Maybe put a limit on amount on BBs in a match WG?

[Gaunter_O_Dimm_]

 

So why not simply go back to COD then? I actually think that many players play this game exactly because it is slower than most similar games. If you want something faster and more fluent you have Steel Ocean. 

 

There is a difference to slow gameplay and the static cancer it has become now do to the aids meta that is caused by OP BBS. 

[CleverViking]

It is a matter on how unrealistic a game should be. A game where a cruiser is equally powerful as a battleship simply become to much in my opinion at least. Even now, battleships are a lot less effective compared to cruiser relative to what they were in actual combat. I am not saying I want the game to be a simulator. 

 

No, you're saying the game should be balanced after the classes you play. Or, you know buff your ship and nerf all the other mean ships that sink you.

 

Maybe play a singleplayer game?

[steviln]

 

Are you arguing that CVs should be buffed to their real life performance?

 

I am rather arguing that "carrier battles" and "surface engagements" should be seperate game modes. 

[Gaunter_O_Dimm_]

I also think that hard caps wouldn't work because it would drive people away from BBs. It would just make queue time go through the roof.

[steviln]

 

No, you're saying the game should be balanced after the classes you play. Or, you know buff your ship and nerf all the other mean ships that sink you.

 

Maybe play a singleplayer game?

 

I actually play more cruisers than battleships, so I am not defending the classes I play. I simply prefer BB heavy meta rather than cruiserspam. 

[Capra76]

 

It is a matter on how unrealistic a game should be. A game where a cruiser is equally powerful as a battleship simply become to much in my opinion at least. Even now, battleships are a lot less effective compared to cruiser relative to what they were in actual combat. I am not saying I want the game to be a simulator. 

 

A game where BB outnumber cruisers and DD is far too unrealistic for me, each BB should be forced to face multiple CA plus a dozen DD, also BB AA is totally unrealistic CV should absolutely own any BB not covered by friendly fighters, and the games economy is totally wrong, a DD costs almost as much as a BB to but and repair in what world?  Put the repair cost for BB up to realistic levels, say 10,000,000 credits per game.

 

If you want to argue for realism then don't cherry pick the bits of reality that suit you.

[CleverViking]

I also think that hard caps wouldn't work because it would drive people away from BBs. It would just make queue time go through the roof.

 

The caps doesn't need to be absurd. Queue time wouldn't suffer too much if you cap at 4 or 5 and it would make high-tier cruisers more apporachable

[_ramrus_]

 

 

Crippling cruisers and CVs like they did already caused quite a few players i know to leave the game because they don't want to play "world of battleships". Where is the concern for them? 

 

If they don't want to play, they don't have to.

But if BB want to play, let them.

I'd like ranked style matches be available all day for ppl who want to play WoBB.

I think they will never allow pure BB on BB matches because that would prove that BB are muh stronk.

[SovietFury43]

 

It is a matter on how unrealistic a game should be. A game where a cruiser is equally powerful as a battleship simply become to much in my opinion at least. Even now, battleships are a lot less effective compared to cruiser relative to what they were in actual combat. I am not saying I want the game to be a simulator. 

 

In some situations Cruisers WERE superior to BBs in real life as well. BBs were easy targets for anything with torps, BBs were easy targets for air attacks (google the destruction of Force Z), BBs were stupidly expensive to build and operate, BBs were horribly inaccurate, even with radar fire control BBs could barely hit EACH OTHER at 30km, much less anything smaller, BBs were very complicated and prone to failures, there has literally not been a single engagement in WW2 that BBs participated in that they have not suffered some sort of systems failure. 

 

Cruisers and Destroyers didn't have any of those problems, and in fact if you research the Pacific theater during WW2 you will quickly realize that aside from CVs Destroyers and Cruisers were the backbone of both the IJN and USN. 

 

Just take the Yamato for example. It hardly even fought in WW2 and the few times it did it either failed to hit anything and it was sunk by planes in its final sortie and didn't achieve much.

[_ramrus_]

 

The caps doesn't need to be absurd. Queue time wouldn't suffer too much if you cap at 4 or 5 and it would make high-tier cruisers more apporachable

 

5 is what you get now in t8 battles

Cap would need to be 3 to yield any result.

[1MajorKoenig]

 

5 is what you get now in t8 battles

Cap would need to be 3 to yield any result.

 

4 would be enough. No need to blow up waiting times. Same for DDs and voila.

[Hanszeehock]

I do not think the numbers of any classes except CVs should be capped in the MM.

Hard caps cause longer queue times and the 5 minutes max queue leads to battles with low numbers of ships of each team. This a particular issue during quieter times or when a new ship line is launched. 

 

If a class is not balanced vs other classes then it should be rebalanced, limiting numbers in the MM is the worse solution.

[dasCKD]

I am rather arguing that "carrier battles" and "surface engagements" should be seperate game modes. 

 

Carriers engaged surface ships IRL. If we're going for realism, why should we provide battleship with a little safe space where they can go hide from their real life predators whilst they go around nuking the other classes? If the game mode was split into carrier battles and surface engagements then other ships will need to join the carrier battles in order to give the carriers something to engage and spot for. Carriers would probably chase all the battleships away. If that became a thing, then I'll be more than happy to take my CAs and DDs in to mess about with the carriers whilst the battleships can have their own little room where they can play citadel slots with their guns at 20 km, just like IRL. Some of the most fun ranked games I had were without battleships, because the fights are far faster and much more brutal.

 

You still haven't answered my question. In your view, would it be fine if carriers performed in the game like they did in real life?

Off course battleships were totally useless against carriers, but the strength difference between those two classes were so huge in real life, that a game should not have player controlled ships of both those classes!

 

So the difference between CVs and BBs are so large in real life is so large that players should not be given control of ships of both classes. Yet destroyers and cruisers are controlled by players and you would like to see the difference between them made large just like they were in real life.

 

I see.

[1MajorKoenig]

Agree Hans. But at the moment BBs are overrepresented and WG is nevertheless hesitant to rebalance them.

 

And knowing that WG prefers the big nerf hammer over some (maybe even multiple) smaller steps I would be afraid if they go that route.

[CleverViking]

If a class is not balanced vs other classes then it should be rebalanced, limiting numbers in the MM is the worse solution.

 

That would of course be the optimal solution but it seems WG is content with the ship balance as is as they've yet to comment on the BB meta as of yet (to my knowledge). If we were talking about a serious solution then sure, I'd be up for discussing but it doesn't even seem to be on the table.

[SovietFury43]

 

When did destroyers fight off battleships with their guns only? the cruisers were the most used class in surface engagements because they were seen as more expendable than the battleships, but at Jutland you see what happens to lighter ships taking part in a major fleet action. 

 

Off course battleships were totally useless against carriers, but the strength difference between those two classes were so huge in real life, that a game should not have player controlled ships of both those classes!

 

During the Battle off Samar the USS Johnston, a Fletcher class destroyer fought off the entire Japanese center force (including the Yamato) almost single handed. 

 

And in the Battle of Tsushima you can see what smaller ships armed with torpedoes can do to BBs.

[dasCKD]

I do not think the numbers of any classes except CVs should be capped in the MM.

 

I wish they enforced the 1 CV per team rule across the tiers, I think that having two CVs per team in the lower tiers is too volatile, especially since MM doesn't seem to take carrier loadout into consideration when distributing members.

[IanH755]

To survive, every game needs some form of "balance" and WG originally had this to a certain degree which is why the game proved popular. Each class had positive and negatives which gave people as many different ways of playing the same game as possible, which keeps the game fresh for old players and entices new players. However, by accepting a "BB vs heavily nerfed DD only" meta which it currently is the game will stagnate and lose customers quickly. After all, no BB players want 12v12 BB games every match all the time, but thats the way it's heading!

 

Cruiser players are either swapping classes or leaving, CV players are doing the same and, once the DD nerf hits at 0.6.0, the DD's will start moving too, all of which just leaves 90% of people playing BB's and a dead game.

 

Is that really what the BB players want? All BB's matches with no other ships in the game? If that happens what will they start nerfing next - BB AP damage is too much, needs nerfing? BB Secondaries cause too many fires, please nerf? BB accuracy at 20+km is too bad, please buff?

 

A game of 10+ BB's vs 10+ BB's is a game that will die so something NEEDS to be done to keep the game alive, and that is bring the "balance" back which means BB numbers HAVE to be reduced by either limiting their numbers in MM (bad choice but works instantly) or by making them less fun to play whilst making other classes more fun to play (better choice but takes too long to have an effect). However I don't think WG have the ability to fix this problem. I really don't see this game still being around in 2-3 years time like WoT will be. If you look at WoT it's not 10+ Heavies in every match (which is where WoWS is heading) and that game is massively popular because it still has some balance and I think the WoWS Dev teams need to take a lot of advice from the WoT Dev teams immediately!

[_ramrus_]

 

I wish they enforced the 1 CV per team rule across the tiers, I think that having two CVs per team in the lower tiers is too volatile, especially since MM doesn't seem to take carrier loadout into consideration when distributing members.

 

But you need 2CVs at low tiers to get Clear sky

[1MajorKoenig]

I trink Stevlin is trolling tbh

[SovietFury43]

I do not think the numbers of any classes except CVs should be capped in the MM.

Hard caps cause longer queue times and the 5 minutes max queue leads to battles with low numbers of ships of each team. This a particular issue during quieter times or when a new ship line is launched. 

 

If a class is not balanced vs other classes then it should be rebalanced, limiting numbers in the MM is the worse solution.

 

BBabies still ocasionally cry when their big easy mode ships get sunk by superior players, just imagine what would happen if BBs actually got nerfed.

[Hanszeehock]

 

That would of course be the optimal solution but it seems WG is content with the ship balance as is as they've yet to comment on the BB meta as of yet (to my knowledge). If we were talking about a serious solution then sure, I'd be up for discussing but it doesn't even seem to be on the table.

 

The problem for us discussing this, is that we only have anecdotal evidence not hard stats. The devs have a target for the percentage of each class played in relation to each other. If the server stats indicate that these numbers are out of kilter, then they will make the appropriate changes. Obviously, it takes a lot of time before a pattern develops. The other issue is that the stats get skewed by the introduction of new lines. Obviously, when the DEBBs were introduced, the numbers of BBs shot up and I still think we are seeing the effect of that now.

[Exocet6951]

 

When did destroyers fight off battleships with their guns only? the cruisers were the most used class in surface engagements because they were seen as more expendable than the battleships, but at Jutland you see what happens to lighter ships taking part in a major fleet action. 

 

Off course battleships were totally useless against carriers, but the strength difference between those two classes were so huge in real life, that a game should not have player controlled ships of both those classes!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar

 

There's also another battle where a pair of USN DDs sailed next to each other, and fooled Japanese radars on cruisers into thinking it was only one ship, which lead to the Japanese taking some hits then retreating.

 

Also, lovely as you happen to take literally the only time period and basically the only battle where dreadnoughts where dominant.

Now look at every other naval battle after WWI, and see that a big lumbering ship that's easily detectable with both radar, optics and planes is a ridiculous choice. 

 

BBs were nothing more than ground pounders and propaganda tools, hence why everyone was smart enough to scrap BBs being laid down in the early 40s in order to convert them in CVs.

In the game, they're overbuffed moron machines that break a LOT multiplayer gaming conventions, which are in place for good ****ing reasons.

[dasCKD]

But you need 2CVs at low tiers to get Clear sky

 

Clear Sky, in my opinion, is a medal that ruins lower tier carrier play and is one that is far more difficult if not nigh impossible to get without a carrier. It's a medal that encourages the higher tiered players to go down and use their superior experience and strategic awareness to bully newer players and chasing them away from the class. I think it should be something like "shoot down the equivalent number of planes as the total plane number of the enemy CV" which would both allow it to be received more often and allow surface ships to earn the medal.

[CleverViking]

The problem for us discussing this, is that we only have anecdotal evidence not hard stats. The devs have a target for the percentage of each class played in relation to each other. If the server stats indicate that these numbers are out of kilter, then they will make the appropriate changes.

 

True, but other changes could be made to make top tiers more cruiser friendly without even touching BBs (like introducing more cover/islands on high tier maps). A big part of the problem with BBs is that they don't have to maneuver at all due to their range and can just wait for something to get spotted. As a cruiser captain, my enjoyment of high-tier matches are admittedly more dependent on the map than on enemy team comp.