Maybe it's time to stop blaming Subs and CV's on passive gameplay.

[Horatio_Hornblaeser]

Vor 2 Stunden, tocqueville8 sagte:

For one, those are very common at high tiers.

For another, you're only considering high tiers to show BBvBB overmatch is rare, but you include the argument "other ships have limited heals", when all cruisers do at Tier 9+. Pick one: you can't have both.

You misunderstood me. When i said that heals are limited, i meant the number of charges not the possibility for many ships to get one in high tiers (even some DD, if they sacrifice e.g. smoke).

On lower tiers BB overmatch on BBs is a mixed bag between tiers and ships, so yes, it's way more consistent in high tiers. On the other hand, especially in lower tiers with much more common overmatch BB vs BB, the BB is still the worst enemy of another BB.

 

Vor 2 Stunden, tocqueville8 sagte:

Again, which is it? Are they accurate or inaccurate? 

Accurate enough to bring high calibre AP shells close to the soft targets, still inaccurate enough to spread sufficiently to hit, even for bad players who have barely any aim. There is a reason why in this game more guns make a better ship in average. Not saying purple little unicorns wouldn't be sublime on high accuracy and velocity guns (russian rail guns p.e.). But that's the diversity of players for you. For the good ones, a ship can never be precise enough to hit, where you aimed to, for the bad ones the unprecise spread needs to cover for bad/wrong aiming, so they can hit at all.

 

Vor 2 Stunden, tocqueville8 sagte:

Let me clear that for you: BBs have the worst accuracy in the game. Again, they have to, or they'd be too strong. The alpha is balanced by the poor accuracy, and BBs are notoriously inconsistent, sometimes frustrating.

And there is a reason why ships like JB or Bourgogne or Ohio or Slawa are beloved among the good players, because they allow to punish the smallest mistakes in angling. And why ships like the old german BBs are mostly played by Rommel/Guderian jr. with the usual results.

 

Vor 2 Stunden, tocqueville8 sagte:

There are only a couple of premium radar BBs. Only 2 tech-tree lines have hydro, only 1 has a smoke and only 1 the speedboost.

They're not buffs to BBs: they're national flavors and the line is balanced around them.  It's like saying DDs are strong because "they handed hydro to the German main line them".

Back in the day i started, a typical tier VII BB went 21-25kn and had no boons besides their 40-41 cm guns. Then came just faster BBs which are inherently harder to hit with torpedoes than slower ones. Then came BB with superior HE to nuke DDs on first sight, then came BBs with hydro and powerful secondaries and even BBs who are (with speed boost) faster than many DD (without speed boost). Then we have radar. On 3 BB right now (if I'm not incorrect) and in general on 3 cruiser trees making life hard for DD and easy for BB. Then there are BBs basicly inpenetrable for small caliber HE shells because of their thick armor and tiny superstructure. Or they have super heals, so they can completly ignore dots. Or super damagecon. Today it's so much easier for BBs than back in the day.

 

In short:

In 2015, you were done for, when a DD came within 6km range of your BB. Today the DD is dead, if he's foolish enough to rush a BB.

 

Vor 2 Stunden, tocqueville8 sagte:

They're also, by far, the easiest targets to find and the easiest to strike.

And the target with the most AA though back in the day, this was a privilege of cruisers. In the same time armor safes you very well from any rockets and bounce bombs, if you pay attention and manouver.

 

Vor 2 Stunden, tocqueville8 sagte:

Not really an option if you're crossfired by another BB: every time you change heading, you're gonna get paddled.

Well, but any other ship type again would be sunk by that barrage then, a BB might very well survive, fall back and heal up most of the lost hp again.

But yes, even if you're deciding to take a torpedo into your thick protection belt, since it might be the lesser evil, there is no ship type like BBs able to handle those.

 

Vor 2 Stunden, tocqueville8 sagte:

Because of their bad concealment and bad agility, BBs have the most delicate balance between being too aggressive and too passive. They might be easy to do alright in, but they're still hard to do well in.

I never said, that it would be easy to be a purple fluffy unicorn in a BB. I said they are the easiest type to play. To excel in a ship, it needs to be able to give you the possibility to punish the mistakes of others. Yet many BBs have a rather mediocre skill ceiling. Just like you said: easy to get a hang on and give some performance at least, but quite harder to excel in them.

 

Vor 2 Stunden, tocqueville8 sagte:

Overall, I find this conversation surreal.

You appear to be thinking that you're explaining the game...to someone with 3 times as many battles as you, 25 times as many at Tier 10 

Huh, i find your statement surreal. Since you went and tried to explain the (non-)weakness of a ship type to me, who plays since shortly after realease and have nearly seen anything happening in this game since then. And i'm not explaining the game to you, i'm just stating the obvious facts and opinions of ship types on a public board somewhere in the internet, where someone without experience might find and read this dialogue between us once and might get some idea what's going on in this game. Without the platitudes of falling into dumb overexargerations like "CV and SS are the death of the game" or "CV and SS are to blame for lame rounds and passivity in the game". Sentences which are just untrue, as i hoped, i've shown above. Thank you.

 

Ceterum censeo:

Tier X is boring as hell. So is supertier XI.

[Redcap375]

Times to be passive and times to be aggressive. Truly good players know when to engage either.

 

But the game is designed to favour the more passive player (one cap games a prime example).

[Echo_519]

Am 30.4.2022 um 19:22, The_Angry_Admiral sagte:

This is more of a submarine problem overall than a play style one. You can be as aggressive or passive as you want but it doesn't make a difference as really it's down to just how bad the submarine player is that will determine victory over it.

I thing the problem with your understanding issue is that you don't seem to know/understand the absolute core base design of this game.

This is not some fast paced shooter. This is one of the slowest paced games that exists... And because of that, all the things that make a difference in fast paced shooters do not apply here. So, in fast paced shooters, the number 1 thing that makes skill is just pure reaction time. In Wows, you never win a fight because you had a faster reaction then your opponent. On the other hand, what is important in wows is positioning. Having cover/a way do disengage is so very important. 

For a fast paced shooter, not that much important. In fact, quite often, having a good position is worse then having a bad position. Everyone knows that that's a good position, so everyone will focus much more on that good posision. So you quite often get the case where the person in the good position is spotted by enemies, but theplyer in the good position has no clue about the whereabouts of their opponents, thus being being a fast paced shooter, you just die in the good poition by people in worse positions because you simpny can't predict where they are, thus won't see them too often. So being unpredictable is more important quite often then being in a good position. 

This leads to some very weird situation, that in wows, all the achievements you can score are purely passive. You never sink an enemy because you did something reallly impressive good. You sink an enemy because they f***ed up. You have never outplayed an opponent, your opponent's have always outplayed themselves. You've never been sunk by an enemy ship because the opponents outplayed you. You've always outplayed yourself when you died. There is nothing you can do in this game to force anything based on your skill. All what decides battles is mistakes being punished. There is no advice"do this and you will kill enemies". There only are advices "Don't do this otherwise you get sunk". So everything is passive....

In addition to this, so many fast paced shooters like Battlefield and such, you run around, shoot, run some more, shoot again, cap, shoot, run, get killed, and 10 seconds later you respawn. So being agressive and dying often has no big influence to the game. Wows is completely different. If you get sunk, you stay sunk. Your game is over, leaving your team with a clear disadvantage. If you die, your team looses 8.3% of their firepower permanently. So, in Wows, NOT dying is rated so much higher then in other game because you simply can NOT respawn. 

All this taken into account, the games core base design is to be a very passive game. IF you look at some competitive tournaaments in Wows, this is the reason why you rarely see a ship getting sunk in the fist 5 minutes. 

Sure, it is possible to be too passive. But you won't find any good player that does not play passive, as you can not force anything onto others....

And CV's simply just add more to this. And the reason being because cv's are designed to be one sided. If you're in a surfaceship, you have no gameplay against the CV.  IT's the CV that has gameplay vs surfaceships. Meaning, if you look at surfaceships only, staying further away has 2 impacts. 1) You will take less damage, 2) You will deal less damage. So, when you decide to go closer, you will be able to deal more damage, but you will also take more damage. Thus is a balancing act of how far/close you should be idealy. But with CV's, because the gameplay is onesided, what impact is there is you stay further away? You will take less damage. Period! The further away from the CV you are, the longer his planes take to reach you, the less damage he will deal to you because of that. So now try and give a a single reason why you should decide to get closer to the CV? All that will do is you taking more damage from the CV without any point to counterbalance this disadvantage. So there is no reason to get closer. So this shows very good how CV's make gameplay more passive, because against surfaceships, getting closer had both advantage and disadvantage, with CV's it's only disadvantage due to onesided gameplay and no way to defend yourself against the cv.

 

 

There would be plenty more to axplain to you what you dont understnd about this game, but i really don't want to write 3 times more than what i already have.....

Just, anlyse the game in it's core design and then, maybe, you might understand why people ply passive(as it is designed to be) and why CVs/SS increase passive gameplay....

[The_Angry_Admiral]

25 minutes ago, Echo_519 said:

I thing the problem with your understanding issue is that you don't seem to know/understand the absolute core base design of this game.

This is not some fast paced shooter. This is one of the slowest paced games that exists... And because of that, all the things that make a difference in fast paced shooters do not apply here. So, in fast paced shooters, the number 1 thing that makes skill is just pure reaction time. In Wows, you never win a fight because you had a faster reaction then your opponent. On the other hand, what is important in wows is positioning. Having cover/a way do disengage is so very important. 

For a fast paced shooter, not that much important. In fact, quite often, having a good position is worse then having a bad position. Everyone knows that that's a good position, so everyone will focus much more on that good posision. So you quite often get the case where the person in the good position is spotted by enemies, but theplyer in the good position has no clue about the whereabouts of their opponents, thus being being a fast paced shooter, you just die in the good poition by people in worse positions because you simpny can't predict where they are, thus won't see them too often. So being unpredictable is more important quite often then being in a good position. 

This leads to some very weird situation, that in wows, all the achievements you can score are purely passive. You never sink an enemy because you did something reallly impressive good. You sink an enemy because they f***ed up. You have never outplayed an opponent, your opponent's have always outplayed themselves. You've never been sunk by an enemy ship because the opponents outplayed you. You've always outplayed yourself when you died. There is nothing you can do in this game to force anything based on your skill. All what decides battles is mistakes being punished. There is no advice"do this and you will kill enemies". There only are advices "Don't do this otherwise you get sunk". So everything is passive....

In addition to this, so many fast paced shooters like Battlefield and such, you run around, shoot, run some more, shoot again, cap, shoot, run, get killed, and 10 seconds later you respawn. So being agressive and dying often has no big influence to the game. Wows is completely different. If you get sunk, you stay sunk. Your game is over, leaving your team with a clear disadvantage. If you die, your team looses 8.3% of their firepower permanently. So, in Wows, NOT dying is rated so much higher then in other game because you simply can NOT respawn. 

All this taken into account, the games core base design is to be a very passive game. IF you look at some competitive tournaaments in Wows, this is the reason why you rarely see a ship getting sunk in the fist 5 minutes. 

Sure, it is possible to be too passive. But you won't find any good player that does not play passive, as you can not force anything onto others....

And CV's simply just add more to this. And the reason being because cv's are designed to be one sided. If you're in a surfaceship, you have no gameplay against the CV.  IT's the CV that has gameplay vs surfaceships. Meaning, if you look at surfaceships only, staying further away has 2 impacts. 1) You will take less damage, 2) You will deal less damage. So, when you decide to go closer, you will be able to deal more damage, but you will also take more damage. Thus is a balancing act of how far/close you should be idealy. But with CV's, because the gameplay is onesided, what impact is there is you stay further away? You will take less damage. Period! The further away from the CV you are, the longer his planes take to reach you, the less damage he will deal to you because of that. So now try and give a a single reason why you should decide to get closer to the CV? All that will do is you taking more damage from the CV without any point to counterbalance this disadvantage. So there is no reason to get closer. So this shows very good how CV's make gameplay more passive, because against surfaceships, getting closer had both advantage and disadvantage, with CV's it's only disadvantage due to onesided gameplay and no way to defend yourself against the cv.

 

 

There would be plenty more to axplain to you what you dont understnd about this game, but i really don't want to write 3 times more than what i already have.....

Just, anlyse the game in it's core design and then, maybe, you might understand why people ply passive(as it is designed to be) and why CVs/SS increase passive gameplay....

No I understand it just fine. 

 

What's your next argument?

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

21 hours ago, Horatio_Hornblaeser said:

1 vs. 1 BBs are the strongest ships in game, besides CV (acounting the map is big enough for the CV to run and hide the whole time being).

 

BBs get:

• heavy armor
• a lot of hp
• heals
• AP for overmatch and lol zitas
• HE with ludicrous fire chances
• good speed (tier VIII and higher)
• decent stealth (some even lower then 12km)
• gimmicks like hydro, defAA, speedboost, radar, secondarys, torpedoes

If you let get yourself farmed in a BB, you're either doing that on purpose, while you engage several targets simultaniously (which would be instant suicide in a DD or CA/CL), or you don't understand the spotting/concealment system. And yes, if you go in a straight line for many minutes long, you deserve to get deleted. And still, a bb will easily soak up a lot of shells and torps before it gets down.

You are WAY more experienced in this game than I am, and so it feels weird to to contradict you on something that seems so obvious. But BB's are not only not stronger than any other ship (barring CV's), they are actually completely defenseless against some ships, as in: zero chance to do damage and zero chance to avoid getting sunk. No BB can hope to take on a DD on its own. Or did I misunderstand you in any way? Even a DD potato like me - and I really suck in DD's - can sink a same tier BB without ever even taking damage.

[Horatio_Hornblaeser]

Vor 1 Stunde, Echo_519 sagte:

This is not some fast paced shooter. This is one of the slowest paced games that exists... And because of that, all the things that make a difference in fast paced shooters do not apply here. So, in fast paced shooters, the number 1 thing that makes skill is just pure reaction time. In Wows, you never win a fight because you had a faster reaction then your opponent. On the other hand, what is important in wows is positioning. Having cover/a way do disengage is so very important. 

While it's a slow paced shooter, reaction time is not meaningless if you don't play laid back CV or BB. Most important is map awareness though and the ability to predict, where the enemy is gonna move to and out of which direction torpedos are to be expected. Positioning ist then the next important skill to master, but you can overthink positioning as well.

Vor 1 Stunde, Echo_519 sagte:

For a fast paced shooter, not that much important. In fact, quite often, having a good position is worse then having a bad position. Everyone knows that that's a good position, so everyone will focus much more on that good posision. So you quite often get the case where the person in the good position is spotted by enemies, but theplyer in the good position has no clue about the whereabouts of their opponents, thus being being a fast paced shooter, you just die in the good poition by people in worse positions because you simpny can't predict where they are, thus won't see them too often. So being unpredictable is more important quite often then being in a good position. 

That's the same though with the sniper and radar positions in this game. WIth some experience you know where most of the red team is gonna trying to be.

Vor 1 Stunde, Echo_519 sagte:

This leads to some very weird situation, that in wows, all the achievements you can score are purely passive. You never sink an enemy because you did something reallly impressive good. You sink an enemy because they f***ed up. You have never outplayed an opponent, your opponent's have always outplayed themselves. You've never been sunk by an enemy ship because the opponents outplayed you. You've always outplayed yourself when you died. There is nothing you can do in this game to force anything based on your skill. All what decides battles is mistakes being punished. There is no advice"do this and you will kill enemies". There only are advices "Don't do this otherwise you get sunk".

And how is this different from any other shooter? If you play team versus teams with chosen players, true cooperation and tactical goals, thats something completly different than your random BF or CoD round. There the team which does the smallest mistake might lose, just because of this single mistake. Barely different from warships. Though through the randomness of teams in most game modes the team with the least grave mistakes is gonna win. So again all the same.

If someone would follow all the advices out there to not get sunk, this clearly leads to bordersurfing and backline camping. So i'm somewhat not surprised. If that's still fun for anyone, like any game you play in your leisure time should be, that i leave to be decided be others.

Vor 1 Stunde, Echo_519 sagte:

So everything is passive.... 

But there is a difference between being "defensive" and being "passive". Being passive means not to do much at all and wait for the move of the enemy to react. So no action on themselves, just reaction to everything. And yes, this might be the safer option for people without clue, what to do. But always staying passive will neither enable anyone to learn and progress in their skillset nor will anything happen, if both sides pull this off at large. Something that can be often seen in high tiers, when nobody plays for the caps and if someone does, they usually win, since their is no tactic to reclaim them. Being defensive means taking good positions to lure the enemy into traps when he advances.

Vor 1 Stunde, Echo_519 sagte:

In addition to this, so many fast paced shooters like Battlefield and such, you run around, shoot, run some more, shoot again, cap, shoot, run, get killed, and 10 seconds later you respawn. So being agressive and dying often has no big influence to the game.

That's why you have a ticket system ticking in counterstrike, battlefield and co. K/D-ratio is important there, just like here damage done and ships sunk. Every advanced player won't just yolo in those shooters, just like in Warships.

Vor 1 Stunde, Echo_519 sagte:

So being agressive and dying often has no big influence to the game. Wows is completely different. If you get sunk, you stay sunk. Your game is over, leaving your team with a clear disadvantage. If you die, your team looses 8.3% of their firepower permanently. So, in Wows, NOT dying is rated so much higher then in other game because you simply can NOT respawn. 

The real difference is again, how many others you can take down, before you get down. That's the baseline in both types of games. In BF for example you need to get a high k/d-ratio to win and to hold a decent amount of caps. In WoWs you need to get high amounts of damage done, ships sunk and/or caps captured to win. But just with a single life. So you need to plan better what to do, since there is no retry in that round. At the same time doing nothing (beeing passive) is among the worst thing you can do, besides yolo rushing and pointlessly sinking. While being passive as a baddie might enable the good players to carry the round without worrying to much about their own guys evaporating, at the same time it means that this passive person does nothing for victory besides not sinking. That why we have those steam rolls. On the one side team ostly passive-yolo on the other side team mostly decent.

Vor 1 Stunde, Echo_519 sagte:

All this taken into account, the games core base design is to be a very passive game. IF you look at some competitive tournaaments in Wows, this is the reason why you rarely see a ship getting sunk in the fist 5 minutes. 

If you look at all the pros at KotS there are a few really interesting things happening:

• there is the positioning at the usual spots for heavy AP-crossfires
• there is the positioning at the usual spots for radar cover
• there are a few, very short and very deadly engagements between the spotters (DDs), which completly decide the whole game

That's why the big pro-clans protested so long about CVs in CW or KotS, because they kinda losen up the whole static positioning and sniping and bring it an uncalculated risk for the usual tactics.

Vor 1 Stunde, Echo_519 sagte:

Sure, it is possible to be too passive. But you won't find any good player that does not play passive, as you can not force anything onto others....

And CV's simply just add more to this. And the reason being because cv's are designed to be one sided. If you're in a surfaceship, you have no gameplay against the CV.  IT's the CV that has gameplay vs surfaceships. Meaning, if you look at surfaceships only, staying further away has 2 impacts. 1) You will take less damage, 2) You will deal less damage. So, when you decide to go closer, you will be able to deal more damage, but you will also take more damage. Thus is a balancing act of how far/close you should be idealy. But with CV's, because the gameplay is onesided, what impact is there is you stay further away? You will take less damage. Period! The further away from the CV you are, the longer his planes take to reach you, the less damage he will deal to you because of that. So now try and give a a single reason why you should decide to get closer to the CV? All that will do is you taking more damage from the CV without any point to counterbalance this disadvantage. So there is no reason to get closer. So this shows very good how CV's make gameplay more passive, because against surfaceships, getting closer had both advantage and disadvantage, with CV's it's only disadvantage due to onesided gameplay and no way to defend yourself against the cv.

The CV is just a more flexible ship, that may strike at any place where this bit more of power projection is needed to sink single wounded ships. CV's are the vultures of Warships and i don't see, why that would be a bad thing, besides for that one guy whose gonna sink because of the CV. If there was no CV, he might still sink, but to the one more long range sniper (BB) on the other team.

The only reason to get closer is to earn more than the pityfull 500 BXP most players with their passive playstyle will earn at a loss. Seen such to much to still be able to laugh about it. It's just sad. 20 waisted minutes of boring sadness.

 

Vor 27 Minuten, PsychoClownfish sagte:

You are WAY more experienced in this game than I am, and so it feels weird to to contradict you on something that seems so obvious. But BB's are not only not stronger than any other ship (barring CV's), they are actually completely defenseless against some ships, as in: zero chance to do damage and zero chance to avoid getting sunk. No BB can hope to take on a DD on its own. Or did I misunderstand you in any way? Even a DD potato like me - and I really suck in DD's - can sink a same tier BB without ever even taking damage.

Dear mister Clownfish, Psycho,

 

i have no idea how much i'm more experienced than you, since your stats are closed. But i have to inform you, that you are wrong. Name me a single ship against which you feel defenseless about in your BB and i can show you tactics to avoid getting sunk by this or even sink him. I could even demonstrate this to you in the exercise room ingame, if you would like so. I take a BB of the same tier as you pick your ship and we go at it.

If a BB gets sunk by a DD, it fluffed itself royally. Most gunboats have to smoke up or risk getting sunk soon enough themselves. Most torpedoboats can be avoided by going an opposing direction or using landscape to break line of fire and sight to surprise them elsewhere. Never underestimated the amount of damage a BB can tank when it (circa) knows where you're striking from and the amount of damage it deals to your DD in a short time while your torps are on reload. Good BB players might even hunt the overoptiistic DD and bring him down to his own surprise. Especially JBs and Georgias are notoriously for that as are the new german BCs.

[The_Angry_Admiral]

Here is a question to everyone then. 

 

What is your definition of passive playing and please explain?

[ColonelPete]

5 hours ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

Here is a question to everyone then. 

 

What is your definition of passive playing and please explain?

Depends on the ship.

As a Kagero you do not want to get spotted and shot at, as a BB that is usually passive play.

[SodaBubbles]

9 hours ago, PsychoClownfish said:

You are WAY more experienced in this game than I am, and so it feels weird to to contradict you on something that seems so obvious. But BB's are not only not stronger than any other ship (barring CV's), they are actually completely defenseless against some ships, as in: zero chance to do damage and zero chance to avoid getting sunk. No BB can hope to take on a DD on its own. Or did I misunderstand you in any way? Even a DD potato like me - and I really suck in DD's - can sink a same tier BB without ever even taking damage.

Ha. No.

I love hunting DDs in BBs. A fast BB with lots of guns, like Lyon, or fast reload, like KGV, is ideal. The DD can only be in so many places, and eventually it will screw up. Lots and lots of DDs smoke up and wait, and then misplay.....

[Yedwy]

On 4/30/2022 at 2:24 PM, The_Angry_Admiral said:

In my opinion passive gameplay because of submarines and CV's only come from the players who actually understand this game. I think the majority of passive spuds in this game play passive because they don't know what they are doing and because they heard it from Youtube without understanding why. It's mostly from a lack of experience. I see constantly for example 5 ships running away from 2 and when I ask why are you running I'm told they are kiting. Why do you need to kite with full HP and a three ship advantage? By doing that as well.you open up your broadside for a bit to take some preventable damage. Also what I see is people only moving forward when it's either too late or victory is assured. This is in no way a defense of Subs and CV's but I think shifting the blame for the awful playing is just BS. It's WG pushing people to the higher tiers very quickly as well as some Youtubers not giving very good advice. "Oh you are struggling because of subs and CV's". No you are just even easier pickings for subs and CV's because you are just a bad player. I can have ten games in a row where I have no less than 3 of these types of players on my teams and they can easily carry us to a defeat. 

 

The game really needs some proper tutorials and stop blasting people to the higher tiers so quickly. 

Maybe its time to stop blaming players for WG design decisions... 

[ghostbuster_]

19 hours ago, tocqueville8 said:

Let me clear that for you: BBs have the worst accuracy in the game. Again, they have to, or they'd be too strong. The alpha is balanced by the poor accuracy, and BBs are notoriously inconsistent, sometimes frustrating.

not all of them. lets take yamato as an example or repu or thunderer. if someone claims that these are inconsistent and frustrating, it means, that someone doesnt know how to aim. there are surely some BBs, which are really inconsistent and annoying. but you cant say that all BBs are inconsistent. 

19 hours ago, tocqueville8 said:

Not really an option if you're crossfired by another BB: every time you change heading, you're gonna get paddled.

 

to be honest, torps are the easiest thing to handle in a BB. esp after the flooding nerf.

[ghostbuster_]

18 hours ago, Horatio_Hornblaeser said:

Without the platitudes of falling into dumb overexargerations like "CV and SS are the death of the game" or "CV and SS are to blame for lame rounds and passivity in the game". Sentences which are just untrue, as i hoped, i've shown above. Thank you.

to be honest, CVs and Subs definitely make the gameplay more passive since its way harder to push in presence of subs and CVs. 

are they the only reason of campy/passive gameplay? no. do they contribute the gameplay to be passive/campy? yes, definitely. 

[tocqueville8]

1 hour ago, ghostbuster_ said:

not all of them. lets take yamato as an example or repu or thunderer. if someone claims that these are inconsistent and frustrating, it means, that someone doesnt know how to aim. there are surely some BBs, which are really inconsistent and annoying. but you cant say that all BBs are inconsistent. 

 

Yamato and Thunderer are still less accurate than (nearly?) any cruiser and DD in the game.

 

Again they have to be, or they'd be ridiculously OP, but that's how balance works. I'm not complaining, at all: I'm saying accuracy isn't the selling point of BBs in an absolute sense, over the other classes, only in a relative sense of some BBs over others.

 

Likewise, BBs have typically slow reload, though there are some that shoot faster than some cruisers. There is some overlap, but the two populations are mostly apart.

 

Besides, saying "not all of them are inconsistent" is missing the point: the person I replied to claimed "BBs are pampered" because they "were handed radar, hydro, smoke and speed boost", when many got none of that and none, I believe, got more than one...

 

I think it's fair to summarize it by saying that BBs have generally great HP, slow reload, mediocre accuracy but huge alpha, and mediocre utility as well.

 

Once again, I'm not complaining BBs are weak or anything.

I'm saying I think they're fine and balanced compared to the other classes.

 

[ghostbuster_]

33 minutes ago, tocqueville8 said:

 

Yamato and Thunderer are still less accurate than (nearly?) any cruiser and DD in the game.

DDs for sure. Cruiser im not sure. maybe they are some which are at BBs level when it comes to accuracy. 

33 minutes ago, tocqueville8 said:

 

Again they have to be, or they'd be ridiculously OP, but that's how balance works. I'm not complaining, at all: I'm saying accuracy isn't the selling point of BBs in an absolute sense, over the other classes, only in a relative sense of some BBs over others.

yes, i get you point. slavas selling point is the accuracy tho. 

33 minutes ago, tocqueville8 said:

 

Likewise, BBs have typically slow reload, though there are some that shoot faster than some cruisers. There is some overlap, but the two populations are mostly apart.

 

Besides, saying "not all of them are inconsistent" is missing the point: the person I replied to claimed "BBs are pampered" because they "were handed radar, hydro, smoke and speed boost", when many got none of that and none, I believe, got more than one...

 

I think it's fair to summarize it by saying that BBs have generally great HP, slow reload, mediocre accuracy but huge alpha, and mediocre utility as well.

 

Once again, I'm not complaining BBs are weak or anything.

I'm saying I think they're fine and balanced compared to the other classes.

 

Yeah I know you are not complaining about them being weak. 

but still I wouldnt say they are well balanced. I would like to see some nerfs to BBs. I would like to see them less forgiving and harder punishable after a mistake. 

[Horatio_Hornblaeser]

Vor 2 Stunden, ghostbuster_ sagte:

to be honest, CVs and Subs definitely make the gameplay more passive since its way harder to push in presence of subs and CVs. 

are they the only reason of campy/passive gameplay? no. do they contribute the gameplay to be passive/campy? yes, definitely. 

Are they a factor of staleness and passivity? - Yes  they are.

Is that factor bigger than let's say the heavy overpopulation of BBs in the MM? - I would say no.

Vor 2 Stunden, tocqueville8 sagte:

Yamato and Thunderer are still less accurate than (nearly?) any cruiser and DD in the game.

Vor 1 Stunde, ghostbuster_ sagte:

DDs for sure. Cruiser im not sure. maybe they are some which are at BBs level when it comes to accuracy. 

Take LC (Large Cruisers = Supercruisers) as example, there are BB with same or better accuracy then those.

 

Vor 2 Stunden, tocqueville8 sagte:

Besides, saying "not all of them are inconsistent" is missing the point: the person I replied to claimed "BBs are pampered" because they "were handed radar, hydro, smoke and speed boost", when many got none of that and none, I believe, got more than one... 

I said they're pampered with all those gimmicks, while being very solid at their core already. Plus the last 4 years have seen mostly BB-friendly changes in the game. The only bad thing ever happened to them in my time since 2015 was the appearence of wild Asashios. BBs these days need the lowest amount of skill to get a proper result in. Not even a CV is that easy to handle. Btw. JB gets speedboost and reload boost for example. Don't know about the refitted Lexington BC, but i think, she gets quite some gimmicks too.

Vor 1 Stunde, ghostbuster_ sagte:

Yeah I know you are not complaining about them being weak. 

but still I wouldnt say they are well balanced. I would like to see some nerfs to BBs. I would like to see them less forgiving and harder punishable after a mistake. 

I would like to see that too. Like getting the lowered citadells of many ships back up, where they one were (US BBs e.g.).

Or just genrally buff some of their adversaries, like e.g. torpedoboats. Several of them seeing range buffs lately, which is a much needed thing.

It's painfull to play hightier DDs with lower than 12km running torpedos on board, if you can't get much in range or the BB will just outrun your torpedos with ease.

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

14 hours ago, Horatio_Hornblaeser said:

i have no idea how much i'm more experienced than you, since your stats are closed. But i have to inform you, that you are wrong. Name me a single ship against which you feel defenseless about in your BB and i can show you tactics to avoid getting sunk by this or even sink him. I could even demonstrate this to you in the exercise room ingame, if you would like so. I take a BB of the same tier as you pick your ship and we go at it.

If a BB gets sunk by a DD, it fluffed itself royally. Most gunboats have to smoke up or risk getting sunk soon enough themselves. Most torpedoboats can be avoided by going an opposing direction or using landscape to break line of fire and sight to surprise them elsewhere. Never underestimated the amount of damage a BB can tank when it (circa) knows where you're striking from and the amount of damage it deals to your DD in a short time while your torps are on reload. Good BB players might even hunt the overoptiistic DD and bring him down to his own surprise. Especially JBs and Georgias are notoriously for that as are the new german BCs.

I would probably not be the best person to take on this friendly challenge because I am below average on DD's, but I'd still be willing to give it a shot. It's just that me losing this experiment doesn't prove much other than what we already know, which is that I am no DD player. By the way, I had mostly a torpedo DD in mind, although in a contest between two equally skilled players I think a gunboat DD (such as Kitakaze) would have it as well. And of course I am not talking of Paolo Emilio. 😄

If there are volunteers who feel more qualified than me (and how can they not?), I would also love to spectate. 😂

 

I'd have to switch commanders but I would play Kagero, which is my best torp boat. I think that tells you all you need to know about my DD experience.

Edited: Or maybe T-61 ;)

[The_Angry_Admiral]

The problem I see is people say CV's and Subs create passive play but nobody ever explains why because it's BS in a way. What it's done is create this false sense of a need to play passive - there is actually no detailed explanation as to why you need to play passive versus subs and CV's. Actually in fact playing passive versus the current iteration of subs and CV's will get you killed extremely easy. Like I have explained before, a submarine can move from his spawn to the opposite side of the map without those at the back ever knowing it until it is too late. All a sub or CV needs to do is decide to focus you because your AA or Depth Charges alone aren't going to stop them before they sink you. You are better off moving up with the others and creating a net of depth charges and/or AA fire. Also I see Youtubers telling people to play passive against subs and CV's but if you look they are actually doing the exact opposite and those that are taking that advice are the ones on the opposite side in these videos that are getting hammered. 

 

In almost every game I've been in where the team plays passive we lose. Also how do you expect to cap when you are sitting at the back? Oh I know - you leave it up to the DD's and if they don't they get yelled at by those BB's sitting in the back. BB's that just sit at the back are usually just lazy and don't want to be bothered with engaging other ships and just want the DD's to cap. When you have teams where the DD's move up, followed by the Cruisers giving them support, then the BB's behind them giving both types support wins the game because they are working together. 

 

CV's and Subs will get to you know matter what you do so how is playing passive supposed to mitigate that? 

[ColonelPete]

2 minutes ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

The problem I see is people say CV's and Subs create passive play but nobody ever explains why because it's BS in a way. What it's done is create this false sense of a need to play passive - there is actually no detailed explanation as to why you need to play passive versus subs and CV's. 

It helps to read what people write.

If you ignore it, then you cannot understand it.

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

1 hour ago, ghostbuster_ said:

DDs for sure. Cruiser im not sure. maybe they are some which are at BBs level when it comes to accuracy. 

yes, i get you point. slavas selling point is the accuracy tho. 

Yeah I know you are not complaining about them being weak. 

but still I wouldnt say they are well balanced. I would like to see some nerfs to BBs. I would like to see them less forgiving and harder punishable after a mistake. 

This is actually something that applies to cruisers more than BB's. BB's are guaranteed to be citadelled when they give broadside, if you can do your part. Cruisers often escape because of WG magic.

I am a cruiser main, but I don't see where BB's as a class need nerfs. I used to think BB's were weak only against DD's, but since my kiting skills have improved, I take on BB's in almost any cruiser at range, and I am only scared of Yamato's with drivers who are excellent shots. They are death, all other BB's I feel I have a fair shot.

[CV_SUB_Report_Blacklist]

the title enough to dislike this ...

[ghostbuster_]

41 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

This is actually something that applies to cruisers more than BB's. BB's are guaranteed to be citadelled when they give broadside, if you can do your part. Cruisers often escape because of WG magic.

not really. besides there is a thing called turtleback. 

41 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

I am a cruiser main, but I don't see where BB's as a class need nerfs. I used to think BB's were weak only against DD's, but since my kiting skills have improved, I take on BB's in almost any cruiser at range, and I am only scared of Yamato's with drivers who are excellent shots. They are death, all other BB's I feel I have a fair shot.

Well you need to face someone in BB with improved aiming and prediction skills then. 

[The_Angry_Admiral]

50 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

It helps to read what people write.

If you ignore it, then you cannot understand it.

I do read it and it usually makes no sense because it doesn't fit. 

 

Explain what benefit playing passive against CV's and Subs gives?

[Horatio_Hornblaeser]

Vor 5 Stunden, The_Angry_Admiral sagte:

I do read it and it usually makes no sense because it doesn't fit. 

 

Explain what benefit playing passive against CV's and Subs gives?

For cruisers and DDs it's not wrong to be on high alert, when there is a CV around, since those ship types like to fall prey to devastating strikes. BBs just whine since someone might actually be able to hit them on A/J-line. Actually having a CV spotting for you is something that BBs usually enjoy, since then they can easily wipe out spotted cruisers and keep DDs from capping, meaning that the long range farming time is not shortend by pesky little tickets ticking away.

But essentially it's the same like an overpopulation of radar ships blocking all the caps and central passageways. So not that bad.

Sub are annoying, but basicly they are submergable torpedoboats. So driving away and out of their torpedo range isn'tr wrong, but then again, not different like torpedoboats. And usually SS were an easy prey once they're spotted and everyone unloaded their depthcharges via bombers on them.

Actually it's weird, that BB's have in general better ASW capacities than any cruiser or DD. But that's i guess what's WG is going for. Can't have BB-mains worry to much. After all, who would buy all those yummy premium ships else.

[The_Angry_Admiral]

34 minutes ago, Horatio_Hornblaeser said:

For cruisers and DDs it's not wrong to be on high alert, when there is a CV around, since those ship types like to fall prey to devastating strikes. BBs just cry since someone might actually be able to hit them on A/J-line. Actually having a CV spotting for you is something that BBs usually enjoy, since then they can easily wipe out spotted cruisers and keep DDs from capping, meaining that the long range farming time is not shortend by pesky little tickets ticking away.

But essentially it's the same like an overpopulation of radar ships blocking all the caps and central passageways. So not that bad.

Sub are annoying, but basicly they are submergable torpedoboats. So driving away and out of their torpedo range isn'tr wrong, but then again, not different like torpedoboats. And usually SS were an easy prey once they're spotted and everyone unloaded their depthcharges via bombers on them.

Actually it's weird, that BB's have in general better ASW capacities than any cruiser or DD. But that's i guess what's WG is going for. Can't have BB-mains worry to much. After all, who would buy all those yummy premium ships else.

Everyone no matter what ship should always be on high alert in all games but this whole needing to stay in the back and shoot from my max range is just BS has been proven time and time again to not work. Those that move up as a group actually watching each other's backs is the team that wins. 

 

Those in the back just usually die last which helps the team out none - it only benefits their other stats. 

[neDomce]

I play passively, because I am not able to technically perform risky tasks. For example:

1) I want to enter a driveby with an enemy BB - I am not sure I can avoid getting rammed; so I stay away and farm his superstructure till he dies
2) I want to bowtank and throttle-juke while in a heavy cruiser (Riga, Moskva); I get burned by HE because I am too predictable. better stay back and get more shell flighttime to evade shots
3) I want to use my armor belt to bounce 406s in a Salem (Des Moines). I will turn too much/too little and get deleted by some BB on the spot

4) I want to farm enemy BBs in a Groningen, but get torped all the time because I am unable to evaluate fast enough on how to maneuver

5) I want to farm while in a Mogador but I get nuked by enemy cruisers because I am outspotted all the time and cannot predict enemy dd position

 

Therefore, a way to enjoy the game is to either a) risk it and potentially lose your ship and game, or b) play safe, where you know you can adequately execute the (rather lame) plan. 
 

Edit: after a short exchaneg with The_Angry_Admiral i decided to elaborate. I define passive play as choosing low-risk low -reward options in battles, especially when I am aware the high-reward options are available (sometimes they are not). Being unable to identify high-reward options is also a concern, but  - i believe - a smaller one as I would still not go for it. 

The game is unforgiving in a sense that if you mess something up a little (only 3, instead of 6 citas with a Riga on Musashi cheek), you will get murdered and screw chances of winning for your team (you just lost 2 radars and 3 hydro charges for dd hunting)