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

Top tier matches don't feel like ships anymore

77 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[KAKE]
Players
1,051 posts
3,382 battles
26 minutes ago, Midway67 said:

... which is why I for one particularly love ships like Izumo, Richelieu, Nelson, and Dunkerque! 

Pretty sure Izumo's 'C' turret has worse forward firing angles than the 'X' turret on the Yamasashi-sisters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OP-B]
Beta Tester
517 posts
3,130 battles
15 minutes ago, Migantium_Mashum said:

I appreciate your advice; however my mini map shows the ships name, always has.. As to last known position, never even thought about it and never needed it. I see an enemy ships position on the mini map and it goes dark, unless I see an indicator it has been sunk, I am always aware of where it may reappear hence the comment about being ready to run if necessary.

 

But thank you anyways. :cap_like:

I am a bit stubborn and so are you. Try it out ;)

A ship may reappear for just 1 second, besides it can be handy to have an overview of the ships on the other side as well, so that you know what you can encounter ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SVX]
Beta Tester
14 posts
7,237 battles

I think bowtanking is a logical consequence to high citadel damage, slow turning ships and vulnerable broadsides, and players having the knowledge to punish a broadsiding ship.

If you do push up to a cap, and get detected as a BB (lesser degree also cruisers) you will be targetted rather heavily. Your options are, as I see it;

1. Try to turn, showing your broadside to the whole enemy team and eat a lot of AP-pens and/or citadelstrikes (in a cruiser it is doubtful that you even survive that turn), and the turn is slow so you will probably eat many hits and perhaps even pre-emptive torps

2. Stop, reverse and bowtank until enemy is dead or you are dead or the match ends

3. Stop, reverse, go undetected and then reposition (risky if you get detected again) for a better vector of attack

4. Keep pushing, attempt to scare the enemy into a retreat, and take the cap (or suicide if you read your team wrongly and you have no support in the cap)

5. Manouver to mask yourself behind an island

5a. and then reposition

5b. and then get stuck behind the island and camp

 

Unfortunally, as I have seen in games is that either players tend to "use" theit superior range in BBs to hang back too far to be of any real use, or push too hard and get stuck in a suicide rush that cant be stopped due to broadsiding->citadel/pen->death, or fail pushing and start reverse bowtanking, eg option 2 because its too much to think of/tunnelvisioned to be able to rethink a new tactic.

 

In a high conceal cruiser you are in a worse position if you get detected, attempt to badly bowtank due trollolo dispersion overmatch citadelstrikes, or just gunned down by everyone and their mother. Turning in a cruiser is not an option in most ships, Moskva can perhaps do it due to high HP pool, but armor is still as thin as a Des Moines (155mm vs 152mm?). Hinden suffers from the turn negating the advantage of turtleback as it causes the vulnerable roof to show and I feel it suffers even more cits while turning (bankangle increases while turning), the Des Moines and Worcester does it while throwing the dice, most often its a deathsentence, Zao can troll the hits but most its a fast return to port, Henry I dont know.

 

I believe that the suggestion to increase accuracy against slow moving/stationary ships is a good suggestion and decreasing citadeldamage is an interesting idea. As it is now it is almost that stationary targets are harder to hit (might be confirmation bias as well)

I also agree wholeheartly that the game should be about movement in higher tiers.

 

I am in no regards a very good player and I dont know if my opinions are close to everybody elses view, so I hope my input is worth something atleast.

And... english isnt my first language and I am typing on a phone.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,374 posts
9,563 battles
13 hours ago, Uglesett said:

Well... part of the problem is that "mistakes" are punished so hard that nobody dares to take any chances...

No. The problem is that large parts of this playerbase are way, way worse at playing the actual game than they think they are and lobby to bring game mechanics in line with their subjective feelings about how everything should work. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TU]
Players
171 posts
5,069 battles

FWIW, I don’t like the idea of reducing dispersion against slow moving ships. There are many situations where moving slowly or standing still is tactically the best thing to do, why should this be punished? A stationary ship is easier to hit as it is.

 

And I think it’s good that high tier games are different from mid tier games. That’s diversity! Do we really want similar gameplay at all tiers?

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SVX]
Beta Tester
14 posts
7,237 battles
6 minutes ago, urr027 said:

FWIW, I don’t like the idea of reducing dispersion against slow moving ships. There are many situations where moving slowly or standing still is tactically the best thing to do, why should this be punished? A stationary ship is easier to hit as it is.

 

And I think it’s good that high tier games are different from mid tier games. That’s diversity! Do we really want similar gameplay at all tiers?

 

I agree to a point, but I think the problem arises when the static gameplay becomes formulaic and boring. Shouldnt high tier expand on lower tier gameplay as players (should) get better and ships gets better/more capable of handling diffrent tactics, ie flanking in a New Mexico perhaps isnt a good idea but doing it in a fast battleship as the Iowa is more viable?

 

How about a "stacking" bonus to dispersion while the ship is detected akin to the speed-debuff you get when hitting the border? It should still enable the choice of standing still/reversing for a while urging your to start moving. Or will it represent another "bandaid" to fix an underlaying problem... and it will perhaps cause problems for DDs in smoke together with the CLs of RN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
1,051 posts
3,382 battles
2 hours ago, Earl_of_Northesk said:

No. The problem is that large parts of this playerbase are way, way worse at playing the actual game than they think they are and lobby to bring game mechanics in line with their subjective feelings about how everything should work. 

Alright, I'll bite.

 

1) Do you consider it a problem that so much of high tier gameplay is spent more or less stationary in or around cover?

 

2) If yes, why do you think it's so?

 

3) Again if yes, what do you consider a good solution?

 

I mean, to be blunt: For a lot of cruisers in particular, a "mistake" is often as simple as "being in open water for any length of time". That's not exactly conducive to fast and dynamic gameplay. 

 

20 hours ago, Viravandrel said:

- increase the accuracy of shells fired at targets moving 1/4 or slower (well... it's EASIER to hit stationary target- game should reflect that...)- for example halve the dispersion or increase sigma

This is one of those ideas that seems good on paper until you dig into it a bit.

 

How would this work in practice? I mean, dispersion is determined at the moment you fire, but the speed of the target can in some cases vary quite wildly from when you pull the trigger until the shot lands. DD drivers will often use speed variations as well as turns to avoid fire. A british cruiser (or Des Moines with the legendary upgrade) can go from standstill to full speed in less time than it takes a salvo from longer range to arrive. It'll certainly lead to some rather odd situations where the accuracy-vs-target-speed relationship sort of breaks down.

 

And besides, stationary or slowly moving targets already are easier to hit, since they can't actively dodge. I'm not sure if there's any huge value in making it even simpler. I mean, usually when you can't hit a stationary target it's because there's terrain in the way...

 

(Speaking of which, it does occasionally cheese me off that gun arcs are different when you are locked onto a target and when you're not. So many times when I can fire at a target behind an island if it's spotted, but not when it goes unspotted...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,106 posts
8,552 battles
34 minutes ago, urr027 said:

FWIW, I don’t like the idea of reducing dispersion against slow moving ships. There are many situations where moving slowly or standing still is tactically the best thing to do, why should this be punished? A stationary ship is easier to hit as it is.

I also agree on this point.

When playing my BB's I will not charge in at the start usually going 1/4 speed until I see what the DD's or Cruisers are doing. Usually within 3 minutes the game play is displayed. At no point do I sit/camp nor do I go straight to an Island and sit/camp.

If you sit behind the islands you cannot support because your shells will only landscape the island.. I hate to see BB's with full HP siting behind cover offering not support whatsoever.. As a BB I don't mind taking damage because I can give it back,  as a BB I don't mind fire because I can retreat go dark, heal and come back. Many BB's retreating continue to fire instead of getting out of basic spotting ranges..The smaller ships need to know that when they call for help a BB will do just that and help them and not sit ineffectually doing absolutely nothing or be too far away for effective strikes.. As a DD I get so frustrated when I F3 a Des Moines (or other radar equipped ship) and see our BB's ignore the target...As a BB I like to ensure that I am close to allies and in my Grosser Kurfurst with a Salem, on a Haven map, between us we held the 7-10 lines from J to D taking out 6 ships which allowed our DD's to safely cap, spot and kill.. At one point Salem was heavily damaged and so I told him to take station on my port side so he was able to fire and I was able to take the damage intended for him.. we both survived and my Karma increased by +4 for that game.. If two ships are together it seems it is actually harder to get a hit on a specific target..

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SVX]
Beta Tester
14 posts
7,237 battles

Sometimes just the presence of a BB in proximity to a cap-point is enough as the potential damage the BB can dish out to primarily cruiser may dissuade them from either giving effective support or draw enough attention to the BB so that the DD can cap the point or enable teammates to flank the target and force the ship to withdraw or get sunk.

 

If the BB is 15kms behind the cappoint or behind an island, that wont be as much of a threat. Imagine if you are behind an island as worcester/des moines happily radaring a cap-point and a Montana/Kurfurst/Yamato keeps pushing towards you supporting the DD. If there arent any DD capable of torping the BB you must withdraw or face a rather powerful BB at sub 10km.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SKM71]
[SKM71]
Players
38 posts
9,320 battles

A simple solution to reduce bow tanking would be to reduce horizontal dispersion and increase vertical dispersion for all types of guns. Another solution for less broadside citadels would be to increase gravity which would force more realistic shell arcs. Wows shell arcs are way too flat which have obvious consequences, more hits against the side of a ship and more bounces against the deck. This would also require adjustment of air resistance. 

 

*edited*

 

This is why wows is multiturreted-tanks-on-water and not a true naval battle game - the poor guys cant do better.  :Smile_sad: There are plenty of simple obvious things that could be improved everywhere but because of what I outlined earlier the developers cant understand the solutions proposed and they cant understand why this and that is required. They are not even smart enough to steal simple but superior user interface concepts from other games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RL7S]
Players
147 posts
2,160 battles

WoWS has somehow ended up backwards from real naval combat. Real battleships and cruisers would want to go broadside all the time because the danger is shells going through the deck, go bow on and the enemy will drop a full salvo down the length of your deck instead of having shells go over and under. Plus, almost any hit into the superstructure is going to take out the bridge and primary rangefinder and any shell going through the deck is going to keep going till it explodes inside the ship, potentially going through several vital compartments and doing more damage than any broadside hit could do.

 

Meanwhile broadside armour is good, almost all ships have better broadside armour relative to deck armour, armour schemes are designed to absorb damage taken broadside, and if the shell misses armour it may well pass clean through the ship without exploding.

 

Also, speed was life, a stationary ship would be a sitting duck and would find it difficult to aim because naval gunnery relies on timing the salvo with the ships regular rolling movement as it moves through the waves instead of making tiny adjustments to the guns aim.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
0 posts

Well, anything that is going to improve the gameplay is something I agree with..

As long as it stops the current 'teamwork'/HE spam from behind islands, Battleships only using HE, etc. I understand why people do it, because it's the only thing that is kind of working with the current state of the game. Though the encouragement of teamwork isn't really something that has been the strong side of WG titles in general. This game is starting to feel like it needs some kind of major overhaul, ditch the release of strong premium ships etc. and just re balance the whole package in one go.. perhaps I might find some use for my Furutaka again then ;) . Although I highly doubt WG is going to change much tbh, it seems that the direction WoT is going for quite some time now is starting to show in WoWs too. Shame really, it is a good game, but not for much longer if it keeps going down the current road imo.

 

The OP suggestion is a good suggestion I think, I would agree with it if WG did put that in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GOT]
[GOT]
Players
52 posts
4,679 battles
3 hours ago, urr027 said:

FWIW, I don’t like the idea of reducing dispersion against slow moving ships. There are many situations where moving slowly or standing still is tactically the best thing to do, why should this be punished?

Thats the entire idea behind this proposal: One of main reasons people sit bow tanking 20km from nearest enemy is because it works. So this proposal would make sure it works a bit less, and it isn't tactically the best thing to do anymore.

 

2 hours ago, Migantium_Mashum said:

I also agree on this point.

When playing my BB's I will not charge in at the start usually going 1/4 speed until I see what the DD's or Cruisers are doing. Usually within 3 minutes the game play is displayed.

While the rest of your post is nice, this is wtf. Also this is why as a DD I just start AFK. After about 3 minutes it is clear which direction the 1/4th speed BBs are going, and then I also start playing...

Obviously I don't actually do this, although I have seen other DDs do it on purpose, who then got angry when I brought them to the cap by ramming them. Point is that even a BB can go full speed immediately, since by the time you are full speed it should be more than clear enough where the DDs are going. And there is no way you can properly support your DDs if you start for long time going quarter speed. Not to mention that if everyone does this, no one benefits. In my opinion it is just a method of staying in the back so no one fires on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,458 posts
7,859 battles

To be honest, Tier 8+ ships seem more realistic to me than low tier ships, in a way that they are more sluggish and use longer range. Low tier ships seem more like "speed boats in a bath tub", which doesn't seem realistic at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
25 posts
6,873 battles

thanks for all the answers, some are positive, some are crushing. Also i'm very happy that this thread gave you guys a lot to talk about, that's nice.

 

@Earl- you know, i am a long term tabletop strategy and competitive card game player. I know that EVERY rules setting has exploits at any point (i use them myself, better or worse) that some things are just better then others, it's just the matter of understanding of how such particular game works that makes you a good player. Right now I'm only nothing special in ships (dark green stats), player like many. The thing is I observe the way the game is played and i start to think that maybe i don't want to play like this. I know i can bowtank whole game and laugh at shots, hug islands or position myself perfectly with good concealment then strike from the shadows or disappear. One thing is being good, the other is kind of fun from the game and games that look like tanks are not that fun to me.

 

lately I started brit DD line (unfortunately got only useless icarus from container- my friend opened half as many and he got all 4... bleh unlucky) but im already on jervis and i love this ship. i can dodge, duel other DDs for caps and burn BBs to hell. Heck even sometimes engage some cruiser on short range if he's badly positioned. This kind of gameplay looks like ships and that's the only thing that's important to me right now. at first i put +% exp camo and flag but now i purposefully removed them to play this ship longer as i know that i will possibly not have such fun when going top tier...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-FF-]
Players
767 posts
5,713 battles
On 10/28/2018 at 1:41 PM, Viravandrel said:

Hello!

 

not a rant in any way, just an observation. For quite some time already the high tier matches started to look like WoT- people hug islands, BBs are standing still or reversing (cruisers usually do the same), everyone camps and try to stay at range in fear of being shot to bits in seconds (damage on high tiers is pretty high :P ). For me the game stops looking like ships anymore, it totally lost it's maneuverability, ships do not act like in reality- they do not go forward and trade salvoes, the battle lost all of it's dynamics, it's just slow and painful grinding to death. I know it's the most effective way of playing (well, I do that myself...) but the longer I play like that I start asking myself a question- Do I even wanna play like this? I can easily switch to tanks and play like this there... or maybe ill just stay on lower tiers although it starts to look like this in mid tiers as well...

 

proposed solution (easy and simple):

- increase the accuracy of shells fired at targets moving 1/4 or slower (well... it's EASIER to hit stationary target- game should reflect that...)- for example halve the dispersion or increase sigma

- decrease the damage of citadel hits while keeping the penetration damage the same - the reason why nobody in this game even tries to play normal ship dodge game (as it should be- it was like this in reality) is that whenever you try to dodge BBs hit you in the citadel and you're toast. 

 

I think that those simple changes would force players to change their behavior in a good way- the battle would start to look like a ship battle again, not some tank camper fest. 

 

I'm ready to hear your thoughts on this matter guys- maybe you're tired of camping too? Maybe you got better solutions, i'll gladly hear some other

 I'm not sure your ideas would make any significant change. A BB could still snipe from behind, but at 1/2 speed instead of 1/4?

WG is already implementing changes that will prevent more camping play. 

The CV rework will force BBs to follow cruisers as they will be easily deleted by repetitive strikes from a single torp bomber squad if they snipe from behind. They will learn to stop staying behind alone, or die.

Same, submarines will be another way to counter that type of play.

I believe in 1 year from now, the meta will have drastically changed.

I can't wait for the CV rework. Maybe it will be the end of the mighty answer to the question:

- "Why are you alone behind, full HP?"

- I have 25km range, why should I go closer, noob.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TU]
Players
171 posts
5,069 battles
3 hours ago, Sissors said:

Obviously I don't do this, although I have seen other DDs do it on purpose, who then got angry when I brought them to the cap by rammingactually them.

I didn’t know you can make your DDs cap by ramming them into cap zones. Must try it out next time. I propose that WG adds a tech tree of tugboat class ships to make this job a bit easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YEEET]
Players
1,206 posts
11,663 battles
1 hour ago, elblancogringo said:

 

Same, submarines will be another way to counter that type of play.

 

 

I was going to suggest AI submarines - one on each side - they would target ships that had not moved for 30 seconds and the percentage chance of being targeted increases by 10 % for every extra 30 seconds the ship is at standstill, 1/4 sp or reversing. Would certainly add a sense of danger!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,944 posts
14,451 battles
1 hour ago, urr027 said:

I didn’t know you can make your DDs cap by ramming them into cap zones. Must try it out next time. I propose that WG adds a tech tree of tugboat class ships to make this job a bit easier.

 

Using an afk DD or cruiser asa torpedo shield is another great option... Just push him along in front of you and damn the torpedoes!

 


 

Fun fact: I have encountered discussions like this about people "being forced to camp due to meta" in about any other MMOG I've played before, as soon as it was getting the least bit competitive. Oneof the reasons why I made sure to avoid those Battlegrounds in "World of Warcraft" - way too many people camping there, due to the fear of being killed... instead they rather take a loss by playing ineffective and passive than actively trying to achieve a win.

 

In most cases, these games gave rewards also for lost battles. One of the examples of giving the most rewards for lost battles is World of Battleships Warships, where a potato shooting ineffectively HE at enemy BBs can do so much damage without achieving any tactical advantage, that he ends up in the #1 exp spot of the losing team, making him think he "haz dun gud".

 

Rewarding damage done as the greatest factor for gaining exp instead of rewarding "doing your job and making sure the battle is won" imho leads to these situations, where everybody and his uncle sits in cover, sniping to do a bit more damage than the other campers beside him, hoping to get enough exp to finally lose his way to get the "final goal" (= the utterly heroic T10 ship every real player has to have).

 

But again, WG will never ever change the concept they have, as it keeps the potatoes in the game and they are the ones paying the most for the game in their hunt for the final reward... the proof that they are "doin gud"... the T10 ship...


 

As a matter of fact, I'm okay with that... other than most people in this thread, I am quite okay with T10 consisting only of boring campfests between potatoes and a handfull of skilled players.

As it is, I prefer to play low/mid tier for fun and only do T8+ battles for the missions needed to get certain achievements/captains/other rewards...

 

Alas, it also keeps me from spending any more money for this game... pay real $ (or rather €) to get a T8 ship that offers only boring campfests? Not really, right?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DAVY]
Players
479 posts
4,337 battles
On 10/29/2018 at 12:39 AM, DFens_666 said:

 

I didnt like it because ppl didnt play for the objective... otherwise it would have been a great mode imo. But you cant fix stupid. Last game i played, i had a DD deliberately ignoring all buffs... ran to the enemy spawn, trying to torp a Worcester :Smile_facepalm:

Hard enough to play with those ppl in random battles, but in arms race? forget it.

 

@ OP

maybe ships shouldnt be allowed to stop entirely. Its either going forward or backward. And this needs to be at a certain speed, so you press forward, you accelerate atleast to 1/4 speed, until you can slow down again.

 

this. people played it the exact same way they played in RBs and completely ignored the buffs. I think I played something like two or three rounds and got bored of that quickly. Not to mention rewards weren't counted in there. There was no need to play a redundant game mode. Sorry WG, but this was a failure of catastrophic proportions. They could have improved the game so much with the hours they spent putting this crap together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[STARS]
Beta Tester
92 posts
12,523 battles
7 hours ago, CraftyVeteran said:

this. people played it the exact same way they played in RBs and completely ignored the buffs. I think I played something like two or three rounds and got bored of that quickly. Not to mention rewards weren't counted in there. There was no need to play a redundant game mode. Sorry WG, but this was a failure of catastrophic proportions. They could have improved the game so much with the hours they spent putting this crap together.

The rewards were counted in Arms Race. But you could acquire less points compared to random battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,531 posts
15,042 battles

I agree with the motion here @Viravandrel ships game should never be static, as that get boring right quick and sniping was never exactly a dominant feature of naval combat. Other stuff we could do here:

 

1) I agree, slow moving and stationary targets should be easier to hit. 1/4 speed, perhaps 1/2 speed too and fully stationary targets? Maybe give them an extra 2% chance of full HP detonation too. This could also be improved if we consider combat speed so that full accuracy (optimal dispersion) would be achieved at all speeds up to roughly 24 knots and ships going full speed would suffer a small penalty (as in real battles, "Combat Speed" was actually reduced exactly for this purpose). This would also serve to even the playing field for the slow BB's  (which could now go at full speed all the time while not suffering any penalty).

2) Change the silly Citadel and Armor mechanism entirely. All Ships had their STRONGEST armor on the side, it was called the "Belt Armor" and therefore it should NOT be the only sure way to get a citadel hit but the exact reverse should be the case. Ship should be easier penetrated directly from the front and back and not from the side. That makes no sense at all. Strong frontal armor was a feature in tanks, not ships, where side armor was the thickest. It would massively improve the game, if it would actually reflect this reality. Also would allow one to actually shoot broadsides more often.

3) Well, done correctly and I suspect that introduction of submarines next year will massively reduce the campfest anyways, especially, if those slow subs will spwn near the enemy spawn zone to ensure they will make into battle in time. Pretty sure they will pick up any stragglers in no time. Hehehe! :fish_boom:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
4,397 posts
6,249 battles
1 hour ago, LeSnoet said:

The rewards were counted in Arms Race. But you could acquire less points compared to random battles.

 

I think he meant stuff like missions, which you couldnt do at first. Then they added some. Biggest problem was, you couldnt do legendary module grind there(ive made a poll back when arms race was removed, and many ppl said that).

 

16 hours ago, elblancogringo said:

can't wait for the CV rework. Maybe it will be the end of the mighty answer to the question:

- "Why are you alone behind, full HP?"

- I have 25km range, why should I go closer, noob.

 

- "provide AA cover"

- [edited]CV NOOB WHY NO FIGHTERS?

- CV response "I basicly dont have fighters anymore"

- [edited]LIAR NOOB; REPORT CV FOR LYING.

 

As if BB Kevin will understand that there basicly arent fighters anymore to protect him. :cap_old:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,374 posts
9,563 battles
On 10/29/2018 at 1:16 PM, Uglesett said:

Alright, I'll bite.

 

1) Do you consider it a problem that so much of high tier gameplay is spent more or less stationary in or around cover?

 

2) If yes, why do you think it's so?

 

3) Again if yes, what do you consider a good solution?

 

I mean, to be blunt: For a lot of cruisers in particular, a "mistake" is often as simple as "being in open water for any length of time". That's not exactly conducive to fast and dynamic gameplay. 

 

 

1) No

2) See 1

3) See 1

 

Because "being in open water for any length of time" is not a problem and not a mistake by default. A lot of ships ONLY really work if you do exactly that, like Zao, Henri, Hindenburg and others. The mistake people make is a severe lack of situational awareness in 90% of situations. Because they can't admit that this is the problem, they blame game mechanics. May not be a popular opinion, but that's my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-MM]
Beta Tester
1,209 posts
1,480 battles

I've always thought that citadels were overly punishing and I certainly think they are the issue with cruisers, you often feel that if you get spotted in open water then you are just rolling a dice, a BB salvo can do 4 overpens or it can delete you or it can do anything inbetween and that whole threat that is is going to delete you is often forcing players to be passive.

 

I think damage should be more consistent across the board, something from tanks there basically, you hit with a gun that does 400 damage, you do between 350 and 450, not you have this 1k to 12k range on BB guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×