''Passive'' play by mid to high tier battleships is the meta?

[Admiral_noodle]

I do think "punishing" people for taking damage is a problem. I would suggest:

 

- flatter maintenance costs so it matters less if you sink

- XP for bouncing shells.

[Xevious_Red]

I do think "punishing" people for taking damage is a problem. I would suggest:

 

- flatter maintenance costs so it matters less if you sink

- XP for bouncing shells.

Alternatively:

Remove (or drastically lower) repair cost so it doesn't matter if you sink or not.

Increase shell cost a lot.

Increase income from damage done.

 

This way if you get stuck in and do some damage you make money (removing the problem of "high tier economy sucks").

If you float about at the back firing and hitting nothing you lose money. (Which might discourage it)

[LetsRockAndRoll]

Myself (Budyonny) and a team mate in a Nurnberg ( neither of which are the sturdiest of ships ) fought our way up the east flank on Islands of fire. On the way we sank an Atago, Hipper, Pensa and a Kiev. During this time we both took a lot of damage and were basically dead if we got hit again. As we approached the enemy cap we saw what we thought was an AFK Fuso. But no, he wasn't afk he was camping base. As we got closer a North Carolina popped up. Obviously we were sunk pretty quickly by these two base camping BB's.

 

My problem is that these guys get rewarded for base camping and we get punished for attacking. This does nothing to encourage aggressive game play by anyone.

 

 

[Zgicc]

Alternatively:

Remove (or drastically lower) repair cost so it doesn't matter if you sink or not.

Increase shell cost a lot.

Increase income from damage done.

 

This way if you get stuck in and do some damage you make money (removing the problem of "high tier economy sucks").

If you float about at the back firing and hitting nothing you lose money. (Which might discourage it)

 

This won't work. BBs play the same in lower tiers where there is low repair cost. BBs played the same during the 2x credit event per win last weekend.

 

Its a mentality issue, not a gameplay issue.

 

Rewarding XP for tanking = Players who camped and die will still get rewarded.

[avenger121]

Its a win-win-win-lose situation.

 

Not really, it is just that those noobs dont realize how much* carry potential they miss out. Everytime I check one of those "20km-to-the-closest-enemy" BB players they usually sit at 40-70k DPG, depending on the ship. They simply dont understand that everything below 80k DPG in a T8+ BB is friggin bad, also dealing appropiate dmg covers your repair costs far better than the HP conserving strategy.

 

Just played yesterday with a Yamato stroking his e-peen in chat about his 5 kills, while he sat all game long in our cap circle sniping at 20km. Checking his stats, 52k DPG with 45% WR.

 

 

Smaller maps are the only solution. They may talk about repair costs and torp walls, while the true reason is that they are simply crap.

[Mayv]

Alternatively:

Remove (or drastically lower) repair cost so it doesn't matter if you sink or not.

Increase shell cost a lot.

Increase income from damage done.

 

This way if you get stuck in and do some damage you make money (removing the problem of "high tier economy sucks").

If you float about at the back firing and hitting nothing you lose money. (Which might discourage it)

 

Going by the NA forums, the reduce repair costs havent changed a thing.

[Namolis]

[BabyAdmiral]

This only shows that most BB players are just clueless.

 

I've never understood the sentiment that players in general only play one ship/class of ship? Everyone is a BB player. Clueless player is clueless player. He is clueless when he plays his cruiser/destroyer/carrier too. Just as good "cruiser players" usually plays well in their battleship.

[EsaTuunanen]

This won't work. BBs play the same in lower tiers where there is low repair cost. BBs played the same during the 2x credit event per win last weekend.

Its a mentality issue, not a gameplay issue.

 

Rewarding XP for tanking = Players who camped and die will still get rewarded.

Yep, carrot doesn't work.

Repair costs are insignificant at Tier V.

It needs use of big enough stick to make them understand they're playing badly.

 

One way would be to take a note how much damage BB takes in the match compared to team mates at some points of the match like at 10 minute mark.

Rear hiding Balless Boats are then usually in practise full health while team mates are barely alive if at all...

While checking end situation doesn't work because superiority gaining enemy often then corners these deserters. (or good CV nukes these lonely targets)

Then just apply multiplier to credits/XP depending on has BB been taking his share of hits, naturally decreasing reward for Balless Boats who sacrifice their team.

 

For slow USN BBs multiplier should be milder because they just can't keep up with cruisers but IJN BBs have well enough speed to stay reasonably close to cruisers.

I mean I know player with 4½k average damage in nine Kongo matches with sub 14k highest damage.

[thestaggy]

 

You just answered your own question, didn't you. Most BB players have learned through experience what will happen when they go forward: win or die. For a CA and especially DD it's win or pull back, but not for a BB. And, yes, it's progressively more and more like that as you get higher up.

 

I keep telling people that it's because your ships need more and more time to move out of harms way (whenever the need arises), but everyone else keeps blaming repair costs and torpedoes. Even if ships don't have that much higher survivability in high tier and even if this meta exists irrespective of the number of DDs. It's not me, it's everyone else who's crazy. 

 

Well, OK, torpedoes are part of it, but not more than other forms of harm you might want to not receive. You get my gist.

 

Fun fact: at T10, even DD have worse turning circles than what BBs had at T4. Guess what that does for harm avoidance.

 

One can yolo in to a literal hail of fire, or, which is what is troubling me, one can find themselves as the only target because fellow BBs are either ''sniping'' or they have turned and run at the first sight of an Omaha. 

 

I'm sorry, as painful as HE can be there is no reason to find a BB on A8 (two blocks away from the corner)  when its allies are getting taken apart. Two BBs sharing incoming damage is far better for the team than both BBs being isolated one-by-one and going down under focused fire because one of them was preserving his HP and lobbing shells from 18/19 km away. 

 

I saw it last night. Burnt down by a Marblehead and Omaha while trying to avoid hits from another New York and Myogi. My allied Kongo? Well, he had 54100 HP and was riding the border AWAY from me. No amount of ''SOS'', ''Requesting Support' and ''Requesting fire at X'' helped. What happened to him? Same fate that befell me, isolated and picked apart. The team never benefited from his play and neither did he. Both of us would've lasted longer and dealt more damage if he came to the fight.

 

I'm far from good at this, but surely hiding at the back when you have the most armour, biggest guns, largest HP pool and the means to offset some damage is not the correct way to be using this specific type of ship? 

 

[RogDodgeUK]

moved to Ships / Battleships

[KHETTIFER]

I've noticed a lot of passive BB play recently, but its not only present in this game, mechwarrior has the same problem with heavies and assaults.

Noob thinking, bigger is better and therefore i will rek face without having to actually learn, also the horrible balance in this game  encourages it, accept that and things can be improved on.

[Vanhal]

 

It needs use of big enough stick to make them understand they're playing badly.

 

This game has too much stick already. It obviously don't work.

[CrniVrag]

Sailing BB's is all about damage control and getting the big fat lump of steel into a favorable position from where you can damage the enemy hard with the least risk for your ship.

 

The problem with the noobs starts at damage control, let's be honest, they can't hit shite from 20 km away so they close in, but as soon as they take fire or are set on fire they panic, use the repair ability, get set on fire again, start to turn away and in the process take a big fat citadel penetration. Then they proceed to call the enemy haxors, cry about HE burning mechanics or OP invisifire DD's.

 

So the next battle they stay at 20 km and wait. They wait while their cruisers get obliterated by enemy BB's, they wait while their DD's are constantly spotted by CV's and killed by enemy cruisers they should counter. Then after the team is gone they scream about noobs and matchmaking. Hmmm....wait!! I got dejavu... OMG it's the same as in WoT!

 

Bottom line, you can change the game, you can change the pace of the game, you can do whatever you want, there will always be players who refuse to learn and get better, since they start the game with the wrong perception of themselves as being better then they are...

 

[SgtToad]

I think there's 3 possible solutions:

 

- Reduce map size

- Reduce firing range drastically

- Speed the game up by about 15%, ie everything, ships, shells, etc*

 

*Because i think part of the reason is the slowness of the whole game. It can take 4 minutes or so to reach your flank position, or wherever, if it turns out you're outnumbered 5-2 and all the fun is on the other side of the map, tough, you're never going to make it before you're sunk. So it commits BBs to choosing early - where are you going? Choose wrong, you're sunk. This doesnt apply to DDs or CAs nearly as much.

 

Navy Field 2 actually tended to give more exciting, tactical and nail biting games, despite its many flaws. People couldnt really camp, everyone had to get stuck in, and if you chose a bad route you could often get out of it and still have decent health left. Aggressive play was not discouraged, though stupid play was. Battles were carnage, but a hell of a lot of fun. It's hard to compare map sizes but i would think they were similar, but ships were much faster, and you had boost to help you traverse long distances in reasonable time. Unrealistic but it worked. I'd even happily see all ships in WoWs with some sort of boost facility.

 

 

[GhostRiderMax123]

Personally being a BB captain I will not charge head on into battle by myself as that can end badly more often than not if I can I will try to stick with a Cruiser and try to close the range and get into a position were I can be of most use the problem with this is that not every BB can do 30 knots where as most Cruisers can do more than this speed the end result is that you may not be able to keep up, its either that or the Cruisers dash to the cap's along with the DD's and end up getting sunk by other DD's or the Cruisers and BB's of the other team which I can not engage because either the target's are behind and island or outside/on the edge of my guns effective range (Just because the target is in range of my guns does not mean that I can hit it ).

 

I have had battles where I have been able to play aggressively with a higher tier ship and in these battle's I normally have the support of another BB or a few Cruisers. 

 

now all that said I am more than willing to play aggressively but lets be honest If every BB driver charged off into battle this would be a post about how BB drivers are getting killed in the first 5 minutes of the match

 

I think there's 3 possible solutions:

 

- Reduce map size

- Reduce firing range drastically

- Speed the game up by about 15%, ie everything, ships, shells, etc*

 

*Because i think part of the reason is the slowness of the whole game. It can take 4 minutes or so to reach your flank position, or wherever, if it turns out you're outnumbered 5-2 and all the fun is on the other side of the map, tough, you're never going to make it before you're sunk. So it commits BBs to choosing early - where are you going? Choose wrong, you're sunk. This doesnt apply to DDs or CAs nearly as much.

 

Navy Field 2 actually tended to give more exciting, tactical and nail biting games, despite its many flaws. People couldnt really camp, everyone had to get stuck in, and if you chose a bad route you could often get out of it and still have decent health left. Aggressive play was not discouraged, though stupid play was. Battles were carnage, but a hell of a lot of fun. It's hard to compare map sizes but i would think they were similar, but ships were much faster, and you had boost to help you traverse long distances in reasonable time. Unrealistic but it worked. I'd even happily see all ships in WoWs with some sort of boost facility.

 

 

 

R.E. firing range reductions.....I do not think that this is necessary as it can be a challenge sometimes to hit a target that is 25km away personally I try to close to 15km or less depending on what is happening ect heck my Kongo was engaging Cruisers at 10km the other day also I would not say that ships need to have their speed increased but I would not mind an increase in speed for shells.

 

[Flukeyluke]

long story short tier 7+ BBs run away since they fear takeing damage as damage = repair bills

[Sub_Eleven]

/thread

[TheIdesOfMarch93]

"Passive" play by mid to high-tier battleship players? 

 

Well well well... you haven't met me go full ham yet in my Montana! 

[Poster_2015]

Personally being a BB captain I will not charge head on into battle by myself as that can end badly more often than not if I can I will try to stick with a Cruiser and try to close the range and get into a position were I can be of most use the problem with this is that not every BB can do 30 knots where as most Cruisers can do more than this speed the end result is that you may not be able to keep up, its either that or the Cruisers dash to the cap's along with the DD's and end up getting sunk by other DD's or the Cruisers and BB's of the other team which I can not engage because either the target's are behind and island or outside/on the edge of my guns effective range (Just because the target is in range of my guns does not mean that I can hit it ).

 

I have had battles where I have been able to play aggressively with a higher tier ship and in these battle's I normally have the support of another BB or a few Cruisers. 

 

now all that said I am more than willing to play aggressively but lets be honest If every BB driver charged off into battle this would be a post about how BB drivers are getting killed in the first 5 minutes of the match

 

 

R.E. firing range reductions.....I do not think that this is necessary as it can be a challenge sometimes to hit a target that is 25km away personally I try to close to 15km or less depending on what is happening ect heck my Kongo was engaging Cruisers at 10km the other day also I would not say that ships need to have their speed increased but I would not mind an increase in speed for shells.

 

 

As for speeding up, maybe. But as much as gameplay>realism , there are limits. Already i had a DD game where the end screen said 110km travelled - and i had some stops/breaks/smoke firing. 110km in 20 mins means my ship was travelling at 330km/h (or just over 200 knots). 330km/h AVERAGE SPEED - including "coffee breaks". Tashkent with flags/boost gets close to 500km/h territory, and even the slower biplanes reach close to speed of sound, while end planes reach double Mach speed. The game IS sped up a LOT. So are shells. Yamato can fire (not recommended but for curiosity sake) at 37km with modules/floatplanes. The flight time is around 30 sec for that. Huge you say? Well in reality it would take well over 2 mins (closer to 3). The game speeds ups ships around 5-6 times (i lived under delusion it was double, until I actually checked the facts). Shells are sped up less , so hitting i guess is a bit harder. So if we speed it up more, we are getting even more into some spaceship technology.

 

Ill give you some other examples. Lets say Yamato range was really 37km (rounded) like in game. Thats just 7-8 "squares" on the minimap on the biggest maps. Now think they both sail straight at each other full speed ahead while shooting. They sail around 100km/h combined speed. So they will meet right about when the 20 min battle ends. Shimakaze 20km torps, would also take about the whole battle length to reach the target. 

 

So yea, speeding up might be an answer, but like i said - we are getting dangerously close to fully fantasy game. And while balance trumps realism, if we completely detach from the "real feel" of the ships, the game will be done for most people. 

[bug]

This is my personal views, and my playstyle is what works best for me, not for all.

I found most teams with sniping (camping) battleships lose. Also if top tier BB rush or lemming, team often lose. It is too easy to simplify it to either rush or camp, as win depends on teamwork and differs if they lemming, defend or attack..

Personally I found shooting at max range is useless. I even thought of not installing the "gun fire control system" on my North Carolina, as I think its best to get closer and in position before trying to damage enemy seriously. Also is going too close pretty useless. I kill a lot of DD in my BB, whitch is a sign of bad teams tbh, and I kill many BB. I often have to go back and forth, as team often do strange things :d

When top tier in games with few DD or torpedo spamming (german or japs) cruisers, I can go front attack on a flank. I like to be close and take damage for team, but still able to go back and use repair if very damaged.

[LeeQuid]

because of this..

The torpedo spam is real.

 

Also Battleships are just obsolete at high tiers...i dont know why ppl. still play them after tier 8.

A Zao or des Moines or Hindenburg would be much more useful to a team then a Yamato who would instantly get focused by the enemy team and burned down/torped to death the moment it tries to play aggressive. In no other BB i get focused as hard as in the yamato;..the very moment i entered the battle, i become public enemy number one..

 

It really is no point in playing high tier BBs...just get a Zao, build it for stealth and spam HE from 17km...it projects damage much more reliable then a Yamato or any other BB, can relocate fast and can also dodge torpedo walls.

 

[komoo]

Also Battleships are just obsolete at high tiers...i dont know why ppl. still play them after tier 8.

A Zao or des Moines or Hindenburg would be much more useful to a team then a Yamato who would instantly get focused by the enemy team and burned down/torped to death the moment it tries to play aggressive. In no other BB i get focused as hard as in the yamato;..the very moment i entered the battle, i become public enemy number one..

 

 

hah, this reminds me of the first time I sailed my brand new Yamato. I watched strategy videos, trying to understand what I would expect in battle with her... but I acknowledged that reality is often different from the theory.

I remember that I was focused by a Midway, all enemy BBs on my side of the map, and their escort cruisers, all of this while going here and there to avoid the DD torps and angling and repairing (I wasn't rushing or over exposed, just inside the fleet part going for a cap point). I managed to do some dmg before dying for my team, the funny part came when I asked in "all" chat if this was normal routine for the Yamato. Everyone, friend and foe, answered instantly yes. Made me smile 

 

Maybe it's for that reason that I perform absurdly badly with her - I am not even considering occasional RNG nonsense -  while I can play just fine with my BBs to tier 8 included. She's still THE target, even if not powerful as once from what I read around, because I recognize her potential if supported by the team.

 

I don't think that highest tier BBs are useless, but I believe at this point that it's almost mandatory to not play alone but be in a division, in order to have at least some degree of coordination, which will hopefully bring results that are consistent with the lower tier, more familiar BBs. 

 

Anyway, I am also looking forward to grinding the Zao. With the ARP Myoko I am having a blast, it's a wonderful BB pyromaniac. I definitely will resume the IJN CA line when the Furutaka will get her Aoba-style turrets...

[Namolis]

because of this..

The torpedo spam is real.

 

Also Battleships are just obsolete at high tiers...i dont know why ppl. still play them after tier 8.

A Zao or des Moines or Hindenburg would be much more useful to a team then a Yamato who would instantly get focused by the enemy team and burned down/torped to death the moment it tries to play aggressive. In no other BB i get focused as hard as in the yamato;..the very moment i entered the battle, i become public enemy number one..

 

It really is no point in playing high tier BBs...just get a Zao, build it for stealth and spam HE from 17km...it projects damage much more reliable then a Yamato or any other BB, can relocate fast and can also dodge torpedo walls.

 

 

Yeah, I really wonder how many posting here has really tried the Yamato. The ship just cannot turn to save its life (and hence doesn't). The simple fact is that cruisers have about the same manouverability at T10 that battleships had at T6-7. T10 (and 9) BBs are correspondingly even more sluggish. So, for anyone of you think that xp for "tanking" will help: How, exactly, do you tank torpedo floodings or HE fires?

 

No, it's not impossible, far from it. That's not what I'm getting at. The answer is WASD. But for that to work, those keys actually need to have a noticable in-game effect when pressed.

 

 

"Camping" in a high-tier battleship is an incorrect adaptation to the experience that anything else will simply see you die for little or no gain to your team. So what is the correct adaptation? Simple: do not play high-tier battleships. The sad fact right now is that battleships have no use in a high quality T10 match. CVs with their usefulness are in a league of their own ofc, but a Shima, Gearing, Khaba, Zao, Moskva, Burg or DM are all more useful ships to the team than a Yama or Montana. This has been true of the Montana since the rudder nerf/torp spotting buff that caused the Shima heavy meta we know today. Yamato, for a while, was still OK, because it still had raw stats to make it viable. With the heal nerf on Yama, it has fallen to a level that is only just above Montana: it can kill Monty, but no other T10 (provided that T10 is captained by a skilled player).

 

I am one of many players who started this game because of a facination with battleships. Naturally, I ground them first. I think many are like me, and have only battleships at T10, and for that reason alone, I don't see them going away anytime soon. Grinding a line to its end is no small task, and players will still take a while to adapt when they understand the truth. Personally, I still love them irl, and I still play my Monty and Yama just because they are so beautiful, but I have come to realize that they are not favored by the current meta. If I want to do well, I play Zao.

[the_dude33]

The funny thing is, often when I see another BB disappoint, I go look up his stats. You'd be surprised at how poor performance that you can witness in-battle is correlated with WRs of 44-46%, with at least 800 battles played... I observe this at tiers VII-IX at the moment. So there is a point of "BBs attract ****s"...