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

The Pointlessness of BB Modules

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[RNNUK]
Players
90 posts
2,568 battles

How many people’s BB module builds look like this or some minor variation?

 

  1. Main Battery
  2. Damage Con
  3. Aiming Systems
  4. Damage Con
  5. Concealment
  6. Main battery 

 

I imagine this might have been said before but I think the modules are badly setup, there’s basically no choices for being competitive. This because secondary modules always compete with main battery (mods 1, 3 and 6), main battery is just stronger & more important (possibility of killing instantly rather than over time) so it’s never ‘better’ to pick them. Fires are easy to set and hard to avoid/counter so you have to take any modules that can help you there (2 & 4). And concealment is so essential to the game I don’t really see any reasonable module competing with it. 

I think the whole thing needs to ordering to actually give some strategic choice rather than just being a credit & doubloon sink (probably the real point? But it can do both WG). I think in an ideal world there should be 3 competitive options in each slot.
 

  1. Mainly the issue is how this synergises with later modules, but another competitive option would be good (ideas?). 
  2. Trouble with this one is that fire resistance is needed so badly on BBs. It’s hard to make something that’s competitive with it. Maybe remove it or move it elsewhere?
  3. This one can be easily fixed, just make it like the American BBs. I think this is in every way a better layout and part of the reason secondary builds are more competitive on American BBs like the Georgia. 
  4. This is the best module slot of choice now I think, the Damage con module is weaker and the steering or acceleration modules are useful on some BBs to a competitive level (in my opinion). For example steering on Bismarck (makes it handle well enough to avoid a decent amount of fires).
  5. The worst slot… nothing competes with concealment it’s just too useful. Even though the consumables module is good it still does not compete (e.g. who cares if you get 10% more heal when you don’t even take the damage in the first place because your not spotted). I think the consumables module would have to start dishing out 50% bonus’s before it would be a serious consideration. Just give every ship (can probably be applied to all, not just BBs) 10% considered and put something else here. Alternatively the damage con 1 module could be buffed (a lot) and moved here, that would be competitive with concealment and would be a difficult choice for bb players (but might just end up being a nerf to all BBs for this reason). Any better solutions?
  6. Again, make it like the Americans. The point is you can reasonably have main battery and secondaries. 
     

I am not sure these are the best solutions, I just wanted to make the point on how stale this part of the game is. The commander rework gets a lot of (probably deserved) flank, but I think these are just as bad. 

 

 

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
4,415 posts
16,477 battles

I actually started writing a post about this a few days ago....

 

I am amazed that WG have barely touched  modules and we're left with some that are vastly better than others.

 

The biggest ones for me are slot 3,5 and 6.

 

Slot 3 is aiming systems on all battleships that can take it.

If you take secondary mod you gain 15% secondary range and 15% dispersion over the aiming systems mod in exchanged for -7% main battery dispersion. So double the benefit for weapons you use rarely, Main guns, you use from start to finish. I think secondary mod needs a buff, 30% range and dispersion  might be about right. AA guns mod also needs a buff as right now it's the worst pick.

 

Slot 5: This slot is concealment, what else is as beneficial? I do not see the consumables mod or torpedo lookout as viable at all.

 

Slot 6: Few battleships struggle with range so main battery reload is the module to go for. The Auxiliaries modification  does provide a good boost to secondaries and AA but really, the boost needs to be bigger as you sacrifice the guns you are using for the whole battle for weaponry  you use only occasionally.

 

You correct about the Americans, With no aiming systems 1, the choice for module 3 could easily be turret traverse or secondaries depending on the ship. Similarly, The sixth slot  is 11% dispersion vs 12% reload, a choice where both are good. Though -11% dispersion is worth far more than 12% reload, remember dead eye?

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[INTRO]
Players
919 posts
19,847 battles

Upgrades do not exist to provide variety, but to make you burn credits or use gold (f2p microtransactions:cap_money:) every time you go up a tier.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[_X_]
Beta Tester
18 posts
8,017 battles

Its not BB modules - its ALL modules.

 

Most modules are generic. bland and required as you MUST run them to be competitive whichever class of ship and WG may as well just remove modules and add default sets into the ships tech tree for credits (survival BB build, Secondary BB build etc.)... giving the same general abilities and streamlining the system.

 

The only module that really needs changing is the concealment module, and that needs to be changed via its removal from the game... tier 8-10 ships are almost always physically larger, faster and with heavier armament than the tiers below - so why do tier 6 & 7 ships get utterly spanked by their big brothers who possess a magical/nonsense module that lets them get the first salvo off too?,  Prior to tier 8 if your ship is a higher tier in matchmaking you just accept you've got worse concealment than lower tier opponents (generally, there are always exceptions to prove the rule).

 

Removal of the concealment module wouldn't affect anyone (apart from a few tier 8 DD's who actually have to outplay tier 7 DD's rather than rely on magic invisibility) as all ships universally would take a concealment hit at high tiers so cruisers and DDs would still be sneakier than same tier BBs and this would also make the other pointless modules at slot 5 suddenly relevant - do you run torp lookout on your BB or extra consumables etc (and other classes too obviously).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[EST]
[EST]
Players
1,645 posts
29,200 battles

Ok, since you asked for it, nerfs to good ones incoming 5...4...3...2...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[EXCEL]
Players
100 posts
14,614 battles

Skipping forward a few Months and Modul rework will be here -> changes? They will cost Doblones now :Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
4,415 posts
16,477 battles
29 minutes ago, Profilus said:

Ok, since you asked for it, nerfs to good ones incoming 5...4...3...2...

I wouldn't mind that, I just want a choice. To pick secondaries and not worry about gimping my main guns too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RNNUK]
Players
90 posts
2,568 battles
1 hour ago, herrjott said:

Upgrades do not exist to provide variety, but to make you burn credits or use gold (f2p microtransactions:cap_money:) every time you go up a tier.

I agree. I don’t actually have much of a problem with this as it is the nature of these free to play games. However I don’t think it’s mutually exclusive with having modules that actually provide some interest and variation to the game… and it is here where WG seems to be struggling. All’s they need to do is have the modules cost credits and be a buff, then players will grind for them, beyond this they could easily give us some variety in what the buffs are and make them ‘balanced’ relative to each other so it’s actually a choice. 
 

Edit: if the modules were more balanced it would actually encourage more players to try more module builds, which actually means more players spending more credits or doubloons as they change the builds… so it’s actually in WG interest to do this, Theoretically.
 

1 hour ago, Ilsina said:

Its not BB modules - its ALL modules

I agree. However I do think DDs are a bit better (bit better than utter shite 🙄) and I don’t have the experience to comment on cruisers. So that’s why I focused on BBs. 
 

1 hour ago, Profilus said:

Ok, since you asked for it, nerfs to good ones incoming 5...4...3...2...

I do not suggest nerfs. Choice is what would be nice. I think a fair few more experienced players will have better suggestions than then the ones I breifly highlighted for achieving this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[EST]
[EST]
Players
1,645 posts
29,200 battles
32 minutes ago, DaBung said:

I do not suggest nerfs.

But  this is the way WG would give you choices as @gopher31 pointed out. They are just too lazy(cheap) to do things properly. But my bet us on that they dont do anything with them for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,709 posts
7,805 battles

I think modules should be more in terms of sidegrades of the same item in the form of trade-offs in minor percentages (like -3% to +3% depending on trait and ship these options can be tweaked). And yes there is of course even more overlap with captain skills in this setup, since captain skills, like ship modules today do this as well.

I'd even go so far as to say you should have a point system, where you have a standard amount of points spread evenly on characteristics for each weapon.

 

By tweaking these points (assigning them to another trait from the default), you can opt to penalize some characteristics to boost others. Kind of like how one had to trade armour over speed or gun caliber at a certain amount of engine power.

 

So we could have the following categories:

 

Main cannons:

- Standard dispersion

- Range

- Reload time (Rate of Fire and changing shell type)

- Damage

- Rotation speed

- Aim speed (improved dispersion by narrowing the cone of fire, fine tuning aim after turning or firing - think WoT)

- Shell velocity (travel time, arc)

- Penetration power

- Fire chance

 

Secondaries (AA, AP and HE secondaries):

- Standard dispersion

- Range

- Rate of Fire

- Damage

- Target prioritization

- Aim speed

- Shell velocity (travel time, arc)

- AA boost duration

 

Torpedoes:

- Rotation time

- Damage

- Range

- Torpedo speed

- Reload time

 

Aircraft:

- Speed

- Constant damage taken from AA

- Damage taken from Flak

- Speed boost

- Fighter launch/activation speed

- Fighter duration

 

Detection and concealment (off-set scouting ability vs stealth):

- Ship detection range (your scouting)

- Torpedo detection range (your scouting)

- Aircraft detection range (your scouting)

- Submarine detection range (your scouting)

- Concealment range (being scouted)

- Concealment speed (after firing / being detected)


Situational:

- Spotter aircraft time

- Spotter aircraft recharge time

- Smokescreen size
- Smokescreen setting time

- Smokescreen duration

- Hydro range

- Hydro duration

- Radar range

- Radar duration

- Radar / hydro information sharing speed

 

Engine and steering performance:

- Maximum speed

- Acceleration / Decelleration

- Rudder speed

 

Maintenance vs emergency repairs:

- Fire chance

- Flood chance

- Repair time of flooding

- Extinguishing time of fires

- Healing time

- Healing percentage

- Healing speed

- Heal recharge speed

 

Hull integrity (damage reduction to specific modules from HE or (S)AP, or hp increases to modules, not total hp):

- Magazine protection (reduces magazine explosion chance for instance)

- Secondaries protection

- Main turret protection

- Engine room protection

- Rudder protection

- Torpedo belt protection

- Upperstructure protection

 

etc.

 

Say you could reassign a limited amount of points to improve certain aspects of your ship, but these points would only be freed up by reducing other specs compared to the default setting, with one caveat: it has to be something within the same category. Perhaps you could spend some amount of points outside of a category at a greater penalty.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
290 posts
4,459 battles

I would always prefer a module rework instead of a captain skill one, but then again I don't really trust WG to be able to make a good rework of any kind, so for now I just hope they forget about modules and don't touch them. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,936 posts
18,027 battles
7 hours ago, LemonadeWarriorITA said:

Commander skills, upgrades and modules are all stale & / or pointless.

WG: "nonsense, our skill rework promotes multiple equal builds. And our spreadsheet says we achieved this"

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RNNUK]
Players
90 posts
2,568 battles
3 hours ago, Figment said:

So we could have the following categories:

I quite like your idea is some ways. The trouble is some of these are much more valuable than others, concealment for example. So they would have to be waited accordingly which starts to get complicated quickly. It’s not that it wouldn’t work (in my opinion), I just think it would be hard to balance… simply removing concealment as an upgradable item might help a lot as someone else suggested, though I am not convinced one way or the other on this. 

 

The main problem with the current modules is the variation in value between them, so for me just fixing that would be more worth while for WG as it would take less time and effort. Add a third option for slot 1, rework slot 2, make slot 3 like Americans, tweak slot 4, rework slot 5 (probably remove the pointless concealment module), and make slot 6 like Americans. Or something,etching like that. It’s probably a days work of plugging numbers if I understand these things at all (which may be questionable 🤨)
 

On a side note I don’t think there is much point blaming WG constantly, regardless of whether the points being made are right or not. It discourages them from even trying to please anyone as they will probably get blamed and slated anyway. This happens all the time in politics and is one of the reasons mostly people who don’t listen or admit they are wrong get by in that profession. There’s a difference between expressing opinions (good, it’s there, they can take or leave it) and blaming (bad, when was the last time someone blaming you convinced you of anything); obviously this is my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[VIBES]
Players
1,239 posts
23,043 battles
8 hours ago, DaBung said:

How many people’s BB module builds look like this or some minor variation?

 

  1. Main Battery
  2. Damage Con
  3. Aiming Systems
  4. Damage Con
  5. Concealment
  6. Main battery 

 

1. I take Aux Armament Mod 1 on most BB with "sturdy" main turrets, especially if they have 4 or more of them. It's mostly to keep my AA going, though having more secondaries survive is also nice, occasionally.

Of course I go Main Battery on BBs with notoriously squishy turrets or obvious bow-tanking ships: Jean Bart, Dunkerque, Soyuz...

 

I also take Spotter Plane Mod on the Fuso, which is great for early game CV sniping.

Finally, I have a Dmg Con Mod 1 on the Vermont, which gives her a nice 28 seconds immunity.

 

2. No argument there.

 

3. No argument there: the AA module is just not competitive. Maybe if it went back to giving +2 flak bursts...

 

4. Dmg Con Mod 2 is standard, but I take Engine Mod on the Soviets, as they can deal with HE and fires thanks to their armor and quick repair, but they need acceleration to play around islands.

I take Steering Gear Mod 1 on BBs that have to wiggle because of their turret arrangement, or have an improved heal so fires aren't a big threat. For instance:

 

Iowa: improved heal ---> Steering Gear

Queen Elizabeth: 4x2 turret arrangement ---> Steering Gear

Yamato: 3x3 turret arrangement ---> Dmg Con Mod 2

 

5. No argument there, Concealment is standard.

I've always been tempted to go Torpedo Alert on some brawlers, as it basically makes every torp as obvious as the most obvious in the game (if we exclude the Shima's 20 km memetorps). However, it needs some reduction in torpedo damage to be more attractive, imho.

 

6. It's too bad the +2 flak bursts is only for ships with Def AA. I run that module only on the République, and only for the lulz.

 

TL;DR

I think the modules are mostly fine.

I would buff the AA benefits of the modules in slots #3 and #6, and I don't think the Consumable Mod in slot #5 is of any use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BABBY]
Beta Tester
1,607 posts

A lot of the skills today, starting with IFHE years ago, are things a ship would logically be equipped with, rather than being a product of the crew's abilities. Am I supposed to imagine crews are handloading thousands of shells in their spare time? These things could have been implemented as modules rather than skills. Whether they would be balanced or not, a greater number of options might at least inspire fun experimentation, sorta like how the majority of mechs in Battletech are suboptimal but depending on the ruleset can potentially be modified to do basically anything regardless.

 

10 hours ago, DaBung said:

How many people’s BB module builds look like this or some minor variation?

  1. Main Battery
  2. Damage Con
  3. Aiming Systems
  4. Damage Con
  5. Concealment
  6. Main battery 

Re #1: I tend to go for the secondary mod unless I actually experience damaged main guns on a regular basis. Battleship main batteries are super well-protected and very unlikely to suffer criticals, while all the AA guns lining the unarmoured sections can be quickly shot off by any old HE spammer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
4,415 posts
16,477 battles
4 minutes ago, bEtHeNs said:

Are you demanding another rework?

Well Wargaming reworks are always hugely successful, or so I’m told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BS4]
Players
1,547 posts
8,456 battles
4 hours ago, bEtHeNs said:

Are you demanding another rework?

Id bloody love one for cruisers right about now though.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,816 posts
24,696 battles
On 8/4/2021 at 11:41 AM, LemonadeWarriorITA said:

Commander skills, upgrades and modules are all stale & / or pointless.

 

Exactly.

 

Its lazy design not being able to tweak a ship to your liking... esp. in terms of modules and upgrades. 

Imo the ship that offers the most variety is Mogami since you have the option to slot 155s and 203s... IIRC its a feature no other ship has. GK and FdG dont count since 420s dont offer anything diverse. 

 

On the other hand, given balanz-teams track record it may be for the best.... 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

×