Do we need a cap in the number of Battleships per battle?

[valrond]

We have had endless topics about nerfing BBs, how OP they are and how imbalaced the game is. Now almost every game I play has 5 BBs in it (and in ranked, it used to be 4 BBs out of 7 ships).

 

One easy solution would be to put a cap, it wouldn't solve the imbalace but would keep the BBs from wrecking everything, specially cruisers.

 

I think a hard cap of 3 BBs max per side would be good for the game. I was mainly a cruiser player forced to play battleships.

 

What do you think?

[Admiral_noodle]

I think a cap of 4 would work well for everyone. Including BB players themselves.

[xXx_Blogis_xXx]

i rather say balance dds per side not bbs

[Admiral_noodle]

i rather say balance dds per side not bbs

 

I would like a 4 dd cap and a rule that one side cannot have 2x the enemy dds as well. Just wait till German dds come out. 

[XbodzioXplX]

i rather say balance dds per side not bbs

 

One step after another! Don't be hasty!

Now it is time to nerf the CVs. It is long and hard process. But it must be done.

 

Then DDs. The numbers of them. The range. Spot, fire chance. And they are easier to nerf.

After all of this - BBs. Yes. 2-3 per side. Immunity to fire. 1 citadel every 10 games, no less!

 

After ALL of this - CA. Especially US. I mean. How it is possible to put a ship on fire every 3-4 salvos. This is stupid.

 

So we could have this: https://www.kde.org/images/screenshots/navalbattle.png

 

 

 

I would like to write something without irony. But it is late and I need some sleep.

Cheers guys

[xThanatosVIx]

In my own games I usually see 4-5 BBs which is comepletely fine by me.

I also often see 5 DDs and 4 Cruisers in a game. 

From my own games (T8) I can't see any need to cap how many BBs are in a single game ( at least not more than for the other classes)

 

 

[Capra76]

WG have said time and again that they're not going to balance by queuing, why are people still asking for it?

[GeneraKrizmuz]

no, we need BB to have hydro removed

[shadowwolf9705]

because its basically the best option, anyway i think 3 BBs per side should do good

[viceadmiral123]

Cap of 4. If CVs can be capped to 1, why can't BBs be capped to 4?

 

Obvious benefits of capping BBs to 4 per team aside, WG will never do this. Unlike CVs, BBs are the most popular class, and capping it will increase queue times significantly.

[Admiral_noodle]

Of course the other means are - new lines of dds and cruisers. But you can bet when RN BBs come out we will be swamped with them.

 

I don't think a 4 cap would lead to disastrous queue times to be fair.

 

BBs aren't popular because they are too effective. They are popular because they are BBs. And because you are less likely to be one shot (ending your game prematurely)

 

Sadly the latter mentality often means potatoes potating for longer, while in a cruiser they are early kills...

[ghostbuster_]

I wouldnt mind if they limitted BB numbers with 4 per side. But, why? When i play my DDs and see many BBs, perfect many targets to torp; when i play CAs and see many BBs, again perfect many targets to burn down; when i play my BBs and see many BBs, again perfect because many targets to shoot at and to deal damage. Imo having 5-6 BBs or 5-6 CAs in a team is not a problem unlike having 5-6 DDs in a team.

[tenacious_torps]

WG have said time and again that they're not going to balance by queuing, why are people still asking for it?

 

Well, I'm tenacious. 

[Shirakami_Kon]

Cap of 4. If CVs can be capped to 1, why can't BBs be capped to 4?

 

Obvious benefits of capping BBs to 4 per team aside, WG will never do this. Unlike CVs, BBs are the most popular class, and capping it will increase queue times significantly.

 

Or maybe they just could try to cap BBs to 4 one update and see if limiting BBs to 4 per team instead of increasing queue times makes the game more favorable to cruisers and some of the massive amount of BB players are just playing BBs because cruisers are f*cked up by the sheer amount of BBs per battle so they play BBs too (what could go wrong with that, right?) so some of them move to play cruisers and queue times remain mostly the same as now.

 

But I'll admit that the dumbest thing I've ever said, obviously. I'll just go hide in my corner right now. 

[GeneraKrizmuz]

I wouldnt mind if they limitted BB numbers with 4 per side. But, why? When i play my DDs and see many BBs, perfect many targets to torp; when i play CAs and see many BBs, again perfect many targets to burn down; when i play my BBs and see many BBs, again perfect because many targets to shoot at and to deal damage. Imo having 5-6 BBs or 5-6 CAs in a team is not a problem unlike having 5-6 DDs in a team.

 

agreed

many BBs is always a party, no matter what class I am playing. Many DDs are annoying

[indycar]

ok we have 4 bbs on the team 2-3 dds and rest cruisers...

 

2 weeks after this ppl will cry cap cruisers whole maps burn

[eliastion]

ok we have 4 bbs on the team 2-3 dds and rest cruisers...

 

2 weeks after this ppl will cry cap cruisers whole maps burn

 

With more cruisers, cruisers would actually shoot more AP than they do now - they all tend to stick to HE, even those with big guns, because AP is generally useful against other cruisers - and most targets are either BB (need fires to hurt them) od DDs (need HE to not overpen all the time).

[ghostbuster_]

 

With more cruisers, cruisers would actually shoot more AP than they do now - they all tend to stick to HE, even those with big guns, because AP is generally useful against other cruisers - and most targets are either BB (need fires to hurt them) od DDs (need HE to not overpen all the time).

AP is also very useful against BBs. 

[Ranyxx]

WG have said time and again that they're not going to balance by queuing, why are people still asking for it?

 

Because some of us hold a faint glimmer of hope that they will listen and not make the same mistakes in WoWs as they have made in WoT (which even they themselves have admitted to making).  We hope they remember that the second part of their rock-paper-scissors concept was that 1 CV = 1 BB = 2 CA/CLs = 4 DDs.  We hope that if they were to recognize this and impose a cap of 3-4 capital ships (1 CV + 2(3) BBs or 3(4) BBs) and 3 DDs per match, then we'd find some much needed balance to the MM.  They wouldn't have to nerf ships in order to artificially reduce their numbers by making them less popular.  There wouldn't be an issue of 5-6 Shimas per team and the associated torp spam.  Cruisers would still be vulnerable but they would have safety in numbers.  Personally, I'm more than willing to trade a little extra wait time in the queue for this kind of balance.  I'd much rather that than seeing good ships needlessly nerfed which leads to other balance problems which leads to other nerfs which leads to even more balance issues which leads to.....  and on and on.  Unfortunately, I don't think WG will take such a sane approach because, lets face it, if they did, they wouldn't need to have so many Devs on staff to keep pumping out all these changes.  No, I don't think they care about making players wait in the queue.  I think they want job security.

[159Hunter]

I went for your third option, however I fear it'll do nothing. There's a lot of people who only play BB and are unwilling to play anything else. So, rather than adapting to new play styles ( the balancing, which has worked so well for BB ) they'll just come to the forum and whine some more.

 

The queuing won't work either, cause those die hards are unwilling to change, thus have to wait longer and will, as a result, come back to the forum to whine.

 

Either way, WG loses cause unhappy customers.

[Domin1c]

I really wish shortsighted people like you would stop posting here. Lol'd at your supposed '3 per side cap', you are out of touch bro.

 

No, we do not need any more hardcaps on ships in the game. The ship population reflects the current balance pretty well - no one is playing cruisers because of the BB infestation, AA is out of wack so BB's aren't threatened by CV either, which just leaves DD's, who also benefit from CV's not playing.

 

Those are, funnily enough, the two classes you see the most of.

 

If you want a fix to this then the AA on BB's need a nerf, as well as plunging fire on cruisers which just lolcitadels regardless of angling. Fix the symptoms instead of the problem (I'm getting really tired of repeating this over and over).

[Oely001]

@Domin1c: Besides the balance problems you mentioned, BB numbers have become a problem in itself. You cannot buff cruisers until they are no longer oneshotted. And two BB shooting at a CA does not double but triples the probability of severe hits because the cruiser driver cannot dodge so many shots purposefully anymore.

[Azalgor]

 

One step after another! Don't be hasty!

Now it is time to nerf the CVs. It is long and hard process. But it must be done.

 

Then DDs. The numbers of them. The range. Spot, fire chance. And they are easier to nerf.

After all of this - BBs. Yes. 2-3 per side. Immunity to fire. 1 citadel every 10 games, no less!

 

After ALL of this - CA. Especially US. I mean. How it is possible to put a ship on fire every 3-4 salvos. This is stupid.

 

So we could have this: https://www.kde.org/images/screenshots/navalbattle.png

 

 

 

I would like to write something without irony. But it is late and I need some sleep.

Cheers guys

 

Nerf CVs? lol, they are the shittyest class in the game, made so by constant whiners like you, the economy changes were the last nail in their coffin. They are only OP because some BB campers are too dumb to go with cruisers and yolo all the way, and then wonder why did the CV one shot it. Its pretty much no different that sailing in a straight line and going down to DD torps or CAs HE, as im to lasy to pay attention and use the WASD hacks. With the only exception that there cant be more than 2 CVs per side while as having 6DD is pretty standart.

[XbodzioXplX]

Nerf CVs? lol, they are the shittyest class in the game, made so by constant whiners like you

 

"I would like to write something without irony. But it is late and I need some sleep."

 

Please read carefully

Have a nice day!

[Ishiro32]

If they introduce the hardcap on BBs then it would be official. WG would be garbage developer with a garbage balance team.

BBs are out of balance that’s why there is so much of them. We had no problem with BBs when their hardcounters were able to perform their jobs. Issue is that WG decided that CVs are OP, let’s break them, this resulted in DD domination (as was predicted by everyone and their mother, as CVs make DD life living hell) which then resulted in people complaining about torpedo soup and nerfs to DDs. Guess that nerfing all counters might have caused more people playing BBs.

Now instead of actually addressing core issue and nerfing BBs or buffing their counters… people just want a hard cap. So in other words, they want to force other people to play food for them instead of actually fixing game. Tchh…