Nerf BB range if you want BBs to tank and fight

[valrond]

I just finished a "fight" where we lost because our BBs just stayed back and sniped. Sound familiar?. Yes, because that happens a lot. It doesn't matter if you are playing a CQC BB like the Bayern (there was a division with 2 Bayerns hanging at the B line), as soon as they see the enemy,they turn back. It's not a matter of high tier cost, they were tier 6 BBs, it's a matter that many players just stay back and snipe, then BBs don't tank, do very little damage from long range, and make their team lose, because then CAs have to tank, and they can't tank, or just be forced to stay out of range and don't shoot.

 

There is only one way of making them fight closer: make their guns shorter range. That way it forces then to at least get closer and don't stand back at 20 km and throw volley after volley.

 

I think a 16km max range for all BBs that reach that range is in order. It doesn't matter the real range of the ship if it benefits the game. The Warspite did actually hit targets up to 24kms, like the Scharnhorst, and Warspite has 16km real range. Same with the secondaries of the ships, they have much shorter range than the real guns. Now, you can still use spotter planes to shoot farther, but it is a consumable and you can't use it the whole time, so you still will have to get within 15 km to hit anything.

 

What do you think?

[Vanhal]

Kutuzov and Zao approve.

 

Common sense and balance do not. Unless you would like to reduce every weapon range and map sizes in game by the same %, but that would be a little pointless.

[pra3y]

I've mentioned it in a previous post but how about placing a damage debuff on BB shells base on distance (per shell):

 

18km and above: 75% less damage

16~17km: 25% less damage

15km and below: normal damage

 

It doesnt have to be this percentage and different BB lines can have different perecntage as well. Also yes I know RNG but it doesnt seem to be working that well does it? Keep the range but if you want to deal more damage go closer.

[Azalgor]

I've mentioned it in a previous post but how about placing a damage debuff on BB shells base on distance (per shell):

 

18km and above: 75% less damage

16~17km: 25% less damage

15km and below: normal damage

 

It doesnt have to be this percentage and different BB lines can have different perecntage as well. Also yes I know RNG but it doesnt seem to be working that well does it? Keep the range but if you want to deal more damage go closer.

 

Ok then what about cruisers? There are cruisers that outshoot bb, would any sain bb captain chase or dive in to he spam? As teamwork died as a mechanick with open beta, bb die solo whenever they try to tank, as all cruisers and bb turn around if they see someone else beying focused, the one fokused either keeps charging or tryes to run in which case shows broadside and dies faster. The problem is still in the players.

[captain_lef]

 

...The problem is still in the players.

the man has a point here, you can sink a BB relatively easy if you team up with 2 more cruisers and concentrate your fire. the mechanics is there, players just have to use it. if you think that there are way more BBs, switch to DD or CA and use it to your advantage. (especially maneuverability and rate of fire) 

[pra3y]

 

Ok then what about cruisers? There are cruisers that outshoot bb, would any sain bb captain chase or dive in to he spam? As teamwork died as a mechanick with open beta, bb die solo whenever they try to tank, as all cruisers and bb turn around if they see someone else beying focused, the one fokused either keeps charging or tryes to run in which case shows broadside and dies faster. The problem is still in the players.

Cruisers have weaker armour and guns than a BB. USN & IJN CAs under tier 9 have very short range compared to their BB counter part. Also 1v1 a cruiser cannot outright kill a BB with its gun. It will take some time even with the HE spam. A BB however can outright do so.

 

A smart BB player who knows how to make use of his armour, health, heals and repair ability along with having tactical awareness you shouldnt have much problem tanking damage. On the otherhand if you see 5 enemy ships on the other side and still charge forward expecting the DD and CA who were with you to charge/kill the enemy while you "tank" than that's just you being suicidal and not tanking. Push and tank smartly. Dont just fling yourself at the enemy and then complain u had no support.

 

Im all ears if u have a solution to camping though? If a BB only camps at the back, why should that BB player expect the CA to defend him or the DD to scout for him and CV to provide air cover?  Sure the problem is with sone players. The question is how do you solve those problem? Or would letting it spread be better?

[Rabid_Turnip]

If you want to nerf BB range, then you need to buff BBs' accuracy to the level of cruiser guns and also give them a greatly enhanced fire resist; it's bad enough with the endless rain of HE spam already but if BBs could only fight up close it would be suicidal to even think of playing one as things are. Remember, cruisers can dodge BB fire with ease but it's not the same the other way round.

 

 

[robihr]

If you want to nerf BB range, then you need to buff BBs' accuracy to the level of cruiser guns and also give them a greatly enhanced fire resist; it's bad enough with the endless rain of HE spam already but if BBs could only fight up close it would be suicidal to even think of playing one as things are. Remember, cruisers can dodge BB fire with ease but it's not the same the other way round.

 

 

 

i am having trouble understanding your post. you want another buff on top of having range reduced on bb? nerfing range on bb=buff to bb damage

[Shirakami_Kon]

In my opinion BBs don't need more than 20/21 km range for anything. They can't even hit reliably at anything at that range and even the lucky shot at those ranges does a pityful damage even if you manage to hit something. Yeah, there's the one in a million citadel through the deck, but at more than 20 km you wasted your luck there. You can also have won the lottery there. There's absolutely no point in being able to shoot at more than 20 km.

 

On the other side though I have to admit Warspite could get some pretty good use of a +1/+1'5 km range. That would made her quite comparable to upgraded Bayern range, also a T6 BB that isn't the longest range of BBs at T6, but it's good enough and help Warspite getting into the fight faster.

 

Edit: But if BBs get range shortened at tiers 9/10 something should be done about the module that increases range for cruisers too to keep some balance.

 

Edit 2: BBs shoudn't be able to equip that module.

[Shirakami_Kon]

I've mentioned it in a previous post but how about placing a damage debuff on BB shells base on distance (per shell):

 

18km and above: 75% less damage

16~17km: 25% less damage

15km and below: normal damage

 

It doesnt have to be this percentage and different BB lines can have different perecntage as well. Also yes I know RNG but it doesnt seem to be working that well does it? Keep the range but if you want to deal more damage go closer.

 

There's no need for debuff for that. You actually lose that damage potencial because of the acuraccy at those ranges.

[Namolis]

In my opinion BBs don't need more than 20/21 km range for anything. They can't even hit reliably at anything at that range and even the lucky shot at those ranges does a pityful damage even if you manage to hit something. Yeah, there's the one in a million citadel through the deck, but at more than 20 km you wasted your luck there. You can also have won the lottery there. There's absolutely no point in being able to shoot at more than 20 km.

 

On the other side though I have to admit Warspite could get some pretty good use of a +1/+1'5 km range. That would made har quite comparable to upgraded Bayern range, also a T6 BB that isn't the longest range of BBs at T6, but it's good enough and help Warspite getting into the fight faster.

 

Edit: But if BBs get range shortened at tiers 9/10 something should be done about the module that increases range for cruisers too to keep some balance.

 

Edit 2: BBs shoudn't be able to equip that module.

Long range is useful at times, but the ability to shoot 23.7km isn't what's harming high tier games. Fuso has 25km with his spotter, and T6 games won't devolve into long range sniping. So; the amount of people who actually fight above 21km for any length of time is vanishingly small. If you see players toddling around at points on the map where you don't think they should be, it could be because they are misplaying, but it could also be because they had legitimate reasons for being where they are.

 

Eg. I recently had a match in my Shchors where I went all the way back to save the carrier, and after a protracted fight, I killed the Nürnberg and then found and killed the Mutsuki who was hiding in smoke. Predictably; I was called a bot by my teammates, who saw no good reason for me to be that far back (the DD didn't show up on the map because he was in smoke).

[Shirakami_Kon]

Long range is useful at times, but the ability to shoot 23.7km isn't what's harming high tier games. Fuso has 25km with his spotter, and T6 games won't devolve into long range sniping. So; the amount of people who actually fight above 21km for any length of time is vanishingly small. If you see players toddling around at points on the map where you don't think they should be, it could be because they are misplaying, but it could also be because they had legitimate reasons for being where they are.

 

Eg. I recently had a match in my Shchors where I went all the way back to save the carrier, and after a protracted fight, I killed the Nürnberg and then found and killed the Mutsuki who was hiding in smoke. Predictably; I was called a bot by my teammates, who saw no good reason for me to be that far back (the DD didn't show up on the map because he was in smoke).

 

The only reason anyone scores hits at ranges like 23 km or more it's because the target hasn't changed course and speed for almost half a minute, so they could also deserve to get citadels as punishment and L2P. OK, more seriously now, we don't need that kind of punishment, but come on... if someone gets hit in that scenario has even more fault in it that the BB camping at 23 km.

 

About your situation... Forget about the ones that called you bot, you saw you allied carrier in danger, you could go and save it and you just did it, yeah, you maybe were far from the rest of the battle by doing that, but helping the CV is important and you did a good job, own situational awareness it's a good thing. Sometimes there are reasons that make being in the back of the map reasonable and your example was one of them but that doesn't change that BBs in the back of the map shooting at the center isn't a good one and that a shorter range would prevent that kind of behavior that isn't useful for anybody nor promotes any kind of good thing, so I still don't see any point in BBs being able to have those ranges.

[Ubertron_X]

No.

 

We - the BB mafia - don't want to tank and fight.

 

We just want to *pew* *pew* our big guns from a fire safe distance every 30 seconds and (RNG be blessed) enjoy big numbers comming up.

 

And we've got a full 20 minutes to do so.

 

 

 

[pra3y]

 

There's no need for debuff for that. You actually lose that damage potencial because of the acuraccy at those ranges.

 

I know, but that still hasn't stopped people from camping. Cutting range may be the best straight forward solution in solving the problem but I think its harder base on 2 reasons 

a) People will probably complain even more if range is limited plus having long range guns is one of the key feature of BBs so cutting range would affect that identity. At lower tier they could still accept low range guns but you'll probably see even more "Why can't my XXX BB shoot beyond 20km. Not historical and immersive!!!" Topics.

b) I feel that cutting range would be more complicated then it seems. WG would have to adjust the range of 3 BB lines and then make sure the game still somewhat balances for the BB those lines. Does that mean cutting the range of German and Russian CAs or lower the fire chance of CAs even more? Should they nerf DD torps and CV even more? I don't think its a issue for me when I play BB in regards to how I die but there are plenty of people who feel that BBs are UP through one game mechanic or another and seeing how WG have nerfed certain classes they will probably have to do some intense balancing to "justify" cutting BB gun range.

[Francois424]

I voted no, but I have a better alternative.

The further away you are, the less damage you do.  It might not be realistic with RL ballistic laws, but Fun+Balance > realism.

 

So if you are a BB sniping at 22km, you may do 4k on a citadel.  I you close to < 10km, you do full damage.

Also if this becomes part of the game:

• it fixes insta-deleting cruisers while keeping the alpha of the BB at closer range (Cruisers will still want to stay further away)
• It allows for BB dispersion to be improved and the RNG lottery effect (well for T2 thru T6-7) to be curbed (adding to the fun).
• It also makes BB move forward (or enjoy your 50 hits games with sub-50k damage at tier 10).

 

I know WG wants to stick closer to RL mechanic, but it simply isn't working too well at the moment, and it's not only caused by heavy repair fees, everyone fears a random citadel shoving half your health away from 16+ km.

I think it's a sensible suggestion.

 

G'night all.

[lafeel]

F*ck no. The problem isn't the ships, it's the players.

[shockinhockin]

No it's again playstlye fail not an issue with the ships

[Sea_viper]

You will ruin the game if you cut bb's range that much. mostly because above tier 6, none of the BBs armour are designed to fight at less than 16km except for the Germans. Look at how big the citadel of Iowa is above the water or how thin is the armour on Amagi, these ships will be ruined if you cut their range. And isn't that makes the game boring if you take so much tactical option out?

And the guy trying to scale shell damage with range is even more silly. He must be completely oblivious to the penetration mechanic.

 

I think these kind of straigt up brainless nerfing suggestion is really harming the game. I mean, do you really think cutting the range will make campers charge? No! They are still going to skirt at 16km at get deleted by constantly showing broadsides, than they turn to german BBs because it got punish less for being stupid and continues to do minimal damage because of dispersion and bad aim...

I mean, no matter what you do, some players are going to do stupid things because it is online gaming. So instead of forcing players to do the same thing, the game should give good players tool to punish bad plays and a economy that reward good plays.

Now, the true reason why High tier BBs like camping so much have much to do with the repair bill. High tier BB captains literally got punish by the economics if they push, since tanking do not give any reward, all they are doing are losing tons of $$, more importantly, they can't use all of their fire power while angling. In a big fleet engagement, the guy getting High Caliber and Confederate is normally the guy behind the one who got fireproof and dreadnaught. And all the tanking captain gets is a bloody repair bill and a few flags. Well, I understand that reward taking damage is not a viable idea, but how about scaling the repair bill with citadel damage and losing the ship only?

 

[Azalgor]

Drop the restrictions on CV and return it to the CBT era, where there could be 2 CV vs 0, wait for 1-2 months for the dust to clear, those who cant adopt will drop, those who remember those times will stay, back in the day teamwork began with this, every one subconciously stayed relatively close to each other, DD stayed in range of cruisers and scouted, and BB had CA cover, and there were no lemings, the were 2 fleets moving on to the objectives, and CV were easily countered with massive combined AA, then it was removed - and we got what we have, no threat, no challenge, people got lasy and do nothing but press W and use binocular view. 

[Shirakami_Kon]

 

I know, but that still hasn't stopped people from camping. Cutting range may be the best straight forward solution in solving the problem but I think its harder base on 2 reasons 

a) People will probably complain even more if range is limited plus having long range guns is one of the key feature of BBs so cutting range would affect that identity. At lower tier they could still accept low range guns but you'll probably see even more "Why can't my XXX BB shoot beyond 20km. Not historical and immersive!!!" Topics.

b) I feel that cutting range would be more complicated then it seems. WG would have to adjust the range of 3 BB lines and then make sure the game still somewhat balances for the BB those lines. Does that mean cutting the range of German and Russian CAs or lower the fire chance of CAs even more? Should they nerf DD torps and CV even more? I don't think its a issue for me when I play BB in regards to how I die but there are plenty of people who feel that BBs are UP through one game mechanic or another and seeing how WG have nerfed certain classes they will probably have to do some intense balancing to "justify" cutting BB gun range.

 

Well, I'm in favor of cutting the range of BBs, but only the ones that have above 20 or 21 km, because players that know how to aim can start to score hits decently at 19 km, but yeah, I can't see any point in having more range than that, so I'll leave BBs that don't go beyond those 20/21 km as the are, but for example, I would remove North Carolina's range upgrade, I know people that just ignore it because there's no need of that extra range for North Carolina to be a good ship and you save that XP and credits in your way to Iowa, even at lower tiers same goes for Fuso's range upgrade too, the hulls give you more range and just with the hulls you end up with a very good range to need to add to it the range upgrade too.

 

About cruisers, I though about that too, that's why earlier I said that cutting BB's range would be really nice, but the module that gives more range for tier 9 and 10 cruisers should reduce the amount of range it gives to still give BBs a margin in range or even the module being removed for both BBs and cruisers and leave it for DDs, but I won't cut cruisers range, of course there are exceptions for cruisers. Mikhail Kutuzov, Moskva and things like that have absurd ranges for a cruiser, but I think we can live with that, but yeah...

 

And yes, I know DDs with that can stealth fire, but they don't have and insane range with that, so DDs stealth firing by just detection range could still be countered by a bit of team work and asking nearby ships to scout from where the shots come from. And you know one of the thing that would have BBs if they have they range cutted and have to come closer to fight? Ships nearby.

 

About BBs complaining about range changes not being historical and immersive... Like that's the only reason we can complain about that. I don't have anything against ARP ships, but some people would consider not immersive just the ARP ships being in the game. Unhistorical things? There are still ships with fictional AA arrangements, even hulls (not sure about that, but there where complains about German BBs having fictional hulls?) and so on... I think we could live with unhistorical BB ranges, which they already are. If I remember correctly Yamato had an historical max range of 42 km and managed to score a hit at 36 km and ingame she only has 26'6 km already and I don't see anyone raging about that. And the list of already not historical ranges or BBs could go on reaaaaaaally long.

[Fino_93]

Drop the restrictions on CV and return it to the CBT era, where there could be 2 CV vs 0, wait for 1-2 months for the dust to clear, those who cant adopt will drop, those who remember those times will stay, back in the day teamwork began with this, every one subconciously stayed relatively close to each other, DD stayed in range of cruisers and scouted, and BB had CA cover, and there were no lemings, the were 2 fleets moving on to the objectives, and CV were easily countered with massive combined AA, then it was removed - and we got what we have, no threat, no challenge, people got lasy and do nothing but press W and use binocular view. 

 

 

 

Agree, the problem of the teamwork in this game came from wg that cutted every "tactical" aspect in favour of a naval fps.

Give us back old cv playstyle and old ijn dd's torpedoes, then a single BB alone on the Edge of the map will be destroyed soon and his captain will learn how to play a BB.

 

[Molybdane]

Drop the restrictions on CV and return it to the CBT era, where there could be 2 CV vs 0, wait for 1-2 months for the dust to clear, those who cant adopt will drop, those who remember those times will stay, back in the day teamwork began with this, every one subconciously stayed relatively close to each other, DD stayed in range of cruisers and scouted, and BB had CA cover, and there were no lemings, the were 2 fleets moving on to the objectives, and CV were easily countered with massive combined AA, then it was removed - and we got what we have, no threat, no challenge, people got lasy and do nothing but press W and use binocular view. 

 

Or at the very least allow 2 cv's in the upper tier matches again. However, one problem this could have is that if cv's (and their planes) are now around in greater numbers and are again able to attack small groups of ships, it is likely that c''s will attack groups closest to the center, because the response time is lower. It is therefor possible that lone sniping BB's avoid being torped because of this.

 

As you and other pointed out, the problem is the player. Unless you limit BB range, players will remain at range in their BB's, and the counter for that may not be used the way you expect it to.

 

And yes, reducing Bb range means BB's need some kind of buff, though not much, to make them a little resistant against fire damage; maybe make the chance of fire dependant on range, instead the damage?

[Didzet]

Its the players not the ships. Same with DDs that wont cap, or cruisers that wont support capping DDs. 

[Solo_Wing_Potato]

Cruisers have weaker armour and guns than a BB. USN & IJN CAs under tier 9 have very short range compared to their BB counter part. Also 1v1 a cruiser cannot outright kill a BB with its gun. It will take some time even with the HE spam. A BB however can outright do so.

 

A smart BB player who knows how to make use of his armour, health, heals and repair ability along with having tactical awareness you shouldnt have much problem tanking damage. On the otherhand if you see 5 enemy ships on the other side and still charge forward expecting the DD and CA who were with you to charge/kill the enemy while you "tank" than that's just you being suicidal and not tanking. Push and tank smartly. Dont just fling yourself at the enemy and then complain u had no support.

 

Im all ears if u have a solution to camping though? If a BB only camps at the back, why should that BB player expect the CA to defend him or the DD to scout for him and CV to provide air cover?  Sure the problem is with sone players. The question is how do you solve those problem? Or would letting it spread be better?

 

Your missing one of Alzagor's main points and the one mentioned by Vanhal.  There are already cruisers that outrange BB's, a proposal to limit BB range to 16k max will lead to all high tier BB's being outranged by cruisers.  Yeah BB's might be able to one shot CA/L's and have the armour and heal to tank the damage but any sensible cruiser player would just kite the BB beyond his firing range meanwhile burning him down.  Reducing the range isn't the answer unless you reduce cruiser range as well.

[pra3y]

When I said this:

 

pra3y, on 17 September 2016 - 09:18 PM, said:

Cruisers have weaker armour and guns than a BB. USN & IJN CAs under tier 9 have very short range compared to their BB counter part. Also 1v1 a cruiser cannot outright kill a BB with its gun. It will take some time even with the HE spam. A BB however can outright do so.

 

A smart BB player who knows how to make use of his armour, health, heals and repair ability along with having tactical awareness you shouldnt have much problem tanking damage. On the otherhand if you see 5 enemy ships on the other side and still charge forward expecting the DD and CA who were with you to charge/kill the enemy while you "tank" than that's just you being suicidal and not tanking. Push and tank smartly. Dont just fling yourself at the enemy and then complain u had no support.

 

Im all ears if u have a solution to camping though? If a BB only camps at the back, why should that BB player expect the CA to defend him or the DD to scout for him and CV to provide air cover?  Sure the problem is with sone players. The question is how do you solve those problem? Or would letting it spread be better?

 

It was a response to Alzagor's question on this:

 

pra3y, on 17 September 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

I've mentioned it in a previous post but how about placing a damage debuff on BB shells base on distance (per shell):

 

18km and above: 75% less damage

16~17km: 25% less damage

15km and below: normal damage

 

It doesnt have to be this percentage and different BB lines can have different perecntage as well. Also yes I know RNG but it doesnt seem to be working that well does it? Keep the range but if you want to deal more damage go closer.

 

 I'm fine with keeping the range, but people probably need more "encouragement" to actually move forward and be able deal damage. I'm even fine if the penalty is only placed from 18km onwards. Maybe I didn't mention it clearly but yes keep the range. However in response to his point about CAs, I don't think they should have a similar penalty because

"Cruisers have weaker armour and guns than a BB. USN & IJN CAs under tier 9 have very short range compared to their BB counter part. Also 1v1 a cruiser cannot outright kill a BB with its gun. It will take some time even with the HE spam. A BB however can outright do so"

 

A simple, straight forward hypothetical scenario. BBs stay at the back to camp, CAs refuse to push forward because no BB support. DDs refuse to cap or scout because no cover from CAs or BBs. In domination mode that would mean a loss and you'll see the DD players getting blamed because they didn't scout or cap. Yet the reason why is also because the BBs refused to push forward and support with the rest of the team because of the various "reasons & excuses". If you want DDs to scout and CAs to provide screening then the BB has to do its job and tank for the team in a reasonable fashion. You can't expect the other 2 class to do their job when the BB doesn't does its own.