. So we kind of have that already.

I am not sure about the PAN-Asia DDsright now. Do their torpedoes ignore the torpedoe belt because they have DWTs which explode below the torpedoe belt?

 

Quote

As a bb only player i can tell you what makes me decide to kemp island instead to man up and tank for my team.

 

Your inability to tank damage effectively and to assess possible directions from which threads like torpedoes might appear?

 

Quote

1: the map. If the islands in the map are in a line perpendicular to the spawn placement, this greatly encourages me to kemp. Its almost impossible to get to the middle of the map (to tank and engage in close quarters combat) because you are going to get noticed and focussed down.

 

Getting noticed is the point in tanking damage. If you get focused down too quickly on the other hand... see my comment above.

 

Quote

2: ships on enemy team that you stand no chance against. These ships involve mostly op HE spammers, with to little armour for reliable dmg and smoke. (also they often accelerate so fast that they can dodge most of your shells with ease)

ships like Kutuzof, belfast, kidd and many russian cruisers.

 

"OP HE spammers" with an average damage lower than (most?) BBs of their tier? Fire can be dealt with in multiple ways. DCP and repair party management, captain skill, flags, equipment...

Yes, they can get annoying especially when you have two or three of them against you. But that's why you always should have someone with you who can take advantage of you tanking the damage.

 

Quote

3: too many destroyers on enemy team. this one is self explanatory.

 

Not really. Get close to support your DDs and CAs to deal with the enemy DDs instead of watching them getting slaughtered. Problem solved.

 

Quote

4: its to difficult to flush out a dd or cruiser thats sitting in smoke. i find it highly discouraging to go and get close up when i have almost no means of safely flusing out dd' s. i think the base detection range should go up to 3km (4 or 4,5km with target acquisition)

 

If they shoot you out of their smoke, they already have a higher detection range. If not although they are still in there, prepare for torpedoes. That's how you effectively flush out DDs and CAs/CLs from smoke. Or you wait for someone on your team doing the spotting either by getting close enough or using one of the many consumables made for exactely this.

 

Quote

5: to little bb playstyle diversity. especially at the high tiers, camping is just to rewarding and to safe. id say we should devide the battleships into two groups based on their armour scheme and and reworked bb penetration mechanics. whereas one group of bbs will take much less dmg at close ranges and more at long range and the other group will take more dmg at close range and less at long range.

 

Already in the game. More or less. BBs with turtelback armour (e.g. KM line) can only be citadelled from longer ranges and are therefore good for close range engagements.

 

Quote

6: to much dmg! at mid to close range you become exposed to HE spam which often discourages me to get any closer. i think a rework of how bb' s take dmg is needed. I think a portion of the bb' s hp (say25%) can only be taken away by bombs, torps and ap dmg to the casemate or citadel. this is to limit the amount of dmg a bb will receive due to small caliber HE spam.

 

See comments above. And as someone who likes playing BBs... I don't agree. A raging fire can be as deadly as a hit to the magazine. It only takes more time.

 

Quote

7: safe from aircraft. far in the back you are relatively safe from air strikes. id say we introduce a new type of aircraft: the heavy bomber! this plane will be able to defend itself against fighters and it will carry some serious ap bombs (the current ap dive bombers should be removed though). these heavy bombers are a true menace since they can fly through your cv' s fighter blanket with only minimal losses. to counter this new aircraft it will be extra vulnerable to flak fire from 76mm guns and up.

which means that bb' s with poor aa that like to kemp (ijn bb's and french bb' s) will need a cruiser escort otherwise they will be at serious risk. thus, it motivates them to get closer to the front line to stay close to their cruiser escort.

also the ap bombs should have high pen so that they will overpen all light cruisers and dd' s and do only minimal dmg to them.

 

AP bombs should already overpen CLs and DDs since they count as AP shells of a certain calibre. I don't think CVs carried heavy bombers (whatever you mean by that), one reason being that I need a longer runway than CVs in this game can provide. A good CV captain will focus on targets which can be damaged without losing too many planes, hence a frontline BB which actually has CA escort is a less appealing target than a solo BB. Although this might be too simplified. It always depends on the circumstances.

 

Quote

8: the secondaries dont protect you enough. often at very close ranges (less than 5km) the secondary guns of some bb's just seem to miss nearly all of their shots. this is especially true at the lower tiers.

 

That's why you can use equipment and the captain skill to increase their accuracy. They are not meant to form a no-swimming zone for everything smaller than a BB.

 

Quote

9: some bb' s just need some buffs. Mutsu, torp tubes break to easely, secondary range is to small, a range of 5km instead of 4 would make a small but noticeable difference. ashitaka: the front and aft end of the ship could use an armour buff from 25mm to 32mm. Kii: it takes to much citadel hits, rendering the ship almost useless when facing higher tier bb' s. New York: guns turn to slow, aa is kinda meh and the accuracy of the guns could be improved. mikasa: the main batteries are just... useless and your strongest suit: your secondaries only have a 3km range. an extra km on the secondary range and improved rate of fire and accuracy of the main battery could turn this terrible bb into a competitive ship. gascogne, it rides sliglty to high in the water and eats to much citadels to feel comfortable at close ranges.

 

The Mikasa is known for needing some love. But since the main battery can't hit a barn from the inside, this should be enough reason to get close. She is still not really suitable for random battles but at least you can have somefun in Coop, even with the secondary battery. The rest I won't comment because I either have no experience with them or don't agree...

 

Quote

10: an extra consumable. Suppose you are almost gone but you still have 2 or 3 heals left but its on cooldown... what now? wish you would have stayed at the back? no! Budget_War is now introducing a brand new bb only consumable! the: emergency repair!

how it works: once activated it wil for 60sec increase gun reload by 50%, increase dispersion by 15% add 4 sec of ruddershift and use up all the heals you have left +1 instandly! after the 60 sec are over you wont ave any more heals and the negative effects will continue to last but will be reduced by half. its only an idea, i have no clue if this is going to work or not but it makes being aggresive to early in the game much less punishing. also if you have used this consumable to early in the game to save your ship... yur going to be kinda useless the rest of the game...

 

The repair party already is (or rather was) a BB-only consumable up until tier 9 where CAs get access, too. And then there is the RN CL line, obviously. And now you want an extra heal?... I don't think this is needed.

 

Quote

Im not sure if all these complaints/ideas are valid or good but i do think that at least one or two of them are worth looking into.

do keep in mind this is from a bb only player...

 

aslo to balance the game a bit further i recommend looking into using bots to control planes launched from either cv's or land airstrips (that can be destroyed)

 

 

 

You being a BB-only player - but not the usual 45% WR one, I give you that - might be a bigger problem than what you described above. You have barely played enough cruiser games to unlock your BBs but you comment on how cruisers are OP HE spammers and make you camp. You have played next to none DD games and complain that their torpedoes (and low calibre HE shells) are too powerful and BBs need an extra countermeasure against them.

 

My advice: Play all classes to get a good overview over what the other classes can and have to do to be effective. It will also help you with some of your problems. Don't rush up the tiers by buying hightier premium ships but take it slow and collect experience at lower tiers because higher tiers can be very unforgiving. This also includes picking the right captain skills and learning DCP/RP management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,567 posts
10,261 battles

All what we need is:


Event where you can earn free Asashio, so you guys who dont want to buy it can get it for free.

I would end BB meta in 7 days... but hey... they wont hire me as developer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,374 posts
17,545 battles

:cap_look:

35 minutes ago, Budget_War said:

1: the map. If the islands in the map are in a line perpendicular to the spawn placement, this greatly encourages me to kemp. Its almost impossible to get to the middle of the map (to tank and engage in close quarters combat) because you are going to get noticed and focussed down.

You do realize you can't tank 'for' your cruisers and destroyers, right? If the enemy sees a bow on battleship and a juicy cruiser and destroyer, who do you think they will shoot at? Quite frankly, I find battleships who don't get close to put their guns to good use more viscerally offensive than ones who conserve their health whilst still staying in the fight.

36 minutes ago, Budget_War said:

2: ships on enemy team that you stand no chance against. These ships involve mostly op HE spammers, with to little armour for reliable dmg and smoke. (also they often accelerate so fast that they can dodge most of your shells with ease)

ships like Kutuzof, belfast, kidd and many russian cruisers.

Silver Russian cruisers have no smoke, the Kutuzov is incredibly clumsy for a cruiser of her tier and her armor is also perfectly normal compared to her competition, and the Belfast pops like a zit whenever someone with any gun caliber at all lands a hit on her.

38 minutes ago, Budget_War said:

3: too many destroyers on enemy team. this one is self explanatory.

One would say that the overly large numbers of destroyers on each team is caused directly by the fact that there are far too many battleships.

39 minutes ago, Budget_War said:

5: to little bb playstyle diversity. especially at the high tiers, camping is just to rewarding and to safe. id say we should devide the battleships into two groups based on their armour scheme and and reworked bb penetration mechanics. whereas one group of bbs will take much less dmg at close ranges and more at long range and the other group will take more dmg at close range and less at long range.

Camping is safe, but it is NOT rewarding. Unless you are a Conqueror I guess. Ultimately, battleships do their best when they put their heavy punches into enemy ships at middle ranges and players who know how to survive at those ranges will always be rewarded better than stupid spawn campers whose fate is to be farmed by long ranged roaming cruisers and carriers at the end of the match.

41 minutes ago, Budget_War said:

6: to much dmg! at mid to close range you become exposed to HE spam which often discourages me to get any closer. i think a rework of how bb' s take dmg is needed. I think a portion of the bb' s hp (say25%) can only be taken away by bombs, torps and ap dmg to the casemate or citadel. this is to limit the amount of dmg a bb will receive due to small caliber HE spam.

Or you can use islands to break line of sight and engage enemies as they come. Or you could follow cruisers and destroyers or even other battleships so the enemy ends up spreading their fire more. Or you can do anything other than what you suggested. Why should such a mechanic exist for battleships and not cruisers anyways? Should we extend this to cruisers? Do you want to see what a true zombie is like when Hindenburgs run havoc across the maps whilst shrugging off anything but citadel hits and torpedoes that rarely if ever would actually affect them?

43 minutes ago, Budget_War said:

: safe from aircraft. far in the back you are relatively safe from air strikes. id say we introduce a new type of aircraft: the heavy bomber! this plane will be able to defend itself against fighters and it will carry some serious ap bombs (the current ap dive bombers should be removed though). these heavy bombers are a true menace since they can fly through your cv' s fighter blanket with only minimal losses. to counter this new aircraft it will be extra vulnerable to flak fire from 76mm guns and up.

which means that bb' s with poor aa that like to kemp (ijn bb's and french bb' s) will need a cruiser escort otherwise they will be at serious risk. thus, it motivates them to get closer to the front line to stay close to their cruiser escort.

also the ap bombs should have high pen so that they will overpen all light cruisers and dd' s and do only minimal dmg to them.

Eh.

You know even if I was given the option to bomb the spawn campers, I'll still go after the responsible battleships on the front lines. They are competent, understand the power of their ships, and are a threat to my team unless summarily removed from play on top of giving the enemy carrier far less time to react to my shenanigans. If I get a special class of bombers, my targets will not change. The pushing battleships will just get screwed over harder. Also, why would you camp in a French battleship?

46 minutes ago, Budget_War said:

8: the secondaries dont protect you enough. often at very close ranges (less than 5km) the secondary guns of some bb's just seem to miss nearly all of their shots. this is especially true at the lower tiers.

Of course not. It's an AI mechanic and is mostly useful in battleship brawls. Why should it be improved anyways?

47 minutes ago, Budget_War said:

9: some bb' s just need some buffs. Mutsu, torp tubes break to easely, secondary range is to small, a range of 5km instead of 4 would make a small but noticeable difference. ashitaka: the front and aft end of the ship could use an armour buff from 25mm to 32mm. Kii: it takes to much citadel hits, rendering the ship almost useless when facing higher tier bb' s. New York: guns turn to slow, aa is kinda meh and the accuracy of the guns could be improved. mikasa: the main batteries are just... useless and your strongest suit: your secondaries only have a 3km range. an extra km on the secondary range and improved rate of fire and accuracy of the main battery could turn this terrible bb into a competitive ship. gascogne, it rides sliglty to high in the water and eats to much citadels to feel comfortable at close ranges.

The Mutsu and Ashitaka suck, but this is mostly caused by their performance against other BATTLESHIPS and not cruisers. The New York is perfectly fine at her tier as is her turret mechanization rate. The Mikasa has no contemporaries so discussing her power is meaningless. Gascogne eats very few citadels like almost every stupid battleship nowadays.

49 minutes ago, Budget_War said:

10: an extra consumable. Suppose you are almost gone but you still have 2 or 3 heals left but its on cooldown... what now? wish you would have stayed at the back? no! Budget_War is now introducing a brand new bb only consumable! the: emergency repair!

how it works: once activated it wil for 60sec increase gun reload by 50%, increase dispersion by 15% add 4 sec of ruddershift and use up all the heals you have left +1 instandly! after the 60 sec are over you wont ave any more heals and the negative effects will continue to last but will be reduced by half. its only an idea, i have no clue if this is going to work or not but it makes being aggresive to early in the game much less punishing. also if you have used this consumable to early in the game to save your ship... yur going to be kinda useless the rest of the game...

Sounds like the kind of thing cruisers would benefit from more if it wasn't completely overpowered. For battleships with excellent survivability already, this is unnecessary especially as the concept of a living and mostly operational Montana or Yamato being useless is comical beyond words.

51 minutes ago, Budget_War said:

aslo to balance the game a bit further i recommend looking into using bots to control planes launched from either cv's or land airstrips (that can be destroyed)

We don't really need nor want AI interfering in fights between players. Your suggestions come from a good place, but the fact is that most of the proposed changes will not change the playstyle of most players and will simply make the best players even more dominant than they already are. As things are, even battleships with poor survivability are still levels above their contemporary cruisers as any cruiser player who wandered into a crossfire will be more than happy to tell you. The relegation of battleship damage to entirely preventable damage (i.e. citadel hits and torpedo damage) when battleships are already as they are will not fix the battleship problem and do nothing about the battleship plague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,191 posts
6 minutes ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

DDs should be capped... no more than two per side.  :Smile_smile:

 

As a frequent DD driver, yes please, the biggest threat to me is BB long range shots because I'm spotted by some pesky DD, less DD's about and I can far more easily go and farm the tears of the people like @Budget_War.

 

Sorry @Budget_War your suggestions wouldn't make a drop of difference to BB camping, just make them vastly more survivable and make playing any other class even more pointless than it currently is, can someone do the Bingo card for this person?

 

Incidentally the word to indicates a direction and not an excess like the word too. They're homonyms but they don't share a meaning, English is a bugger for these confusing homonyms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
13,781 posts
19,466 battles
Just now, BeauNidl3 said:

can someone do the Bingo card for this person?

 

I gotcha.

Mm2s86g.jpg

 

Although didn't someone make a new one already?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HABIT]
Beta Tester
1,568 posts
9 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

Incidentally the word to indicates a direction and not an excess like the word too. They're homonyms but they don't share a meaning, English is a bugger for these confusing homonyms.

Care to make clear what you mean by the first sentence. I don't know if you misspelled something or if I am just too tired to understand it. :Smile_hiding:

 

Edit: Never mind, it was my tiredness. Although it could use some punctuation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,191 posts
6 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

I gotcha.

Mm2s86g.jpg

 

Although didn't someone make a new one already?

 

Cheers, I think @Budget_War has almost a full house there with the OP in this thread. I've not seen one of those in a while.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
39 posts
12,232 battles

Why does everyone want to ‚fix‘ bb‘s? The way they are now is exactly okay. If players decide to stay back, the enemy team gets an advantage and decimates the enemy cruisers and dd‘s as a result. If the players decide to be too aggressive, they get torn to shreds and maybe take someone else down with them. If they play it just right, they stay at combat effective ranges and deny the enemy team ground while managing the risk of getting torped and burnt down. The problem is a psychological one, namely that players think they have to survive and do ebbin damage rather than win the engagement.

There is nothing that can be done to convince a braindead playerbase to change their ways other than making them lose every engagement they partake in. 

Yes it‘s frustrating for ca‘s and dd‘s, but then they have more influence on the gameplay in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,191 posts
17 minutes ago, Tungstonid said:

Care to make clear what you mean by the first sentence. I don't know if you misspelled something or if I am just too tired to understand it. :Smile_hiding:

 

Quite possibly both, I'm knackered at the moment so I probably phrased it poorly.

 

To is usually directional or intentional as in "I'm going to the market" or "I'm going to shoot at that cruiser" 

Too indicates you have too much of something as in "fires on my BB do too much damage" or "there are too many BB's in the game"

 

In the OP he uses to instead of too. The words sound the same so are homonyms, but they mean completely different things, there's also two which is the number after one and before three. English has a fair few of these homonyms that non native speakers find tricky for quite obvious reasons, it's a damn silly language at times, but it's the one I was educated (quite well) in and I do notice misuses as the way I read relies heavily on context and the wrong words stand out.

To be very honest the people that tend to use the wrong homonym are very frequently native speakers that just can't be bothered to type the right word, the non native speakers usually do incredibly well with the silly, old, mongrel and complicated language that I was brought up speaking.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Players
2,591 posts
12,837 battles
21 minutes ago, respect_my_slavspace said:

Why does everyone want to ‚fix‘ bb‘s? The way they are now is exactly okay.

They're not. Above all they are too hard to kill and, related, too stealthy.

 

21 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

To is usually directional or intentional as in "I'm going to the market" or "I'm going to shoot at that cruiser"

The "to" in this last example is just because "to go" (going) requires the "to X" (to shoot) form of the infinitif as complement.*

 

(edit: not necessarily? A native speaker would have to confirm if a sentence like "I'm going shooting" is correct. I doubt it, but not sure)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,191 posts
12 minutes ago, PzychoPanzer said:

They're not. Above all they are too hard to kill and, related, too stealthy.

 

The "to" in this last example is just because "to go" (going) requires the "to X" (to shoot) form of the infinitif as complement.

I agree, BB's are far too invulnerable, they don't need any more survival tools, in fact some of their survivability should be rolled back including their concealment values and the gun bloom allowing them to blink out while reloading unlike every other ship type that actively uses guns.

 

Indeed, but to some people a direction doesn't necessarily indicate an intention, that's why I qualified it, in my understanding of the language a direction and intention are the same thing, but that's a finesse of language and this is an international forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
513 posts
5,039 battles

Again, as in the other thread, I believe a step in the right direction is an XP system that rewards the correct behaviours.

 

The way that BB shells work at higher tiers is also supporting longer range engagements. Long range should not have the kind of accuracy it has. No BB should have cruiser accuracy at 20Km, for example.

 

My BB playstyle means I die quickly since I am an aggressive player, so bottom of XP table and not touching them for a while is the norm.

 

Apart from IJN BBs the long range camping meta is a lot less frequent at mid tiers, so surely there is something there to learn from. I feel top tier BBs have a meta that I simply cannot enjoy or become effective in. It doesn't help when 2 DD torps take away 80% of your health and count as critical hits that you can't repair though. T7 BBs against T9 DDs are almost one shot kills.

 

Anyway... Seems I am a minority and I am clearly wrong because everyone enjoys T10 so since I am never getting to it I can only express my humble opinion as a noob, retard or whatever you may want to call me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Players
2,591 posts
12,837 battles
12 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

Indeed, but to some people a direction doesn't necessarily indicate an intention, that's why I qualified it, in my understanding of the language a direction and intention are the same thing, but that's a finesse of language and this is an international forum.

? :Smile_amazed:

 

Intention or direction have nothing to do with it. It's just a syntactical form if you use "(to) go" as an auxiliary verb to indicate a future tense.

 

"I'm going TO sleep/type/go/whatever"

 

as opposed to other auxiliaries e.g.: "I must rest now" or "I keep worrying" that take the two other infinitive forms.

 

 

Direction/intention is only applicable in your other example, going TO the market (as direction). And intention vs direction are not the same, which isn't a finesse of language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
39 posts
12,232 battles
11 minutes ago, PzychoPanzer said:

They're not. Above all they are too hard to kill and, related, too stealthy.

They are supposed to be this way. In this game, their job is to deny the enemy team an area around them. They rely on cruisers and dds to keep enemy dds away, who incidentally counter bbs hard by outspotting them, having smoke and having torps. The only thing they could change is the size of the maps to make the area denial more of an issue.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
642 posts
9,895 battles
12 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

I agree, BB's are far too invulnerable, they don't need any more survival tools, in fact some of their survivability should be rolled back including their concealment values and the gun bloom allowing them to blink out while reloading unlike every other ship type that actively uses guns.

2

I never thought of that - very good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
513 posts
5,039 battles
18 minutes ago, PzychoPanzer said:

They're not. Above all they are too hard to kill and, related, too stealthy.

It seems this is heavily based on T10 BBs. In that environment, DDs have 5Km concealment and torps that can kill a BB with 3 hits. The BBs that have ridiculous concealment are one, incidentally also the only BB that has HE loaded by default and can insta-kill DDs. All other BBs are normally always spotted, and rarely remain concealed unless they are hugging the border since all it takes is a plane (spotter or fighter) being within 20Km of it and it gets spotted with no means to break concealment unless he stops shooting for a minute. Come to think of it, maybe plane spotting contributes to the camping meta too. I mean, it ignores land cover and increases bloom time. Ummmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Players
2,591 posts
12,837 battles
9 ore fa, EgyptOverseer ha scritto:

It seems this is heavily based on T10 BBs.

Not only t10.

t7 King George outspots myoko by 600 or so meters.

 

But it's not only the British ones. In the current meta every BB takes CE + the module.

The alternative for the module should be better, and especially, CE should get a rework. BBs get a higher % of concealment than cruisers or DDs, and get of course an implicit bonus because any percentage will benefit ships with large (initial) concealment more in absolute terms.

 

I don't find Hindenburg vs Yamato that reasonable for example, let alone vs Montana. Some other cruisers suffer as well in this department.

 

While I can live with certain BBs being a stealth ship, it should be extremely exceptional. Now every BB becomes a North cal.

 

 

Same can be said for AA for example, although that is less my department. Gneisenau was once the exception with very good AA on t7, now there's lyon as well. On higher tiers every new line gets idiotic values.

 

And then I'm not even saying smt about the plague of tier 9 called Missouri.

 

9 ore fa, EgyptOverseer ha scritto:

only BB that has HE loaded by default and can insta-kill DDs

You're referring to the Mongueror I guess.

Any high tier BB can instakill DDs, or make them borderline useless for a lot of their roles with one volley, and they don't need HE at all.

 

 

I'm not even sure if Mongueror wouldn't have a higher chance of instakilling DDs with AP rather than HE. Anyone any experience with this?

 

9 ore fa, EgyptOverseer ha scritto:

In that environment, DDs have 5Km concealment and torps that can kill a BB with 3 hits.

How could I have ignored this one? Sigh.

 

There isn't a single high tier DD with 5 km concealment (kagero has 5.4, most DDs have 5.8+) and not a single one of them can kill any BB with three hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
513 posts
5,039 battles
8 minutes ago, PzychoPanzer said:

How could I have ignored this one? Sigh.

 

There isn't a single high tier DD with 5 km concealment (kagero has 5.4, most DDs have 5.8+) and not a single one of them can kill any BB with three hits.

IJN torps deal 24k per hit. If you don't believe around 72k unrepairable damage is enough to kill most BBs up to T9 then we must be talking about a different game. Sorry.

 

On concealment, I was not talking decimals... Up to 5.9Km is the norm, except the specialised DDs that are designed to use solely guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×