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

Suggestion: Allow up to 2 Capital Ships in Clan Battles

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SVX]
Players
29 posts
3,952 battles

Although the introduction of Carriers in Clan Battles have been one of the most controversial changes to the game I'd like to start this post by stating how much I, as a CV-Main, enjoy being able to participate in Clan Battles in my favorite class of ships. I believe that allowing all classes to be a part of the core game modes (Random-, Ranked- & Clan Battles) is the right decision.

 

I do however feel that the "1 capital ship limit" per team hits BB-players especially hard due to the amount of utility CVs bring to the table. 

 

Allowing a Clan to bring a maximum of 2 Capital Ships, with CVs being limited to 1 per team, has the possibility of making the Meta far less static. Being able to bring 2 BBs in order to setup a very deadly crossfire could outweigh the insane spotting brought by the CV.


Increasing the amount of Capital Ships allowed per team would also allow more varied team compositions.

 

Most teams currently tend to bring either 1 CV & 6 CAs or 1 BB, 5 CAs & 1 DD where hard hitters like Stalingrad and Venezia are a common sight. Additionally, teams would have less reasons to stack damage dealers, like the ones mentioned, to offset the low amount of BBs and could afford to bring more dds or utility oriented cruisers instead.

 

It would be interesting to hear the communitys opinions on this topic.

 

Happy hunting to you all!

ColaholicA

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
6,749 posts
15,261 battles

As a low league DD main, I wouldn't object to this, provided CVs were hardest of hard-capped at one.

 

Frankly, for a DD, extra BBs are the very least of my worries...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PANEU]
Beta Tester
1,973 posts
13,611 battles

It should need bigger teams not just 7 for healthy map coverage, otherwise its gonna be blob vs blob shootout every game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHEFT]
Players
12,569 posts
9,841 battles

So basicly replace a Stalingrad with a BB because why not.

Also i cant see, how 2 BBs/1BB+CV would make squishy cruisers more viable. The "downside" of Stalingrad is, that it cant overmatch Cruiser armor, but if you have a BB again, then you can do just that. Combined with CV spotting, that sounds pretty horrible to me.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SVX]
Players
29 posts
3,952 battles
52 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

So basicly replace a Stalingrad with a BB because why not.

Also i cant see, how 2 BBs/1BB+CV would make squishy cruisers more viable. The "downside" of Stalingrad is, that it cant overmatch Cruiser armor, but if you have a BB again, then you can do just that. Combined with CV spotting, that sounds pretty horrible to me.

In my experience teams with CVs choose more often than not to forego kiting oriented ships such as Zao, Henri, Hindenburg and most DDs due to the fact that the team would loose too much long range firepower. Allowing additional BBs would open up the possibility of including a larger variety of ships thanks to having that extra punch.

 

One could try bringing more torpedo oriented DDs to counter the BBs if they become too much of a threat.

 

I believe that having a larger selection of ship types to choose from could allow greater amount of variation in the lineups of clans.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHEFT]
Players
12,569 posts
9,841 battles
6 minutes ago, ColaholicA said:

I believe that having a more varied selection of ship types to choose from could allow a larger amount of variation in the lineups of clans.

 

Im not disagreeing with that, but there is a simple way to fix this: (and only adding a BB in the mix wont make DDs more viable either, because with a DD, you lack firepower)

- Remove CVs

Done

 

Its entirely the CVs fault, that CBs evolved into

Hakuryu

Stalingrad

Venezia

the occasional Halland, maybe here and there a PR (which might be lack of Stalingrad)

 

17 minutes ago, ColaholicA said:

In my experience teams with CVs choose more often than not to forego kiting oriented ships such as Zao, Henri, Hindenburg and most DDs due to the fact that the team would loose too much long range firepower. Allowing additional BBs would open up the possibility of including a larger variety of ships thanks to having that extra punch.

 

Its not about losing firepower, its about that those ships cant disengange or have less armor/health than others. Venezia can disengage from CVs with smoke, it can get caps too, insane damage potential with that SAP basicly 10-15k on any target and the armor is quite trollish. Also great range (with spotter its same as Stalingrad) and pretty fast shells. Stalingrad on the other hand has good armor, good shells and tons of HP + long duration DefAA. A CV striking a pack of Stalingrads will lose planes.

A CV is able to reset or spot any ship in a cap, unless it has a smoke. That already limits the options quite a bit. Smolensk? No armor, no health, HE pen is bad against TX Cruisers. Mino? AP only, bad range, floaty shells, and again no armor with huge citadel. DDs? get spotted by CVs, cant do much else because they bring 0 firepower, even getting into torprange is often not possible with a CV, unless its >15km like Halland, Gearing, Shima. And even then, lack of firepower is still an issue. Halland is the only one, which atleast will cost the CV some planes if he is backing up other ships with AA.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
14,813 posts
21,406 battles

Nah guys, clearly what we need is 2 CVs per team. :Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BABBY]
Players
794 posts
11,395 battles
8 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Nah guys, clearly what we need is 2 CVs per team. :Smile_trollface:

Make it 7 vs 7, so there's less of them in randoms. Not that i play randoms but i'm sure this would be a popular move :Smile_veryhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NEXT]
Players
5,954 posts
11,997 battles
58 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Its entirely the CVs fault, that CBs evolved into

Hakuryu

Stalingrad

Venezia

the occasional Halland, maybe here and there a PR (which might be lack of Stalingrad)

Full Stalingrad teams existed before the implementation of CVs in CBs. There was just a DD instead of a CV

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHEFT]
Players
12,569 posts
9,841 battles
1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Full Stalingrad teams existed before the implementation of CVs in CBs. There was just a DD instead of a CV

 

yeah because some clan tried it before, doesnt make it succesfull btw. Ive also seen 7 Harugumo setups before...

It wouldnt make sense to run full Stalingrad setup, because it could be easily countered. However now with CVs, Stalingrad/Venezia mix seems to be a huge success and you basicly have to run it because everyone is doing it. The only difference is amount of Venezias. Some even try full Venezia.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TAP-]
Players
353 posts
8,744 battles
23 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Why not make it a real choice: 1 CV or 2 BB.

To be honest I do think this general concept is a good way to both give a genuine choice of which classes to bring, and also allow for more variations in ship choices.

 

I was idly wondering this afternoon about options, my thoughts were 6 slots for any cruiser/destroyer and then one slot which can be used for one of the following choices:

 

- a CV

- a battleship and a destroyer.

- a cruiser and two destroyers. Or maybe two cruisers and one destroyer, not quite sure.

 

At least then the team choosing CV has a harder job preventing a push.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UA-NF]
Players
511 posts
8,203 battles
Vor 6 Stunden, DFens_666 sagte:

Also i cant see, how 2 BBs/1BB+CV would make squishy cruisers more viable. The "downside" of Stalingrad is, that it cant overmatch Cruiser armor, but if you have a BB again, then you can do just that. Combined with CV spotting, that sounds pretty horrible to me.

one BB per team restriction doesn't make any sence in a first place... One ship per team with gun caliber over 300mm, that might bring some variety to clan battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SVX]
Players
29 posts
3,952 battles
5 hours ago, Pandafaust said:

To be honest I do think this general concept is a good way to both give a genuine choice of which classes to bring, and also allow for more variations in ship choices.

 

I was idly wondering this afternoon about options, my thoughts were 6 slots for any cruiser/destroyer and then one slot which can be used for one of the following choices:

 

- a CV

- a battleship and a destroyer.

- a cruiser and two destroyers. Or maybe two cruisers and one destroyer, not quite sure.

 

At least then the team choosing CV has a harder job preventing a push.

Introducing some kind of "Weight System" in combination with a more lenient cap on ships could be an interesting way to balance Clan Battles.

 

Let's say that each team gets 1000 points with a maximum of 10 players allowed. For examole the weight of each class could be something like this:

 

CV: 300 (Capped to 1 or 2 per team)

BB: 150

CA/CL: 100

DD 50

 

One could even have different weights for individual ships.

 

A system like this could allow clans to tailor their team to their preferred ship types and playstyles.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHEFT]
Players
12,569 posts
9,841 battles
52 minutes ago, Perekotypole said:

one BB per team restriction doesn't make any sence in a first place... One ship per team with gun caliber over 300mm, that might bring some variety to clan battles.

 

Not really sure about that... this season is more and more about Venezias, so it wouldnt really have much effect there.

Previous seasons, people would use Moskva instead of Stalingrad. But noone would use a Stalingrad instead of a BB. Also running Stalingrad only setups didnt make you invincible, there were enough ships that could easily deal with them, but a CV makes it close to impossible this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,253 posts
30,162 battles
9 hours ago, Perekotypole said:

one BB per team restriction doesn't make any sence in a first place... One ship per team with gun caliber over 300mm, that might bring some variety to clan battles.

 

This won't work with a CV. Last night me meet first 1 CV + 6 Venezia team. Not having any ship with caliber over 300mm didn't affected them at all.

 

14 hours ago, Pandafaust said:

I was idly wondering this afternoon about options, my thoughts were 6 slots for any cruiser/destroyer and then one slot which can be used for one of the following choices:

 

- a CV

- a battleship and a destroyer.

- a cruiser and two destroyers. Or maybe two cruisers and one destroyer, not quite sure.

 

So basically you are saying every team what composition they need to have, they only have to choose a ship for every slot. This will remove all variations in team composition. For example this way would still not make DM or HIV or Zao more viable then Venezia or SG, simple because there is still a CV present and with CV you want something that either has a great range on guns and way to either tank, lot of HP, of fast disengage, like Venezia smoke. Present pf BB will just make this even more obvious. 

 

You can't try to force variety, teams are using ships why they are thinking that suit them the best. And people are using other ships like Hindy or Goliath, some occasional Smolensk and Moskva here and there, even some wild Mino, HIV and DM. But SG and Venezia are by far more represented then any of them simply because they are more generally suited when there is a CV. I mean every team composition could work sometimes but it could not work consistently and that is a problem. Even all DD team could work but it is not viable on long terms. 

 

unknown.thumb.png.24bab2374f0359fa859e6f02eab239ab.png

 

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TAP-]
Players
353 posts
8,744 battles
17 minutes ago, fumtu said:

This will remove all variations in team composition.

In what way is the current system an improvement on it?  Realistically, everyone sane picks a CV, and then 6 other ships (which have to be cruisers/destroyers).  That pick's still available in the system I mentioned, but so is swapping the CV out for a greater number of individualy less effective ships.  At a certain point, that number balances out the advantage of having a CV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
[JRM]
Players
7,675 posts
17 hours ago, ColaholicA said:

Although the introduction of Carriers in Clan Battles have been one of the most controversial changes to the game I'd like to start this post by stating how much I, as a CV-Main, enjoy being able to participate in Clan Battles in my favorite class of ships. I believe that allowing all classes to be a part of the core game modes (Random-, Ranked- & Clan Battles) is the right decision.

 

I do however feel that the "1 capital ship limit" per team hits BB-players especially hard due to the amount of utility CVs bring to the table. 

 

Allowing a Clan to bring a maximum of 2 Capital Ships, with CVs being limited to 1 per team, has the possibility of making the Meta far less static. Being able to bring 2 BBs in order to setup a very deadly crossfire could outweigh the insane spotting brought by the CV.


Increasing the amount of Capital Ships allowed per team would also allow more varied team compositions.

 

Most teams currently tend to bring either 1 CV & 6 CAs or 1 BB, 5 CAs & 1 DD where hard hitters like Stalingrad and Venezia are a common sight. Additionally, teams would have less reasons to stack damage dealers, like the ones mentioned, to offset the low amount of BBs and could afford to bring more dds or utility oriented cruisers instead.

 

It would be interesting to hear the communitys opinions on this topic.

 

Happy hunting to you all!

ColaholicA

Dont worry M8 I have a sneaking suspition nexr CB season will be 8vs8 with 2 capital ship slots you can fill with either CV+BB or 2 BBs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OCTO]
Players
393 posts
8,422 battles
17 hours ago, ColaholicA said:

I do however feel that the "1 capital ship limit" per team hits BB-players especially hard due to the amount of utility CVs bring to the table.

You need teams of at least 8 members to include both BB and CV. 

For me the 8v8 season with the 2 BB limit was the most interesting because it included many different lineups that could work but that one did not had CVs.

I am sure WeeGee will analyze this season with the CV, which took out from the composition many T10s, and almost the whole DD class except for Halland.

Plus I think many clans struggles to get 7 players at CB times, one more will take them out from the battles which I don't want to happen.

We shall live the coronateams and see a wise decision from WeeGee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,253 posts
30,162 battles
9 minutes ago, Pandafaust said:

In what way is the current system an improvement on it?

 

Did I said anywhere that current system is good? I think it is bad too. But that doesn't make system you proposed any better.  You want to compensate a CV with a cruiser and two destroyers? Well then, just pick SG or Venezia and two Hallands and you team has numerical advantage which one CV could not compensate. Your system is not balanced at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PN4VY]
Players
358 posts
7,090 battles
17 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Also i cant see, how 2 BBs/1BB+CV would make squishy cruisers more viable.

It doesn't.
He is just bad and cant dodge flak and aim properly yet.
Check his cv stats

His whole OP could be translated to "please allow more bbs so i can finally hit something in cbs"

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RO-RN]
Players
944 posts
13,647 battles

I would rather see a wot style clan wars tested into WOWS. Territories to conqueror and which can generate gold,12 players if not then 9. All premium.special.reward ships restricted from clan wars and even from ranked or any competitive game mode, wot already has started to do this why not here the same? People can no play anything but ohio,somers,stalingrads?

Even more rules:when you are in the semi-finals for that territory and you lose your ship in battle or just lose your battle, then that ship which you played gets blocked for 24-72 hours.

Play with the ship setup,you can run only destroyers, or 2 cruisers,3 dds,and 4 battleships or 2 BBs,3 cruisers and 4 destroyers. As it is right now clan wars is quite boring to play, why not force people to play the same ships a season just for testing purposes, everyone gets to have the same setup,credit ship only included.

PS:stop restricting clan wars to only T10 ships.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PRT]
Players
197 posts
8,521 battles

Think 7 Cvs in each team would be great. In their own CV Clan Battle-leauge.

In my opinion it was a BIG mistake to let CVs into Clan Battles, hope they will be taken out of it again. The sooner the better. :Smile_izmena:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SVX]
Players
29 posts
3,952 battles
2 hours ago, Ouzo11 said:

It doesn't.
He is just bad and cant dodge flak and aim properly yet.
Check his cv stats

His whole OP could be translated to "please allow more bbs so i can finally hit something in cbs"

Contrary to what one might gleam from my average damage done in CVs I have no issues hitting neither CAs or DDs. I tend to focus the above mentioned targets in randoms since focusing on farming BBs is silly.

 

The origins of why I want to allow more BBs is that currently our Clan favors CVs over BBs, making our BB players forced to play something they enjoy less. I want all classes to be represented in Random-, Ranked- as well as Clan Battles.

 

I also fail to see how pointing out my stats bring anything to this conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PN4VY]
Players
358 posts
7,090 battles
5 minutes ago, ColaholicA said:

Contrary to what one might gleam from my average damage done in CVs I have no issues hitting neither CAs or DDs. I tend to focus the above mentioned targets in randoms since focusing on farming BBs is silly.

Meanwhile your PR says otherwise.
 

 

6 minutes ago, ColaholicA said:

I also fail to see how pointing out my stats bring anything to this conversation.

Every opinion and suggestion comes from the players background.
Stats are sometimes a good pointer to this background.
 

Share this post


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

×