BB's stock hulls initiave

[puxflacet]

EDIT: this thread ceased to be topical since removal most of the battleship stock hulls, however still stands my points about timeline progress and the following debate

 

Battleship hull configurations and their placement in the game

 

 

this problem is primarily related to first dreadnought battleships which were laid down before world war 1 but survived the war because of the treaties and after war were heavily refitted - some were practically turned into different ship, yet still these radically different configurations share the same tier which is tearing them out of the natural progress through the naval development. this was not so obvious with japanese and american battleships for various reasons, but will heavily affect both germans and british battleships.

 

There are lot of fans of first dreadnoughts which would like to use the ships in their original configuration, but because the orginial and refitted hull versions share the same tiers, players have to accept the fact, that they will be handicapped because they are forced to face 20 years younger ships and even aircraft carriers for which these ships were not designed.

EDIT: some of most affected stock hulls were already removed

 

the related problem to this is uneven time distribution through tiers. this game is suppose to cover timespan approx 1900 - 1945 but still is heavily focused on ww2 :

because first aircraft carriers, treaty ships and bb refits starts at tier 4 it means that the space for ships from 1900 - 1920 era is limited to tiers 2 and 3 (tier 1 is out because of obvious reasons) yet for the years 1920 - 1945 there are tiers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 - evident disproportion. this means that ships in low tiers are put into unnatural enviroment which causes some problems, because there are meeting ships which separates more than 30 years of technological and tactical development.

this is result of wg copying tiering system from their other games but both tanks and planes cover timespan from approx 1925 - 1950 which is about 20 years shorter than the ship's timespan

EDIT: issue of low tier ships in unnatural enviroment was pretty much fixed with MM limits for tiers 2-4

 

So I think that there should be done something what helps these configurations to be competitive in this game and the best way to balance all warships is obviously to put them in proper place in the timeline, because balance is what is naval engineering all about and every warship were designed balanced compare to their potential enemies. 

 

On 13. 7. 2016 at 2:00 PM, VC381 said:

I think a few people are misunderstanding the intention. This isn't about BBs having a worse stock grind than other classes. It's about not being able to enjoy the ships in a certain historical context as represented by their stock hulls. Yeah as far as game progression goes stock should be worse and that's fine, but stock hulls for BBs represent a completely different era of naval warfare and are thematically out of place with their own later hulls and every other class at the same tier. No other class shares this issue to the same extent.

 

At worst for some cruisers and destroyers the difference between stock and top hulls is about a decade of technological development. For most BBs tiers 4 to 7 it's more like 20 years at least.

So it's not about wanting buffs or easier stock grinds, it's about wanting to play these ships with the look and feel of WWI, with everything else matching the time frame and on a level playing field.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I can think of these 3 options:

 

1.)  The difference of performance of some battleships between stock and fully upgraded configuration is such drastical, that maybe they should be splitted into more tiers. Maybe it is a way to avoid some unnecessary paper designs and just replace them with older hull of following ship.

 

2.) Split ships into two cathegories according to their current configuration: pre1920 and post1920 and matchmaker would try to put ships of each cathegory against each other. Preferable rule – certainly not 100%, because of divisions etc.

This rule is more focused to the fact that stock bbs have to face carriers, but it would also help to bring ww1 configurations in same matches rather than against their younger counterparts.

 

3.) Or introduce more complex matchmaking rules - that the specific configurations of ships would have a rating number according to their upgrade status and matchmaker would try to put the ships with closest rating against each other (sounds a bit familiar, right?)

 

 

These are my 2 cents to this issue. Feel free to comment...

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

EDIT: in reaction to 1MajorKoenig's proposal  i am including 2 more radical suggestions, which would more drastically affect the game, but still worth consideration:

 

either:

- focus on even time distribution/progression through tiers as 1MajorKoenig proposed - end of ww1 was important milestone in warfare evolution, so if this game wants to include ships before 1920 it is necesarry to put them in proper enviroment. i would even recommend to add 2 more tiers down to make more space so:

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 tiers for 1900 - 1920 era ships 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 for 1920 - 1945 ships - this would mean of course no 1930 refits for tier 2 - 5 battleships and no pre-1920 hulls after tier 5 and preferably no hull configurations exceeding 20 years sharing the same tier (splitting one ship into more tiers would probably also apply to this) & carrier start at tier 6, etc...

 

 

or:

- focus completely on ww2 and remove every ship configuration before 1920

EDIT: i really didnt mean this seriously. i know its not possible (premium ships cant be removed, and i doubt this would be very popular not to mention how huge change it would be) but certainly its option 

 

[Vanhal]

4) Make option for the ships to retain their previous hulls looks only while being upgraded.

 

Except point one, which i somehow don't expect WG to even consider, nothing else would make any sense anyway, as upgrades offer seriously massive difference. While not as bad as tanks, stock ships are often comparable or even worse than upgraded ships of previous tier.

[RogDodgeUK]

moved to Ships / Battleships

[Khul]

1) I'd be in favour of that but it'll never happen in a WG game--they've got this "get a new ship/tank/whatever per tier" idea kinda fixed... Although I believe there's now several models of PzIV in WOT at different tiers, so maybe like in the far-off future there's a remote possibility. But I doubt it. Why would you bother if, whenever you've got two different sisters (or half-sisters) in the same class, you can monetise it!

The German cruisers obviously are the outlier here, but then again WG probably looked at the ships in that case & thought "Ships few people know existed that weren't that hot in reality & did jack naff-all in WW2... Not even we can charge people real money for one of these!"

 

More & more we're seeing battleship half-sisters as premiums.

 

2) & 3) are nightmares for the matchmaker that'd create more problems with people sitting in queues for days without getting a battle. I'm not in favour of that--don't really mind myself but the cacophony on the forums should something like that be introduced is not something I'm keen to read.

 

Isn't there some people in off-topic doing some sort of player-organised historical battles (in training rooms iirc), who use a pre-determined cut-off date to select ships (i.e. battle time set at say June 1917 so only ship ABC in X configuration)? I really should get around to joining that 'cos it's definitely something I'm interested in but my game-time is sporadic & limited so have never been able to commit to some sort of schedule.

[lafeel]

How about it you give it a rest instead, seeing as your own poll shows that the majority of the players either don't agree with you or just don't give a f*ck.

 

Edit: Got you mixed up with 1MajorKoenig, my apologies. But seriously, stop this b*tching and moaning already and face the fact you don't have enough support.

[Ev1n]

I'd rather just make a separate (likely PvE) mode where you can safely sail your old banger without fear of carriers or modern(ized) ships giving you grief.

[puxflacet]

I'd rather just make a separate (likely PvE) mode where you can safely sail your old banger without fear of carriers or modern(ized) ships giving you grief.

 

i heard a lot about separate modes when we talked about pre-dreadnoughts...

i would like to keep these ships in pvp and splitting the queue doesnt seem like a good idea (as wg probably already learned). separate mod also won't fix the current state of the stock hulls

 

Khul, on 12 July 2016 - 05:58 PM, said:

1) I'd be in favour of that but it'll never happen in a WG game--they've got this "get a new ship/tank/whatever per tier" idea kinda fixed... Although I believe there's now several models of PzIV in WOT at different tiers, so maybe like in the far-off future there's a remote possibility. But I doubt it. Why would you bother if, whenever you've got two different sisters (or half-sisters) in the same class, you can monetise it!

 

konig albert, which is defacto kaiser's stock hull, is currently on tier 3, while the kaiser is on tier 4 and it seems that kaiser won't have its original configuration...there is something going on already

[Todger_Fairmile]

 

konig albert, which is defacto kaiser's stock hull, is currently on tier 3, while the kaiser is on tier 4 and it seems that kaiser won't have its original configuration...there is something going on already

 

Or, they believe everyone will just max out their Kaiser's anyway.

[Vanhal]

 

i heard a lot about separate modes when we talked about pre-dreadnoughts...

 

Yeah, there was some talk. That was only talk though, we don't have any separate modes. Also, we don't even have predreadnoughtS, because apparently Mikasa is so hard to balance WG don't even want to try or test.

 

I'd rather just make a separate (likely PvE) mode

 

I would think that 30% of players mostly or only playing PvE would get some attention from WG by now, but apparently not.

[Diminios]

 

Yeah, there was some talk. That was only talk though, we don't have any separate modes. Also, we don't even have predreadnoughtS, because apparently Mikasa is so hard to balance WG don't even want to try or test.

Well, HMS Dreadnought did turn the battleship world on its head when it launched. And since the starting battleships are the first dreadnoughts built for their respective navies (though I'm still convinced that HMS Dreadnought will be a premium and the RN line will start with HMS Bellerophon), you can't really go (far) below that. The cruisers will eat you alive. Hell, even the patrol boats at T1 will eat you alive.

[VC381]

I also long for a WWI game mode or some kind of MM rating that's separate from Tier so that BBs can be played stock in a way that is fair and makes thematic sense.

 

But, I'll try to be realistic that it will never happen. To be honest CVs aren't around often enough to be a huge problem but everything else changes, range, penetration, HP pool.

 

I think if we want that we just have to play the premiums they give us with lower tiers than their upgraded cousins and preferential MM. Ishizuchi gives me most of the WWI battlecruiser kicks I need for now, plus low tier premiums are cheap as chips and club like crazy in semi-competent hands.

 

It's not ideal, partly because low tier games tend to descend into boring clusterf***s, but it's something.

[Spellfire40]

This isnt age of dreadnout. Best you might expect is moding that allows you (and your alone) to percive your ship as a basehull.

I'd rather just make a separate (likely PvE) mode where you can safely sail your old banger without fear of carriers or modern(ized) ships giving you grief.

Anything that takes player away from random isnt a terible good idia. Perhaps a timelimited event like historical battles in wot but no permanent feature that takes players out of the normal MM.

 

[puxflacet]

This isnt age of dreadnout.

 

so what is it? im willing to accept that this game isnt suited for pre-dreadnoughts but dreadnoughts are crucial part of the game's timeline...pretty much every bb up to tier 6 was built as dreadnought

[deadly_if_swallowed]

 dreadnoughts are crucial part of the time-line this game currently represents

 

True. But dreadnoughts also faced new challenges during WWII, new technology, new ways of naval warfare. This is why there are late war refits (B and C hulls) to be researched. Just like warfare, you develop your ships.

Destroyers are becoming more annoying? B-hull has better rudder shift.

Battleships have larger caliber? B-hull has better hp-pool and/or armor.

Aircraft are gaining more impact on the battle? C-hull has better AA.

 

You never sit still on just one tech level. You strive to improve your ship to have the edge against others.

 

However, I do understand (but not share) the enthusiasm for WWI ships Easiest suggestion for now might be a "WWI/Dreadnought Society" (like HMS_Worcester's Mikasa Appreciation Society - see my signature) with tournaments in Training Room strictly tied to WWI ships.

[Spellfire40]

Its a game were you have to deal with things the real ships never had to deal with. Stock Fuso/New Mexiko weren't build in the time Aircrafts were a factor of naval warfare yet in game you can meet Lexi/Shokaku.

 

Its a progression game.

[puxflacet]

Its a game were you have to deal with things the real ships never had to deal with. Stock Fuso/New Mexiko weren't build in the time Aircrafts werent a factor of naval warfare yet in game you can meet Lexi/Shokaku.

_Kyoshi, on 13 July 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

True. But dreadnoughts also faced new challenges during WWII, new technology, new ways of naval warfare. This is why there are late war refits (B and C hulls) to be researched. Just like warfare, you develop your ships.

 

yeah. you both guys summarized the problem...i was just trying to find some solution

[ParEx]

Hmm, besides the suggestion of reducing the gap between stock and new hull all this is about a prefered or reduced MM for BBs only as far as I can see.

If that is true: total disagree. There are large gaps in all other classes too, especially DDs where your stock Torps just suck and you have to grind your way with terrible torpedo range.

And: how often do you encounter CVs in Tier4-5 nowadays? And how long does it take to grind the new hull? I mean, there are few battles where you have stock hull and see a CV...is there really a need for a buff in BBs at the moment?

[fnord_disc]

I don't think it's a wise idea to split the playerbase at remodelled/unremodelled.

 

I know it's a bad solution because it requires you to pay $$, but making the unremodelled ships premiums seems a more workable solution to me.

[VC381]

I think a few people are misunderstanding the intention. This isn't about BBs having a worse stock grind than other classes. It's about not being able to enjoy the ships in a certain historical context as represented by their stock hulls. Yeah as far as game progression goes stock should be worse and that's fine, but stock hulls for BBs represent a completely different era of naval warfare and are thematically out of place with their own later hulls and every other class at the same tier. No other class shares this issue to the same extent.

 

At worst for some cruisers and destroyers the difference between stock and top hulls is about a decade of technological development. For most BBs tiers 4 to 7 it's more like 20 years at least.

So it's not about wanting buffs or easier stock grinds, it's about wanting to play these ships with the look and feel of WWI, with everything else matching the time frame and on a level playing field.

[1MajorKoenig]

How about it you give it a rest instead, seeing as your own poll shows that the majority of the players either don't agree with you or just don't give a f*ck.

 

Edit: Got you mixed up with 1MajorKoenig, my apologies. But seriously, stop this b*tching and moaning already and face the fact you don't have enough support.

 

And you are who kid to make this judgement?

 

The poll didn't really work out as only 300 or so players voted. Unfortunately not significant with regards to the 20k players but that's live.

 

Much more interesting was the lively/heated discussion it sparked. Bottom line is that some people don't mind WoWS becoming more of a fictional /cartoonish game as long as the balance seems about right and others who are interested in the ships and their history and who would prefer less fantasy upgrades as it spoils the historical piece. Both are valid opinions and Tucci gave some rational behind their choices to go fictional.

 

My perception is that the tiering system / power progression model is far from being ideal. There are a couple of options how this could be rectified though to deal with dreadnought and WW2 battles alike.

 

One point some ppl are missing here is that the time of true BB vs BB engagements was the dreadnought era not WW2 when planes rendered BBs literally almost meaningless. Ignoring dreadnought battles is not a smart move for such a game therefore.

 

PS: and please refrain from putting mandates on others. I am entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.

[piritskenyer]

The thing that will be of great joy for old ship fans is probably going to be community organised Historical Battles in TR.

[puxflacet]

I think a few people are misunderstanding the intention. This isn't about BBs having a worse stock grind than other classes. It's about not being able to enjoy the ships in a certain historical context as represented by their stock hulls. Yeah as far as game progression goes stock should be worse and that's fine, but stock hulls for BBs represent a completely different era of naval warfare and are thematically out of place with their own later hulls and every other class at the same tier. No other class shares this issue to the same extent.

 

At worst for some cruisers and destroyers the difference between stock and top hulls is about a decade of technological development. For most BBs tiers 4 to 7 it's more like 20 years at least.

 

So it's not about wanting buffs or easier stock grinds, it's about wanting to play these ships with the look and feel of WWI, with everything else matching the time frame and on a level playing field.

i should incorporate this into the heading text because you version sounds more clear 

[ApesTogetherStronK]

Personally I always thought that a points system would make more sense than a tier system. 

For example. 

Stock Fusou is worth x (let's say 400) points. Adding Hull B adds say, 100 points. Hull C another 50. Fire control another 25. Engine another 20 and so on. The ship 'upgrades' (propulsion I, main guns I etc.) would also add points. The MM would only put ships of a certain pointage together. perhaps within a bracket of 100 or so. This way non modernized ships would see a lot more of each other and ships would be better balanced in combat. At least so I think. But it's probably way too late to change the system by now without basically redesigning the entire game, so it'll never happen. Just my two cents. 

[1MajorKoenig]

Hi, excellent Topic!

 

 

I put together a proposal for a slighly updated tiering System here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/56439-wows1-tiering-system-power-progression/

 

Hope you like it!

[mtm78]

Hi, excellent Topic!

 

 

I put together a proposal for a slighly updated tiering System here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/56439-wows1-tiering-system-power-progression/

 

 

Hope you like it!

 

So you read Ev1n's post here and decided to ignore it