Rudder nerf - Overdone balance AGAIN

[Captain_Edwards]

Right yes turning rates prior to this latest patch were far far too high. It was making BB act better than cruisers for manoeuvring. It needed nerfing. However WG has yet again shown that its so called "balance" department are not paying attention to the game whatsoever. The only saving grace of a US BB was its turning circle, because its so slow. 21 knots is a pitiful speed compared to all the other tech trees. But it was offset by the ships having "good" turning.

 

Today's patch has ruined balance for US BB's. Rather than reducing the turn rates in a gradual fashion to find the "Sweet Spot", WG has taken a hammer to it and just moved it all back to 3.0. With crap speed and now an ridiculously slow turn rate, US BB are sitting ducks for torpedo attacks. The old "manual drop from 2 foot" tactic is back again and entirely unavoidable. And I dont mean evading all the torps, I just mean evading them period. As of yet I cannot make an informed statement as to IJN BB as I have only one game so far this patch with a Fuso. However in 3.0 it was not that "bad" for IJN, but definately tricky. So I would assume its similar again.

 

The sensible thing to have done would have been to reduce the turning rates to the mid-point between 3.0 and 3.1. Not too agile, and not too clumsy. From there its even easier to find a good balance between a ships ability to change direction, and keeping it as a viable potential target for torpedo attacks. But nope, that is too sensible for WG's "balance dude". We have CV balance that is completely screwed up, completely whacky fire mechanics, and now US BB are all garbage at turning.

 

In point of fact the only ship that does not suffer this fate is the Warspite. She still has good rudder capabilities compared to the others and feels ok.

 

As a older adult, I would never normally say this kind of thing but in this instance and at this supposed stage of development, WG's "balance" staff need changing. Not fired, just give the job to someone who can actually pay attention to the gameplay and not just "metrics".

[Zaods]

to be honest the smartest guys i've faced against are still able to dodge 3/4 torps per spread like it was before this change

[Captain_Edwards]

to be honest the smartest guys i've faced against are still able to dodge 3/4 torps per spread like it was before this change

 

Of a single spread, that can be done with enough warning. However with the IJN fielding 3 TP squadrons, the chances of you avoiding 3/4 of three spreads is pretty much zero. Particularly with a manual drop. Even evading a tight spread of DD/CA torps at under 10k is a nightmare now, rather than the "hard task" it should be imo. Torp sniping and torp walls are going to be all the rage again.

[Zaods]

 

Of a single spread, that can be done with enough warning. However with the IJN fielding 3 TP squadrons, the chances of you avoiding 3/4 of three spreads is pretty much zero. Particularly with a manual drop. Even evading a tight spread of DD/CA torps at under 10k is a nightmare now, rather than the "hard task" it should be imo. Torp sniping and torp walls are going to be all the rage again.

 

depends if the cv guy wants to go with a hammen and anvil approach will probably completly miss the first spread and then land the other 2 relatively consinstently but if somebody drops 3 spread together at the same angle everything smaller than a north carolina in the us BB tree will take 1 torp per spread accounting in 3 torps which is pretty bad ... i mean let's be real here for a second tho what do you really want ? you should be able to dodge all incoming torps dropped from planes + the aa which is strong on us bbs and works like an aura not accounting the position and angle of the actual AA guns ? ... something like a new mexico is short enough that if she turns into the torps and starts turning the moment the torps are dropped in the water talking about manual drops at the closes possible distance to have your torps to arm will still be hit by only one torp in a single spread .. that is for ijn carriers ... for us carriers is easy as [edited]to hit anything it was before the patch and it still is now

[Captain_Edwards]

Personally all I want is a fair chance between the recipient of the torps and the person delivering them. What I dislike is the "instant nuke" effect of dropping manually with multiple spreads as there is no recourse for the ship being attacked. What I would do or like, I am not sure yet. Possibly just a rudder shift time tweak without any increase in actual turn angle. IE Just a little better response. Or maybe make the panic mechanic a small aoe effect, so that tp's in tight groups that are fired upon by aa all get affected rather than just the targeted squad. Since its flak it should work that way with it suppressing all units in its cone of fire.

[Zaods]

Personally all I want is a fair chance between the recipient of the torps and the person delivering them. What I dislike is the "instant nuke" effect of dropping manually with multiple spreads as there is no recourse for the ship being attacked. What I would do or like, I am not sure yet. Possibly just a rudder shift time tweak without any increase in actual turn angle. IE Just a little better response.

 

3 torps is an instant nuke ? it takes around 10 torps sometimes more to sink a bb with aerial torps and to land that many torps in a single attack the bb must be sailing in a straight line and afk

[Captain_Edwards]

If it was a single torp per drop I would not be here mentioning it. 1 per drop is not what is currently happening though. Its 2-3 hits per drop, because no matter how the US bb now turns, the aircraft can simply turn to compensate and drop. The turn rate is no longer sufficient to give you any wiggle room.

[Fominator]

Personally all I want is a fair chance between the recipient of the torps and the person delivering them. What I dislike is the "instant nuke" effect of dropping manually with multiple spreads as there is no recourse for the ship being attacked.

 

What an amazing statement from a BB player.

[Captain_Edwards]

 

What an amazing statement from a BB player.

 

How so? I do not want any "nerf" on CV's because they really need some balancing done properly. I simply feel the rudder rates now, when comined with the slow speed of the US BB is an extreme liability. One that the ships do not make up for in either firepower or range.

 

Also while BB may be my most played class, its not my only class. I currently have 16 ships, of multiple classes. 2 CV / 4 CA / 3 DD / 7 BB ( first tree's I went with)

[Zaods]

If it was a single torp per drop I would not be here mentioning it. 1 per drop is not what is currently happening though. Its 2-3 hits per drop, because no matter how the US bb now turns, the aircraft can simply turn to compensate and drop. The turn rate is no longer sufficient to give you any wiggle room.

 

if i were to keep on moving my planes around to follow the still pretty fast turning compared to any other large ship in the game that us bbs have i would do nothing else but leaving my planes mor einto the aa aura those ships have and jap planes have pretty lowe durability ending up in my planes getting shot down ... a colorado with the last hull for example will eat my torp squads for breakfast circling around it really is not going to help my cause. I still don't understand why people keep wanting the ability to nullify any damage coming from torps ... can i have a turn rate buff on my carrier too then ? seriously my shoukaku's turning radius is 1130m ... oh and give me some automatic guns that shoot down incoming shells please. Jokes aside carrier gameplay is really hard to balance here and the reason why this is hard is because this game is not ment for carriers this is pretty much a ww1 game where big ships duke it out with big guns at firly short ranges with carriers forcefully shoved in it because it's a ww2 game by name. Even tho i love them i'll be ok with saying remove them from this game because they just don't fit in the game ...big ships will stop "feeling cheated" by the torp bombers and the circlenerfing of carriers will stop ... right now jap carriers especially between t6 and 7 are more frustrating than fun

[Captain_Edwards]

Yes you can have a rudder upgrade, that is entirely my point. Its not JUST the US ships, I am simply pointing out how this change has nullified this tree's effectiveness up to T7+. I should have stated that better really. I would like all ships to have the rates at a half way point between 3.0 and 3.1, not just US ships nor just BB. As I had not played that carrier I had no idea of its turn radius previously.

 

Do you feel like it should have a better turn radius as a matter of balance above what I suggest? Or is that just what you hope for?

[Zaods]

Yes you can have a rudder upgrade, that is entirely my point. Its not JUST the US ships, I am simply pointing out how this change has nullified this tree's effectiveness up to T7+. I should have stated that better really. I would like all ships to have the rates at a half way point between 3.0 and 3.1, not just US ships nor just BB. As I had not played that carrier I had no idea of its turn radius previously.

 

Do you feel like it should have a better turn radius as a matter of balance above what I suggest? Or is that just what you hope for?

well my point regarding the turning radius of carriers is that previously big carriers were already pretty sluggish ... as they should be but shoukaku went form 840m of turning radius to 1130m and this makes her an incredibly easy target for carrier sniping at the start of the match because she also has weak aa i'm pretty much forced to bring fighters to defend myself now which indirectly affects the damage of my carrier because i carry less bombers same story for hiryuu

[Captain_Edwards]

That is imo a pretty drastic difference in turn radius. Several hundreds meters is not to be taken lightly. Well as per your example, my suggested turn radius would be 985m, 50% of the change. Do you think that would be roughly in the ball park you would expect for that carrier?

[Zaods]

That is imo a pretty drastic difference in turn radius. Several hundreds meters is not to be taken lightly. Well as per your example, my suggested turn radius would be 985m, 50% of the change. Do you think that would be roughly in the ball park you would expect for that carrier?

 

it's a 267 meters long ship it sounds about right ... tbh imo the real problem with turning radiuses is that when put in prospective with the scaling of the map they look completly off you get what i mean ?

[Captain_Edwards]

 

it's a 267 meters long ship it sounds about right ... tbh imo the real problem with turning radiuses is that when put in prospective with the scaling of the map they look completly off you get what i mean ?

 

Yes indeed I know what you mean. On ocean it doesnt seem so bad as the lack of terrain makes it appear more "to scale" then it is.

[Nechrom]

I think they could bring down the rudder shift time slightly for BBs but also increase their turning radius at the same time. Right now it's all about starting the turn early enough since the turning radius of BBs is still crazy small.

Currently my Ibuki (tier IX CA) has the same turning radius as my Nagato (tier VII BB) and my Kagero (tier IX DD) has the same turning radius as my New Mexico (tier VI BB). The difference is only the rudder shift time, which I think shouldn't be the case.

[Captain_Edwards]

I think they could bring down the rudder shift time slightly for BBs but also increase their turning radius at the same time. Right now it's all about starting the turn early enough since the turning radius of BBs is still crazy small.

Currently my Ibuki (tier IX CA) has the same turning radius as my Nagato (tier VII BB) and my Kagero (tier IX DD) has the same turning radius as my New Mexico (tier VI BB). The difference is only the rudder shift time, which I think shouldn't be the case.

 

Indeed. Its a combination of both the radii changes and the shift time changes happening at the one time which makes it all feel "wonky" to me. Tbh any similar suggestion to my own at this point is welcomed and I would accept as an alternative. I am not fussy as to how its done, I rather more concerned about how it plays out.

[Zaods]

 

Yes indeed I know what you mean. On ocean it doesnt seem so bad as the lack of terrain makes it appear more "to scale" then it is.

 

before the patch a new mexico had some 540 turning radius but in the game behaved differently it could actually turn in less than the length of the said ship which means that the ships ingame are actually huge because that would require the said new mexico to be about 600 meters long which well shouldn't be the case

[m4inbrain]

While i agree that the nerf was quite harsh (still seen plenty of CV players complaining, who would've thought), at least New York and New Mexico still turn, well.. "decent-ish" (with -20% rudder shift time module). Not enough to avoid full spreads, but at least some torps - especially DD based. 

 

On the other hand, citadelling got out of hand. I played today: Furutaka, New York, New Mexico and Cleveland - no game under 4-5 citadel hits. I actually killed an Aoba (same tier as my Cleveland for the lesser knowledgable) in three salvos. Three. Salvos. Of  a Cleveland. And deleted a Wyoming in my New Mexico (onehit). While i thoroughly enjoy that, how much you wanna bet that the AP buff gets reverted while the ruddershift time stays?

 

 

[Zaods]

While i agree that the nerf was quite harsh (still seen plenty of CV players complaining, who would've thought), at least New York and New Mexico still turn, well.. "decent-ish" (with -20% rudder shift time module). Not enough to avoid full spreads, but at least some torps - especially DD based. 

 

On the other hand, citadelling got out of hand. I played today: Furutaka, New York, New Mexico and Cleveland - no game under 4-5 citadel hits. I actually killed an Aoba (same tier as my Cleveland for the lesser knowledgable) in three salvos. Three. Salvos. Of  a Cleveland. And deleted a Wyoming in my New Mexico (onehit). While i thoroughly enjoy that, how much you wanna bet that the AP buff gets reverted while the ruddershift time stays?

 

 

 

the turn rate we had before the patch was ridiculos any player of any class with some sense will agree with that

[m4inbrain]

 

the turn rate we had before the patch was ridiculos any player of any class with some sense will agree with that

 

Would someone with "some sense" also suggest to nerf it even further? 

 

I suppose not. Hint: with current TB mechanics, or torpedo mechanics in general, it would be literally (and not the exaggerating literally, but actually literally) impossible to dodge any incoming torpedo. Is that "sense" to you? If my ship goes in a straight line for more than two shiplengths (which is what you're suggesting), a TB attack is a guaranteed hit. 

 

Otherwise, feel free to quote me where i said that the turnrate before patch was okay, because obviously you felt the need to tell me that it was ridiculous, countering an argument that i didn't make. In fact, i said, the turning circles at the moment are "okay-ish". A nerf was needed, but not this heavy handed. 

 

 

[Zaods]

 

Would someone with "some sense" also suggest to nerf it even further? 

 

I suppose not. Hint: with current TB mechanics, or torpedo mechanics in general, it would be literally (and not the exaggerating literally, but actually literally) impossible to dodge any incoming torpedo. Is that "sense" to you? If my ship goes in a straight line for more than two shiplengths (which is what you're suggesting), a TB attack is a guaranteed hit. 

 

Otherwise, feel free to quote me where i said that the turnrate before patch was okay, because obviously you felt the need to tell me that it was ridiculous, countering an argument that i didn't make. In fact, i said, the turning circles at the moment are "okay-ish". A nerf was needed, but not this heavy handed. 

 

 

 

i am not suggesting the ship to go in a straight line is about the turning radiu what the hell did you smoke ... regardless you took what i said competly off contest my point wasn't that the ship should be turning in 3 times more space but the fact that the ships shuould be much smaller than they are right now and everything related to them at the moment of course which would also fix the fact that some maps are really really small ... what is off is the scale that's what i was proving with my previous statement regarding the ship dimensions .. but you just took it out of contest just to try to reinforce your crusade against the big bad wolf that is whoever enjoys carriers

[m4inbrain]

What? You do realise how scale works, right?

 

Please explain to me where the difference is between increasing the turning radius, or scaling the ship down to fit the current one? Let me help you, since it's obviously not clear. It's exactly(!) the same. Now what happens if you, let's say, double or rather triple (to be realistic-ish) the turning radius of current ships? Let me help you again: it will go straight or in a very shallow angle for much longer. It HAS to, i don't understand how that's not obvious.

 

PS: i don't think you know what a crusade is. I criticised that the strongest class ingame got even stronger, yes. And i countered your point of suggesting to make them even MORE so. If you can't deal with opposing opinions, maybe a forum is not the right place for you.

 

edit: after your edit, which made your posting somewhat more readable - i'm not sure if you're trying to say that the  turning radius would also scale down, which would make even less sense because the ship then STILL would turn at half its length?

[Captain_Edwards]

Please leave the handbags at the doors ladies. We want a mature gentlemanly discourse here.

 

[m4inbrain]

I'm trying to. This time it wasn't me getting riled up like a girl, like when we were arguing.