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

[mtm78]

Why not try reducing all BB range to something more in line with Cruisers, and potentially keep current dispersion level as it is. This would encourage BBs to close the range to get decent dispersion, and make cruisers more worthwhile to play, as well as bringing a fleet together.. which means BB AA can be reduced as a cruiser will be close by..might be worth testing to see how it plays out

 

If BB's don't have more range then CA's then CA's will kite them to death due to speed difference. Cruisers are worthwhile to play, it's just very static with that many battleships per game as you can not play aggressive at all but you need to say at range. 

 

edit: limit BB's to 3 per team, DD's to 3, rest cruisers with one or two CV's ( preferably one like how it is now on tier 8 - 10 ). That would be really nice gameplay for all classes as long as they got a brain and play as a team. 

[Chekotay]

 

If BB's don't have more range then CA's then CA's will kite them to death due to speed difference. Cruisers are worthwhile to play, it's just very static with that many battleships per game as you can not play aggressive at all but you need to say at range. 

 

edit: limit BB's to 3 per team, DD's to 3, rest cruisers with one or two CV's ( preferably one like how it is now on tier 8 - 10 ). That would be really nice gameplay for all classes as long as they got a brain and play as a team. 

I'd be willing to try a nerf to BB range to see how the dynamic of the game plays... i think it would force teamwork rather than making teamwork a nice thing to have... might be an interesting change, then again it might be terrible, I guess we wouldn't know unless it was tested... I play BBs almost exclusively and find that the closer I am the better... if BBs want longer firing range take the recon plane... 

[mtm78]

It doesn't work like that. Some cruisers are already close to BB range, if you nerf BB range you have to nerf them to or you will get indefinite kiting. No testing is needed to realize that.

 

Also, no one is forcing you to stay at max range now as well, that's why CE on a BB is a good choice, it allows you to close the distance more. 

 

The problem now with the long range meta is that the entire 'teamwork' setup has gone down the drain because there are to many BB's per game meaning cruisers can't move up to support the DD's. That's the problem which is causing the static gameplay, to many battleships. In games with a normal number of BB's the gameplay is much more fluid and aggressive, both for the other classes ( cruisers mostly ) but also for the battleships themselves if they play it right. 

 

 

[Chekotay]

 

I'm just thinking of alternatives that can be made rather than a cap on classes.... as a BB player I'm quite indifferent to the make up of teams so it might be a solution, could be worth a try...but I'm not convinced putting caps on classes is the best way to fix this problem, something else has to change.

 

 

[steviln]

 

Island hugging BB's = epitome of static gameplay. 

 

But it is mostly low tier BBs and Tirpitzes that do it. I rarely see an island hugging Nagato or Izumo. And hugging islands only really make them easier to sink, so do not see the problem?

[mtm78]

And hugging islands

 

is the epitome of static gameplay people seem to complain about. Killing 'sidescraping'  Izumo's / Iowa's / NCal's / Yamato's isn't really that easy unless there are other islands you can use to flank it, or if you're in a CV.

 

could be worth a try.

 

No it could not and I just explained why. Lowering range on BB would mean lowering range on cruisers as well or the BB's would get kited without them being able to do anything about it. My Hindenburg has 20km range for instance, Moskva is a range beast as well and Zao will invisifire BB's to death. Now if you said to lower the range of BB's and then all the other ships as well ( with the exception of DD's ) and then readjust concealment to factor in the lower ranges, maybe it would be worth a try

[steviln]

 

is the epitome of static gameplay people seem to complain about. Killing 'sidescraping'  Izumo's / Iowa's / NCal's / Yamato's isn't really that easy unless there are other islands you can use to flank it, or if you're in a CV.

 

 

But I think that you exaggerate the problem wildly. BBs doing that is not by far the problem you make it out to be. And when it comes to general camping, I think this is a general problem with the way WG design their games. It is the exact same problem, and maybe more so in WOT: I think it is really a design that make ships so dependant on staying together that makes the players nervous and afraid to be left alone. Since the playerbase are no longer the "elite" young guys from CBT days, that degree of teamwork is simply not realistic anymore. Also, the weight on teamwork just creates annoyanse among the players on the same team. If you play War Thunder, you see that player care much less about what their teammates do there than here. On the other hand, there you may get teamkilled som your team lose because someone want more individual damage and XP for themselves, so that may be a bit to far in the other direction. 

[mtm78]

But I think that you exaggerate the problem wildly. 

 

Which 'problem'? The static gameplay imposed by the BB heavy meta? If so, you' re simply wrong. 

 

BBs doing that is not by far the problem you make it out to be.

 

Island side scraping? No it isn't. Overly prolific BB's being the cause of static gameplay, then yes it is the problem I make it out to be. 

 

I think it is really a design that make ships so dependant on staying together that makes the players nervous and afraid to be left alone.

 

Caused by the BB's which refuse to tank for their team, off course cruisers don't push up when the BB's are not there to take most of the focus, that's the role of a tank in any mmo. BB's seem to get played by more and more people who think they are not tanks but ranged damage dealers. That's and the overly abundant BB's at some tiers ( especially around tier 8 if the latest figures / server stats were correct ). 

 

Since the playerbase are no longer the "elite" young guys from CBT days, that degree of teamwork is simply not realistic anymore.

 

'young guys'? Age has nothing to do with it, there are plenty of older people then me who can and do play this game at a higher level then I do for instance. Teamwork is a mentality problem of people coming into the game and not understanding their roles / not putting in any effort in learning them. 

 

Also, the weight on teamwork just creates annoyanse among the players on the same team.

 

Correct, I was told the same yesterday because I was mad about stupid team members, top tier BB division refusing to do their job, ending the match almost on full hp having done absolutely nothing to actually help win the game. One of my division members told me I should never expect anything from anyone on my team and just be happy if they do something useful, but should that really be the expectating we should have when pressing battle? Having to play 1 vs 23? I rather WG finally add some proper tutorials into the game, and finally start aggressively punishing bad play and rewarding good play by making economy resolve around playing classes in their roles ( in some way.. wouldn't be easy as not all ships in a class are equal... might even be impossible ).

 

If you play War Thunder, you see that player care much less about what their teammates do there than here.

 

I guess you' re not talking about Realistic mode. And yeah people care about what their team does because this is a TEAM GAME where they all have roles to play. The whole is larger then the sum of it's parts but that is only true when each part does it's intended role. And I don't expect everyone to be a superunicum player, but I would like people to at least pay attention to a minimap

[Hanszeehock]

 

Which is the exact opposite of what you were saying, namely that KM BB numbers were due to being a new line.

 

No it isn't. I suggest you read my posts again as you are taking two things out of context. I said that when a new line is introduced if will skew the MM. This usually happens for a short period. But clearly the KM BBs are even more popular than other new lines so the skewing effect lasts longer. I'm sure we will see something similar when RNBBs are introduced if they are any good. But overall, I still stick by my point that limiting class numbers in the MM is not a good thing.

[mtm78]

 

No it isn't. I suggest you read my posts again as you are taking two things out of context. I said that when a new line is introduced if will skew the MM. This usually happens for a short period. But clearly the KM BBs are even more popular than other new lines so the skewing effect lasts longer. I'm sure we will see something similar when RNBBs are introduced if they are any good. But overall, I still stick by my point that limiting class numbers in the MM is not a good thing.

 

Ideally not ofc, having a working class balance should work so that it balances itself. But seeing how WG is failing to provide this, MM restrictions are more and more looking as their only way out. That or renaming it back to World off Battleships. 

[Fiery_Kathy]

Let me tell you 1 thing, if your DDs die, you are fucked.

[Ferry_25]

OK, IMO this is an extreme example of MM, OP. IMO it isn't that bad. Had a couple of 5 vs 6 (always in my disadvantage) DD matches the last couple of days as well.

[Rabid_Turnip]

No, DDs need limiting, as the class that has the most impact on the result of a game. 

 

But of course, having said that, all the little Anti-BB Whine Brigade will now crawl out of their holes going 'waa waa waa a BB killed me once waa waa' and 'I killed 5 BBs because I'M SO SKILLED but a BB killed me so THEY ARE OP waa waa waa wwaaaaaaaa'

 

 

[El2aZeR]

But of course, having said that, all the little Anti-BB Whine Brigade will now crawl out of their holes going 'waa waa waa a BB killed me once waa waa' and 'I killed 5 BBs because I'M SO SKILLED but a BB killed me so THEY ARE OP waa waa waa wwaaaaaaaa'

 

Said the guy whining about CVs everytime they get mentioned. 

[Culiacan_Mexico]

No, DDs need limiting, as the class that has the most impact on the result of a game. 

 

But of course, having said that, all the little Anti-BB Whine Brigade will now crawl out of their holes going 'waa waa waa a BB killed me once waa waa' and 'I killed 5 BBs because I'M SO SKILLED but a BB killed me so THEY ARE OP waa waa waa wwaaaaaaaa'

 

 

Limit DDs?  I don't know about game balance, but that works for me.  I play a lot of DDs and they are one of my counters.  My DD just got stronger.

[Rabid_Turnip]

 

Said the guy whining about CVs everytime they get mentioned. 

 

CVs have been cancerously bad for the game since day 1. 

[El2aZeR]

CVs have been cancerously bad for the game since day 1. 

 

Case and point.

[dasCKD]

As long as they call it World of Warships there should not be a focus being made on creating a class which is easier to play then the others, it's just not a good gameplay decision and will bite WG in the behind in the long run. 

 

I actually disagree with this particular sentiment. I am perfectly fine with a class being easier than the others, as long as it doesn't wield as much power as the others. I think, in fact, that cruisers would work best if they were not as powerful as the other classes but are still moderately relaxing for newer players to get into instead of the current system where cruisers from tier 5 and up just get ROFLstomped if they make a single mistake. A class that wields a lot of power should not be effortless to use. Battleships right now are the easiest class whilst wielding close to the most power which is what I think is the main issue.

[Ragoutrabbit]

 

Case and point.

 

 

Yup they where and still are cancer, if CV hadn't been nerfed this game would have been dead long ago thats how retardedly OP they where.

[CleverViking]

OK, IMO this is an extreme example of MM, OP. IMO it isn't that bad. Had a couple of 5 vs 6 (always in my disadvantage) DD matches the last couple of days as well.

 

I know, I mainly shared it for the fun/absurdity. It wasn't my intention for it to boil down to another war about BBs current meta.

 

(Though I wouldn't mind a hard cap at 4 )

[Horin728]

 

CVs have been cancerously bad for the game since day 1. 

 

 

 

Yup they where and still are cancer, if CV hadn't been nerfed this game would have been dead long ago thats how retardedly OP they where.

 

So I took the time and looked up the amount of games you have played in CVs, so you can deliver such accurate analysis and unsuprisingly it was... Drumroll please... Zero. Nada. Not a single one.  Much analysis, very accurate, wow.

 

I have said this in other topics too, but if you are so sure that CVs are "retardetly OP" PLAY ONE. If they are so OP it should be easy to roflstomp the noobs, eh? 

If you actually have done that you'd notice that this is not the case. This is not your BB where you can go hur dur me big gun overmatch. Getting a good manual drop actually requires quite a lot of skill.

[mtm78]

 

I actually disagree with this particular sentiment. I am perfectly fine with a class being easier than the others, as long as it doesn't wield as much power as the others. I think, in fact, that cruisers would work best if they were not as powerful as the other classes but are still moderately relaxing for newer players to get into instead of the current system where cruisers from tier 5 and up just get ROFLstomped if they make a single mistake. A class that wields a lot of power should not be effortless to use. Battleships right now are the easiest class whilst wielding close to the most power which is what I think is the main issue.

 

Battleships are only more powerful because there are way to many of them in some matches ( and because they are battleships and the bb players would cry if they weren't, but this isn't as big a gap gameplay wise ). I don't want any nerfs to BB's, what I would like is a MM restriction so I don't have to face 6-8 BB's on the enemy team in my cruisers ( in some matches... again... before the BB mafia beings to whine about it not being so bad at all, and start claiming it's actually the DD's which are the problem. Even when we have server stats disproving that ).

 

Cruisers are in a good spot power wise, their durability depends on their distance to BB's though and that's fine ( as long as there aren't so many of them... ). DD's ( well most.. excluding IJN ) are in a good spot, there are few CV's and few CA/CL's comparatively. CV's, well economy is harsh and WG buffed AAA to the point where people who don't go rambo and wander off on their own are generally very high cost targets ( planes lost -> same as ships losing fighting capability ), though that's being said from the perspective of one who doesn't play them so I might be a bit of the mark there. However I don't get deleted by CV's that often and if I do there is always a cause ( team running off leaving my Yamato to deal with a full Haku strike on my own... ). 

 

You can't have a class which is easy to play but also weak, you need all classes to be competitive ( because people play to win, not to have a weak class which puts them at a disadvantage ). 

 

edit: and ofc if you hard cap BB's to 3-4 you also should cap DD's, and since CV's are already capped this automatically means CA/CL's are also less variable. But everyone and their dog should know by now WG doesn't believe in class caps so they claim at least,  after capping CV's And if they don't want to cap classes to ensure an enjoyable gameplay environment for everyone, they should make sure the classes which are to prolific are less attractive to play. 

 

 

[Ragoutrabbit]

 

 

So I took the time and looked up the amount of games you have played in CVs, so you can deliver such accurate analysis and unsuprisingly it was... Drumroll please... Zero. Nada. Not a single one.  Much analysis, very accurate, wow.

 

I have said this in other topics too, but if you are so sure that CVs are "retardetly OP" PLAY ONE. If they are so OP it should be easy to roflstomp the noobs, eh? 

If you actually have done that you'd notice that this is not the case. This is not your BB where you can go hur dur me big gun overmatch. Getting a good manual drop actually requires quite a lot of skill.

 

Your a prime example you do sub par with most of your ships yet just happen to do amost double the damage with CV...

 

CV are retarded in that they have highest damage output counter just about everything that isn't a cruiser with it's defensive fire ready and all coming  with the least risks.

[mtm78]

 

Your a prime example you do sub par with most of your ships yet just happen to do amost double the damage with CV...

 

CV are retarded in that they have highest damage output counter just about everything that isn't a cruiser with it's defensive fire ready and all coming  with the least risks.

 

So should CA's complain that BB's do more damage per game then them? Should DD's complain CA's do more damage per game then them? If no, why should BB's complain that CV's do more damage?

 

 

[Horin728]

 

Your a prime example you do do sub par with most of your ships yet just happen to do amost double the damage with CV...

 

CV are retarded in that they have highest damage output counter just about everything that isn't a cruiser with it's defensive fire ready and all coming  with the least risks.

 

First things first you're. Learn the bloody difference.

 

Second: If you had actually paid any attention at all to my stats you would notice that overwhelming majority of my matches are in the USN cruisers and they are (generaly agreed upon) in a bad state (by the way if you consider having 58% winrate in Pensacola as being subpar, then I really have no more to say to you). 

 

To the CVs: Yes I have played a lot of strategy games, including StarCraft and SC2 on quite good level (Platimun) and while the expirience does help, the UI and plane behaviour is such a hinderance that you don't even try it out.

 

Low tier CVs have very limited supply of planes and 0 mobility - try out the Langley, if you are so good, the cost should be no bother to you and it is/was on sale so perfect opportunity, The risks you take in a CV are of different nature - you risk your planes and damage potential. While a BB can fire salvo every 30-ish seconds (and that salvo has a potential up to  about 130K damage), let us take a look at the time a CV needs to execute the strike: First servicing time, assuming your squad has not been destroyed in previous raid, is in the neigborhood of 30 seconds + 10 to take off + 40-50 to get to the target 5-15 seconds to execute depedning on targets maneuvering  then 40-50 to get back and another 10 seconds to land. Do you see the difference? 

Then we go to the survival aspect of the CV. Basically once are you spotted, you are dead. Especially in the low tier CVs. You play a gamble every game. Will the team push through and break the flank? Or will it hold and I can move closer and be more useful. If you miscalculate, you are dead. 

 

Frankly if you are having such a problem with CVs get in the line that is supposted to counter them - the USN cruisers.  IF you play IJN ships which all have subpar AA you can't be suprised that CVs target you, since you are one of the last viable targets in the game.

 

Or you might try them out. Pick up the Langley or the IJN counterpart. Learn the difficulties CVs face,. Learn the grind of T8 CVs in TX matches, where you will not get a single plane through to the enemy, no matter which class or nation. IF they are so OP, PROVE IT!