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

Fire on BBs by CA;s

43 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[MOA]
Players
8 posts
9,110 battles

When are you going to compensate the BB's with longer range secondaries to slow down  and defend against the "machine gun" CA?  the change in inertia and set fire IN 9.2 HAS DONE NOTHING to improve this issue

  • Funny 14
  • Boring 3
  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
372 posts
5,825 battles

I don’t think it was ever aimed to do that.

 

also. Try not just charging in, that’s not quite what this game is about. After 6k battles, I would have thought you would have known that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LAFIE]
Beta Tester
5,357 posts
5,766 battles
5 minutes ago, Hackerxe said:

When are you going to compensate the BB's with longer range secondaries to slow down  and defend against the "machine gun" CA?  the change in inertia and set fire IN 9.2 HAS DONE NOTHING to improve this issue

Machine gun CA's? Must be thinking of CL's because only the Des Moines/Salem has enough of a rate of fire to be considered that..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
372 posts
5,825 battles
2 minutes ago, lafeel said:

Machine gun CA's? Must be thinking of CL's because only the Des Moines/Salem has enough of a rate of fire to be considered that..

He’s probably getting confused with CL’s and gunboats tbh. How’s he to know what’s in the smoke he’s charging down at? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,913 posts
15,122 battles
6 minutes ago, Hackerxe said:

When are you going to compensate the BB's with longer range secondaries to slow down  and defend against the "machine gun" CA?  the change in inertia and set fire IN 9.2 HAS DONE NOTHING to improve this issue

Either you now get less fires or you get more fires and less direct damage. But "done nothing" is not possible and just shows your lack of understanding of game mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,356 posts
18,216 battles
3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Either you now get less fires or you get more fires and less direct damage. But "done nothing" is not possible and just shows your lack of understanding of game mechanics.

I thought part of the IFHE rework was making CAs valuable because your bigger guns meant better pen and fire chance, whereas CLs had to choose? Or has it not turned out like that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LAFIE]
Beta Tester
5,357 posts
5,766 battles
4 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

I thought part of the IFHE rework was making CAs valuable because your bigger guns meant better pen and fire chance, whereas CLs had to choose? Or has it not turned out like that? 

Too early to tell if it has succeeded in doing that on day 1 tbh..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
165 posts
16 minutes ago, Hackerxe said:

When are you going to compensate the BB's with longer range secondaries to slow down  and defend against the "machine gun" CA?  the change in inertia and set fire IN 9.2 HAS DONE NOTHING to improve this issue

 

Yes because BB's need a buff right.....

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles

Day 1 of IFHE rework and already we got BB folks complaining about getting flamed. But this is what WG is catering towards, even if these folks have no clue what the game mechanics do.

  • Cool 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,356 posts
18,216 battles
7 minutes ago, lafeel said:

Too early to tell if it has succeeded in doing that on day 1 tbh..

I just meant in terms of what they did to the mechanics. Haven't got to all the new BB armour models yet! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,762 posts
9,748 battles
59 minutes ago, Bunny_Lover_Kallen said:

Day 1 of IFHE rework and already we got BB folks complaining about getting flamed. But this is what WG is catering towards, even if these folks have no clue what the game mechanics do.

 

I wouldnt even wonder, if we get BBabies complaining more about fires now. If the average player thinks, IFHE is bad now, naturally, they have more firechance than before. Direct damage never was an issue for BBabies, they cry about fires...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,117 posts
11,525 battles
1 hour ago, Bunny_Lover_Kallen said:

Day 1 of IFHE rework and already we got BB folks complaining about getting flamed. But this is what WG is catering towards, even if these folks have no clue what the game mechanics do.

 

Indeed. You could give every cruiser reload times of 7 MINUTES with a fire chance of 0,001 % and STILL people like OP would pop up. And for ppl like that we kill ship as Atlanta, Helena, Boise....

 

4 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Direct damage never was an issue for BBabies, they cry about fires...

 

They cry when they drop their coco-drink...

 

giphy.gif

  • Funny 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ZEN]
Players
1,320 posts
14,217 battles
58 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

They cry when they drop their coco-drink...

 

giphy.gif

More like whenever their paint gets scratched, they still need to keep spamming HE from max range from the 1 line...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,106 posts
9,568 battles

CA or CLs?

 

Yeah, I guess every BB should have secondaries matching the range of the same tier HE spammers. Or make it +/- 2 tiers to match the MM.

 

That would mean that T8 BBs would have 19km secondaries to counteract Smolensk.

 

Makes total sense.

 

[/s]

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
11 minutes ago, Palubarac said:

CA or CLs?

 

Yeah, I guess every BB should have secondaries matching the range of the same tier HE spammers. Or make it +/- 2 tiers to match the MM.

 

That would mean that T8 BBs would have 19km secondaries to counteract Smolensk.

 

Makes total sense.

 

[/s]

Imagine if they gave Kremlin one Smolensk in secondaries per side.

 

Disgusting...

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[S-O-M]
Players
657 posts

To be fair the op is right, especially after the Brit heavies were introduced, WG actively promoted island hugging and He spamming.  In stark contrast to what we all want (less spamming and less static play).

 

Brit BBs are also Guilty of HE spamming, eg my KGV has what 44% fire chance and my latest fave bote, the lowly T7 Surrey gained arsonist and witherer within 2 days of Getting her, thanks to cooking a Bismarck until very well done, with flags etc it gets a 21% chance of starting fires, which it most definitely does.   Once again MM means it sees more T9’s than T7’s let alone T5’s.

 

staying just outside secondary range I can have a lot of fun, which as a BB driver would send me mad as hell, but that is the way WG wants us to play, the counter is that Surrey etc self destruct if a BB remotely looks at them, especially the awful mess (T8).      With 20+km guns Bismarck had no excuse for deleting a glass armoured cruiser with a standard range of just 14.8km, he also made the fatal error of focussing on someone else, I did 55k damage and he fired at me once.

 

So would extending the range of secondaries really help the op and those that can’t  kill an easily killable ship ?.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
1 minute ago, MadBadDave said:

To be fair the op is right, especially after the Brit heavies were introduced, WG actively promoted island hugging and He spamming.  In stark contrast to what we all want (less spamming and less static play).

British CAs have actually pretty poor HE dpm and fire setting capabilities compared to other heavy cruisers. But I guess to some, any HE shell is an HE shell too much.

3 minutes ago, MadBadDave said:

Brit BBs are also Guilty of HE spamming, eg my KGV has what 44% fire chance

signals and DE ontop of 40% base fire chance is just memeing around and a waste of investment.

5 minutes ago, MadBadDave said:

and my latest fave bote, the lowly T7 Surrey gained arsonist and witherer within 2 days of Getting her, thanks to cooking a Bismarck until very well done, with flags etc it gets a 21% chance of starting fires

Got that just the other day in Molotov. OP HE spamming boat... Or maybe just a run in with people who were too stupid to properly manage damage control.

6 minutes ago, MadBadDave said:

staying just outside secondary range I can have a lot of fun, which as a BB driver would send me mad as hell, but that is the way WG wants us to play, the counter is that Surrey etc self destruct if a BB remotely looks at them, especially the awful mess (T8).      With 20+km guns Bismarck had no excuse for deleting a glass armoured cruiser with a standard range of just 14.8km, he also made the fatal error of focussing on someone else, I did 55k damage and he fired at me once.

"This person played terribly, so clearly my approach is too powerful."

 

No, HE "spam" isn't OP. It's a necessity. Unless you come up with a better way how cruisers are supposed to deal with enemies that have at least half a brain cell. RN CL AP is lackluster, SAP will get people complaining about how even heavily angled they got slapped for 10-20k alpha and if you'd make a cruiser that was reliably able to torp rush BBs, that'd be one hell of a riot.

 

And British cruisers don't hide behind islands and spam HE because they are the most insane island campers or HE spammers ever. But when you look at their AP performance on BBs and at their armour scheme, what do you expec? As is, cruisers that can play in the open will play in the open, but if you want cruisers to play in the open and not camp islands, they might need some armour buffs that aren't already laughed at by half the enemies the cruisers encounter. Like, nice 25 m deck you get there now, Shchors. Not like most of your ship still is free citadel and over half the same tier BBs don't even care about the buffed deck armour. Noone in higher tiers does.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[S-O-M]
Players
657 posts
1 hour ago, Bunny_Lover_Kallen said:

And British cruisers don't hide behind islands and spam HE because they are the most insane island campers or HE spammers ever. But when you look at their AP performance on BBs and at their armour scheme, what do you expec?

??. As mentioned Brit CA’s are forced to hide behind an island and because WG actively encourages HE spamming, helped by bb levels of lack lustre AP, wot is one to do 😉.

 

I disagree re fire starting abilities, for the hipper etc AP is encouraged and fire chance around 16%.  The Smolensk was the biggest culprit again WG could have curtailed this by having slower reload, less range and more importantly lower firing arks.

 

To the matter in hand BB secondaries are fine, WG are to blame for the HE spamming; just make AP more consistent !.  Cruiser secondaries should however be buffed to around 6-7 km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
226 posts
13,523 battles
9 hours ago, T0L0S said:

 

Yes because BB's need a buff right.....

 

25 minutes ago, MadBadDave said:

To the matter in hand BB secondaries are fine, WG are to blame for the HE spamming; just make AP more consistent !.  Cruiser secondaries should however be buffed to around 6-7 km.

If secondaries are so fine why don't we see more secondary BBs? We have seen huge numbers of GKs with the latest buff.

They barely ever come into secondary range and when they do its my secondary BB catching him and he doesn't even have a secondary build. Just normal tank build.

IFHE secondary builds just toke a huge nerf with fire chance. Now they have to revert back to fire starter builds that can be very ineffective against some targets and is totally RNG based.

 

Secondary builds are hugely expensive in captain points and much more difficult to master in current meta.

A normal tank build is effective 100% of every game you play.

A secondary build is only effective about 10-25% of the games if u get into secondary range and that is not easy to achieve in current meta. In many games with lots of HE burners around it can be very discouraging to even try this gamestyle.

You can choose a build that is always effective and another build that is very situational and much more difficult to get actual value for captain points. WG has failed to balance the whole gamestyle. While secondary BBs can dish out tons of damage it is far more difficult to actually get into position to do this.

 

I agree on the cruiser secondary buff. No harm in it and could add a new playstyle.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L4GG]
Players
3,470 posts
11,259 battles
10 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

 

I wouldnt even wonder, if we get BBabies complaining more about fires now. If the average player thinks, IFHE is bad now, naturally, they have more firechance than before. Direct damage never was an issue for BBabies, they cry about fires...

yeap. I'm crying too.

There's something wrong, when I take my trustful BBs to do the fire missions /ribbons missions.:Smile_sad:

Which are the best HE spammer BBs t6 onwards? Are they decent?

Conqueror, I'm going for  Conqueror.

 

Where can I get my fires?

 

I'm crying now

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L4GG]
Players
3,470 posts
11,259 battles
12 hours ago, Hackerxe said:

When are you going to compensate the BB's with longer range secondaries to slow down  and defend against the "machine gun" CA?  the change in inertia and set fire IN 9.2 HAS DONE NOTHING to improve this issue

yeap, it did.

I'm thinking of dropping FP of all my BBs.

the IFHE nerf was efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×