Destroyers are not OP, they are just Uncontested. (Plus a few balance musings)

[Kazomir]

Seriously now. Torpedo soups. Destroyer spams. High tier nightmares.

 

They do not occur because destroyers are OP and need to be nerfed. No. Destroyers are not OP at all, statistics dont show destroyers doing any ridiculous amounts of damage nor kills. They are all over the place because you know what? They are not contested, they are not challenged. They can roam free and zip around the map. And if they get caught? Smoke, engine overcharge then run away, only to reappear on some other front of the map.

 

The real reason? Battleships. Battleships are so powerful (against cruisers, that is)  they force Cruisers to hide in stealth or fire from maximum range, allowing destroyers to take map control for themselves and roam free uncontested, releasing torpedo salvoes from way closer than they should be able to.

 

Solution? No, limiting destroyers would be bad. The most easy and lazy way to fix the problem. Thus, I propose several new mechanics for Battleships.

 

- First, Citadel hits now do 1.5x Normal pen damage, instead of 10x normal pen damage.

- To offset that, Base battleship accuracy is increased substantially, so less RNG, which is also fine.

- A battleship's accuracy increaces even more with each consecutive salvo against a single target (as targeting becomes more effective ) that does not change course (IE goes in a straight line, going in a straight line should be punished as naval battles are all about maneuvering around the field of battle)  the BB loses that bonus if he is forced to drastically change course, if he changes his targets, or if his target drastically changes course.

 

For that bonus to occur though, ALL of a BB's turrets must be on target, thus giving a BB the incentive to "Cross the T" of his target.

 

Thus Cruisers can now fight from closer distances and engage in evasive maneuvers once they find out they are under fire from BBs. To prevent cruisers killing BBs by wiggling and setting them on fire numerous times. A part of the ship that has previously been on fire on a BB and has thus been "Blackened" Can not be set on fire again, unless the BB has used his heal to fix it up. (we could also say that that part has been "Burned out")

 

So, if cruisers are now where they should be, fighting for map control, destroyers will have a harder time doing drops all over the place.

 

[txtspeak]

this actually sounds strangly good...

[Vanhal]

Agree that the citadels are actually the biggest balance problem of the game. Lot of others are just consequences of this one faulty idea: every complaint about torps, weak secondaries, ridiculous RNG, dispersion, HE spam, etc. is always dismissed with the magical "but BB have those citadel hits" spell. Every attempt to balance the entwined classes is negated by this gordian knot, which should be just cut.

Only THEN we could get rid of some ridiculous mechanics like the mentioned.

 

Just not like you would like to do it, proposing flat out huge nerf for BB's. Torps would have to be nerfed considerably, same as HE damage for cruisers to recompense their increased survivability. That's for start.

[Kazomir]

Agree that the citadels are actually the biggest balance problem of the game. Lot of others are just consequences of this one faulty idea: every complaint about torps, weak secondaries, ridiculous RNG, dispersion, HE spam, etc. is always dismissed with the magical "but BB have those citadel hits" spell. Every attempt to balance the entwined classes is negated by this gordian knot, which should be just cut.

Only THEN we could get rid of some ridiculous mechanics like the mentioned.

 

Just not like you would like to do it, proposing flat out huge nerf for BB's. Torps would have to be nerfed considerably, same as HE damage for cruisers to recompense their increased survivability. That's for start.

 

Dont know. Flat out huge nerf is overstating it. You read that I actually wanted to increase base BB accuracy substantially and that they could even increace it MORE if they mind their positioning and who they are targeting (which, IMO, being less RNG and more skill-based, will also be more fun to play for BB players maybe?) ? Also the proposition that you cant start multiple fires on the same place unless the place is healed?  

 

EDIT that also gives BBs that cant deal with more armored BBs some more chance as well, Montana vs Yamato being prime example.

[cro_pwr]

thats the whole point why playing high tier cruisers sucks.

1 wrong move, 1 mistake and you are dead. ONE, not 5, not 10, ONE.

played with NO today, BB was behind the smoke, noone to spot him, i was detected by some random DD, bam, 2 citadels 2/3 of my hp gone in a second...

NOTHING is that punishing... even DDs that are / should be the most fragile class can survive good salvo from cruiser/bb, but as a BB you can delete cruiser in a second...

and yes, while that is satisfying when you are playing BBs, half of the time im playing them, id INSTANTLY make the trade to drop my max dmg by 50% but increase my accuracy / decrease dispersion by 50%...

[robihr]

well nerfing citadel damage could work if you also nerf fire chance or fire damage from ca. otherwise you get very good flamethrower that is very hard to kill..

[Comrad_StaIin]

Give DDs citadells so I can remove them with one salvo too just like cruisers 

 

[Azalgor]

DD are not OP, but they can take 6 torps and live...This sais all. DD got huge surviveability buff that no cruiser can dream of, if a cruiser takes 5 good hits from a BB you get devastated, while as CA need no less than 3-4 times that much hits to sink a DD (detonations excluded). How many times can a DD run of from beying spotten in them 30 sec? So what if DDs get their modules wreckt? With the ''Last stand'' beying a free skill you can still sail as if nothing happened and survive, provide spoting.

And the fact that to avoid them torp spams you need to chose either you show broadside to enemy fleet or take them torps, with the infestation of DDs on high tiers showing a broadside while avoiding the torps and being stealth HE spammed is suicide fun.

[Capra76]

Battleships are OP

 

Nerf battleships

 

HE'S A WITCH

 

BURN HIM

 

BURN HIM NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

 

* TM BB mafia

[DarthDon49]

thats the whole point why playing high tier cruisers sucks.

1 wrong move, 1 mistake and you are dead. ONE, not 5, not 10, ONE.

played with NO today, BB was behind the smoke, noone to spot him, i was detected by some random DD, bam, 2 citadels 2/3 of my hp gone in a second...

NOTHING is that punishing... even DDs that are / should be the most fragile class can survive good salvo from cruiser/bb, but as a BB you can delete cruiser in a second...

and yes, while that is satisfying when you are playing BBs, half of the time im playing them, id INSTANTLY make the trade to drop my max dmg by 50% but increase my accuracy / decrease dispersion by 50%...

 

It is time for a reality check: Historically Destroyers hit by a good salvo of HE from a cruiser (or HE bombs), did not survive the experience. The same was true for cruisers.

As for torpedoes, many ships went down from just one or two hits, the heavy cruiser Indianapolis sank in 12 minutes after being hit in the bow by two 21 inch torpedoes, the H.M.S Barham, which had massive anti-torpedo bulges, rolled over 4 minutes after being hit by three 21 inch torpedoes. (Note that the Japanese 24 inch Long Lance had a much larger warhead.)

[Kazomir]

Also, alternatively, In addition to these changes, we can add the following:

 

-Fire on ships now does not do damage, but instead reduces their accuracy by 20% per stack. (shocker)

-Ships on fire are now even more easily spotted, with destroyers being able to be spotted from even 10km.

-Letting a fire continue to rage on your ship would knock out AA guns and Secondaries

Reasons for this:

A: Fire damage is a really small part of a cruiser's Damage curriculum.

B: Cruisers would lose some damage, but would gain lots of survivability by setting BBs that can obliterate them on fire.

C: Fire damage is very repairable if you are a BB anyway (Tip: Heal yourself AFTER being set on fire, not before.)

D(Historical): Fire on the outside of the ship wouldnt really do that much damage to the structure and buoyancy of the ship, but the smoke would obscure the rangefinder's field of view. And if fire spreads it can knock out secondaries and AA guns on the deck.

 

 

[Xerkics]

Maybe cruisers can get a consumable called : Fire drill. Which gives them higher accuracy  and fast shell speed vs DD for a shorter period of time? That would play well into their role without making them op vs everything else? So you can choose whether to spec anti air or anti dd?

[Kazomir]

Maybe cruisers can get a consumable called : Fire drill. Which gives them higher accuracy  and fast shell speed vs DD for a shorter period of time? That would play well into their role without making them op vs everything else? So you can choose whether to spec anti air or anti dd?

 

Wont do much.

 

A: you sacrifice AA specialization.

B: You wont be able to get that close to a DD without a BB sending you to the depths.

C: DD Smoke.

[T_H_0_R]

Destroyers have a huge impact mostly due to their low concealment and thus ability to cap bases = earn lots of XP and win games. That part should not be overlooked. Not everything is based on damage dealt and scored kills.

[ScottishSalmon]

Not one single of mention of aircraft carriers? A ship which can keep a DD permanently spotted, spot their torps, and kill them with a single strike(with a bit of luck)? The real hard counter to DDs are carriers, since most cruisers are too slow to reliably spot/chase a retreating a DD anyway.

The problem is that due to a general lack of carriers, the balance has shifted in favour of DDs. Because this game is designed to work on a balance of all 4 ship types, the lack of popularity of a single type of ship inadvertently shifts the metagame, which causes the "prey" of the unpopular ship to become more prevalent. 

Ideally, all ships would be equally as popular and keep each other in check, but as this currently isn't the case, we end up with threads like this complaining how a class of ship is OP or how spammed that class is. 

[Xerkics]

Well im all for making other ships better at countering them like making sonar maybe better at spotting DD because as is its pretty useless if shimikaze spams torps at 20 km rather than nerfing them because so far WG has been balancing tanks for example by making things like arty uncomfortable to play by making stupid city maps like ensk where arty is a pinata or corridor maps where TD cant shoot anything rather than doing any actual balancing its like ignoring the problem exists and focus on trying to make less people play them so it seems like less of a problem.

[ColonelPete]

How will sonar help against a Shima 20km away ? Unless you want 20km sonar.

[Kazomir]

Not one single of mention of aircraft carriers? A ship which can keep a DD permanently spotted, spot their torps, and kill them with a single strike(with a bit of luck)? The real hard counter to DDs are carriers, since most cruisers are too slow to reliably spot/chase a retreating a DD anyway.

The problem is that due to a general lack of carriers, the balance has shifted in favour of DDs. Because this game is designed to work on a balance of all 4 ship types, the lack of popularity of a single type of ship inadvertently shifts the metagame, which causes the "prey" of the unpopular ship to become more prevalent. 

Ideally, all ships would be equally as popular and keep each other in check, but as this currently isn't the case, we end up with threads like this complaining how a class of ship is OP or how spammed that class is. 

 

I have never played them, thus no experience with them and no expertise.

 

Tho I agree they are the least played ship class and need an UI Overhaul, as it is currently they are just too complicated for me. ( I end up in the middle of the map somehow)  Keep in mind I have played SC2 somewhat competitively.

 

Also, I do not consider my thread as complaining and I take great offense that you do.

[Vaderan]

Sorry, OP, no offense intended, but your opening post alone indicates that you haven´t understood the basics of how BBs in this games "should" work, how the game mechanics work in terms of "base damage = citadell hit", "regular penetration damage - 1/3 of the damage potential", and overpenetration - 1/10 of a shells damage potential.

 

Besides all stories and legends and historical tralala around BBs, just focused on this PvP based game, the one and only, single reason to play BBs is their alpha damage. There is nothing about "reduce their citadell damage to 15% of what it is now", because the mechanics of this game just don´t allow for it. A citadell penetration always means "100% damage potential of the shell is used". There is no critical modifier or something. A BB in this game pays for this theoretical damage potential with all it´s drawbacks, like visibility, sluggishness, long reload, horrible RNG factor and all this stuff. The problem won´t be solved just by a reduction of a BBs alpha damage.

IF you reduce the alpha damage of a BB from it´s 100% to a 15%, you basically downgrade the damage potential of it´s guns below the level of DDs. 1500 AP damage instead of 10000? Any 155mm CA will do more damage. Any overpenetration on a BB will be a 150 HP hit...seriously?

 

If you want a drasticall change, which leads to a less static gameplay, there is only one thinkable, drastical solution: Take away the stealthyness from any DD. Before you start laughing or flaming: i am saying this as a player who considers DDs as the only viable class these days in terms of solo play. I didn´t play anything else but my Gremy, before i stopped playing at all.

 

If you take away the ability of firing unspotted from DDs, any player will be aware of their presence. This will just take away the ultimate surprise effect, while all other abilities are still available.

This way, DDs become a risk any player, no matter which class, can deal with. I am in a BB but the enemy DDs are on the other side of the map? I can push and go with my cruisers! They are on my side? Let the cruisers do their job and let me take care of my cruisers as a supporting BB.

 

BBs already pay the price for their big alpha. It´s the unknown what makes players of all classes cautious, let´s them hang back, makes the gameplay static.

Without their bonus in terms of visibility, DDs loose their ability they get for free as potential area denial weapons. Map controll goes from them to any player. No invisible surprises, no ambushes. Any player can evaluate the risk his choice might bring.

 

DDs will still have their ability to hit hard and fast, but they would have to do it in a more challanging way. 20km torpedo range will still remain torpedo range. But it will be limited to the surroundings of the spotted DD, not unlimited as an ever present thread across the whole map.

 

BBs stay back these days because they don´t dare to push into waters infested by invisible DDs. Cruisers require the support of BBs, but are often left alone, because they lack the ability to counter the DDs (spotting), and often turn away from the BB they are considered to escort. BBs are not able to defend themselves without cruisers.

If BBs receive the ability to deal with threads, you will see them leave their "comfort zone" behind all others. This includes less rng and more predicition/information about nearby enemies, including especially DDs. BBs are always forced to make their stand where they are, so they need to know where they go. Otherwise, they will stay where you find them these days almost all the time: out of range of potential damage, may it be near or not.

 

With the current mechanics, BBs may be forced to make their stand where they are, but are left alone without the armament to do so, although they should be prepared. But with ridiculous RNG,. barely good enough to shell a cruiser out of the water 1 in 5 times, and a chance of what? 1:20 of hitting a charging DD, without any reliable secondary battery defense against whatever, there is just no point for a BB to take the risk of staying with the CAs, which will run anyway when the situation gets hot.

 

No, the issue is not with the BBs, They got enough of their own issues, for sure, but the gamebreakers are the DDs. Not because of the raw numbers or what they are, but just by playing mind tricks, working as invisible area denial weapons and the ever shadowing ghost which might lure behind the next island, theoretically killing anything which comes around. It´s not the ship itsself, but the effect it has on any other player who is forced to deal with it: the unknown...

[Xerkics]

How will sonar help against a Shima 20km away ? Unless you want 20km sonar.

 

Longer Range directional Sonar with a cone that you activate. 

[Kazomir]

Vaderan, I like how you basically did not read all of my post and created a response that is basically bigger on the basis of that.

 

Yeah, Citadel damage got reduced in my thesis, but accuracy got a MAJOR buff, thus Damage potential should be about the same.

[Ferry_25]

this actually sounds strangly good...

 

I really must agree to this... Never thought of it this way! Maybe an idea to improve RNG by making 1 cruiser a pref target (like the planes and the secondaries with the ctrl button) meanwhile disimproving the rest of the ships by that. The cruisers are the DD fighters. When sailing a cruiser and I spot a DD I do for that. Most of the time I'm being punished by getting one shotted/ 97% HP loss from 1 BB salvo.

With this idea from kazomir the BB's still are the heavy hitters but at least the cruisers have some more chance to live to fight another day. And I really welcome the idea of the extremely annoying "the ship is on fire" message every 5 seconds... Damage saturation by fire sounds like a bliss to me when sailing a BB!!

 

And reacting to above posts. IMO capping has gained too big a role. It's so frustrating when a game is finally running nicely (for both sides) it's being ended beacuse of the points! IMO capping should have a more modest role. The main purpose being shooting the other side to the bottom. Capping being an escape if 1 DD (f.e.) survives and you don't want to spend 10 minutes looking for it. Suggestion: make capping less xp-sensitive/ make the captime longer as the enemy has more ships.

 

I think it would be great if the boring stalemate games which I experience most of the times would be broken and have real "live to death" shooting/ torp sprees (like the game is intended AFAIK)

[ColonelPete]

A 20km sonar cone, will be too much. It will be huge at the end. And if it more like a beam, it will not help much.

 

@Vaderan

Visible DD would be the death of the class unless you rework them completely.

Read some of experiences people had with radar. People managed to kill three DDs in the time two cruisers used their radar (40 to 80s, do not know which cruisers it where).

Now imagine DDs being visble as soon as they use torpedos. And everybody would know that torpedos are in the water and from where they a coming.

[robihr]

while this topic sounds rather good in theory, it messes the whole balance (whatever balance we have for now). nerfing citadel damage would make ca OP cause they could go 1v1 vs bb and just set him on fire to death and finish him off with ap...  so you would need to nerf ca fire chances/damage, etc.

 

you suggested improving accuracy, but problem with that is that inaccuracy of guns is what makes 60% of players do actual damage..

 

idk why noone actually thought of buffing cv in a manner that would make them actually attractive to play and helpful in countering dd. like adding scouting xp, buffing their credit gain (so they can be good cash cows) etc.

[Xerkics]

How about letting fighters strafe run destroyers? They got hardly any armour anyway so its feasible.