Jump to content
  • 1
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
FireRM

Counter to BB overpopulation

31 comments in this topic

Question

[AAO]
Players
118 posts
12,149 battles

Hello,

 

although I greatly appreciate the counter to BB overpopulation that is the Yamamoto campaign, which incentivises the usage of Cruisers thus making them abundant in numbers, I am thinking of a more permanent measure that disincentivises the usage of battleships themselves, since the campaign although will run indefinitely, will be completed by some of the people at some point, thus bringing us back to square one.

I am thinking not a direct nerf (e.g. increase dispersion 20%) but something less direct, but that will stay, can be easily reverted down the road, will cause people to play a bit better, and maybe prevent them of running to their battleships all the time.

So how about making the economy for battlships unforgiving for all but the good performers? I am not talking super-unicum performers, but rather average to good.

Just as an example, if one causes damage to enemy ships that is less or equal to one's own ship's HP, then one should lose credits, badly. The player will thus turn to other classes to make money. Almost like what the intention with T10 ships was before the introduction of the premium camos.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 2
[WG]
[WG]
WG Staff, Community, Alpha Tester
3,498 posts
10,356 battles

@FireRM

Unfortunately the result of harsher economy tends to be more conservative play - "playing it safe". If anything, we tried to rather take the damage taken out of the equation (by changing from Repair to Servicing cost) and it helped a bit, but to be honest while in battle, players do not tend to care about economy (as already a battleship that is pushing actively often gets far better reward than long distance sniper).

 

@Iron_Walls

Do not forget that such mechanics would have to apply over the board - such limit would hurt mostly cruisers and destroyers trying to set fire to battleships. The high chance of fire for battleship main guns is balanced by their low rate of fire and overall firing AP is more effective (and encouraged).

As for limiting the amount of heals available, that would punish more battleships that tend to play risky and as a result take more damage.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5
Weekend Tester
805 posts
4,536 battles

Has WG ever actually commented on the proposals to simply lower the soft cap from five to three or four? Overpopulation in the community is nowhere near as large of an issue as overpopulation in the actual games, and taking care of one would contribute towards taking care of the other over time as well as being an immediate fix to the in-game consequences of BB overpopulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3
[HOO]
Players
2,295 posts
4,005 battles

The MM and game mechanics dont help promote pushing.

 

You start in PvE where everyone rushes forward to kill the bots because they rush you.

You then move to PvP where people rush and die quickly so you learn thats not a good strategy, I must push with teammates.

Then you hit T5 where you meet T7's in the majority of your games (I have the mxstat data to show that I get put in a T7 battles 47% of the time I go out in a t5)  that can over match you and have a longer reach, you start to think you have to play passively just to survive, because even if you push with the team, the enemy will focus down the easiest guns to kill first, the T5's because you can pen their bows even if they are angled and just take down their smaller HP pool more quickly. So lots of players think hell get out of here quickly and more up the tiers as quickly as possible taking their bad habits with them

And that trend continues up the tiers.

 

Result camping BB's

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2
[JRM]
Players
75 posts
17,574 battles
23 minutes ago, Tuccy said:

@FireRM

Unfortunately the result of harsher economy tends to be more conservative play - "playing it safe". If anything, we tried to rather take the damage taken out of the equation (by changing from Repair to Servicing cost) and it helped a bit, but to be honest while in battle, players do not tend to care about economy (as already a battleship that is pushing actively often gets far better reward than long distance sniper).

2

They dont care about economy but what about XP?

Everyone hates when BB sits on edge of map snipes and farm dmg so why not add position modification for xp for example if bb spend whole game at his spawn sniping and never get even close to caps why not multiple xp with 0.5

Also i think bb needed to be less rewarded for dmg but more for tanking that would probably help too

We saw on last ranked season that too often bb that sits behind and farm dmg ended up first on xp and keep star if team lost despite fact that everyone else play for objective but he didnt.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2
Players
5,061 posts
8,562 battles
On 8/11/2017 at 0:11 PM, Tuccy said:

a battleship that is pushing actively often gets far better reward than long distance sniper

 

You mean USED TO GET better rewards?

 

I'm sorry but I'll keep pointing out the 0.6.7 economy changes till I'll get an actual response about it

 

You nerfed the "potential damage" reward for BBs by 70% there. Guess what - a BB who's pushing ahead, taking hits and tanking damage for the team (a.k.a. playing it correctly) instantly took a massive credits & xp cut. But wait, it gets better! Guess what the BB sitting at 30km with his range build Yamato doesn't get? He doesn't get shot at! So he was absolutely unaffected by these economy changes.

 

As a BB to get a better score than that "sniper", who's sitting as far back as he can, the only way is to actually perform better than him on damage & kills, tanking dmg like you should doesn't give you anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2
Players
5,061 posts
8,562 battles

As I (mainly BB player) see it there would be a rather easy way to deal with the "overpopulation" - increase cruiser survivability so [more or less half of all] the cruisers every game don't get instantly deleted and buff the IJN DDs to approximately where they were before all the nerfs. Nothing convinces you to move like a wall of skill threatening to nuke you, and people are generally better at dodging torps than they were when the game just came out

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
Alpha Tester
19,378 posts
6,105 battles
On 11-8-2017 at 0:22 PM, Panzerschreck1985 said:

BB overpopulation? You meant DD overpopulation...

 

600 dd games, double in BB's. 

 

Guess that's why you can't read server stats :Smile_smile: 

 

edit: minus 2 because BBabies are buthurt... I'm proud to get downvoted, just wish it wasn't anonymous.....

QLPNg8l.png

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
671 posts
5,679 battles
On 8/11/2017 at 0:29 PM, Fat_Maniac said:

The MM and game mechanics dont help promote pushing.

 

You start in PvE where everyone rushes forward to kill the bots because they rush you.

You then move to PvP where people rush and die quickly so you learn thats not a good strategy, I must push with teammates.

Then you hit T5 where you meet T7's in the majority of your games (I have the mxstat data to show that I get put in a T7 battles 47% of the time I go out in a t5)  that can over match you and have a longer reach, you start to think you have to play passively just to survive, because even if you push with the team, the enemy will focus down the easiest guns to kill first, the T5's because you can pen their bows even if they are angled and just take down their smaller HP pool more quickly. So lots of players think hell get out of here quickly and more up the tiers as quickly as possible taking their bad habits with them

And that trend continues up the tiers.

 

Result camping BB's

So today in battle this happened:

I am heading for B, in my Bismarck, tier IX game so I feel rather confident as long as I do not over extend. Glance at the map shows our NC and Tirpitz where you would expect them, along side the Izumo behind the cruisers. Our cruisers head for C, I wait for them to cap it, then join them in between B and C. And then I ask if the BBs could push up, because the CAs cant tank... BB#1: "They are sacrificial lambs, they launch torps and cap, and then the big guns do the rest" :cap_wander_2: BB#2 "Of course they can tank, thats why they are there" CA#1 "Hey BB, what are you doing?"

 

So not only were the BBs camping the back line, the CAs were so used to it, that they thought it was weird that I was tanking for them.

My response: "Aye Im tanking for ya, and yes, I know its anti-meta"

 

Sorry for posting another example of what we all know, but that even the cruisers no longer EXPECT close support from battleships...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Alpha Tester
19,378 posts
6,105 battles
On 11-8-2017 at 11:59 AM, rvfharrier said:

Has WG ever actually commented on the proposals to simply lower the soft cap from five to three or four? Overpopulation in the community is nowhere near as large of an issue as overpopulation in the actual games, and taking care of one would contribute towards taking care of the other over time as well as being an immediate fix to the in-game consequences of BB overpopulation.

 You should stop making sense, and only say things which don't hurt the babies or WG will not even reply to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[THESO]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
4,472 posts
11,562 battles
On 11. 8. 2017 at 0:22 PM, Panzerschreck1985 said:

no one gets hurt by 5 BB's on both sides

 

Except anyone who isn't in the said battleship right?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Players
226 posts
1,739 battles
On 11.08.2017 at 0:22 PM, Panzerschreck1985 said:

BB overpopulation? You meant DD overpopulation... no one gets hurt by 5 BB's on both sides, but 4-5 DD's on both sides...

What is this heresy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Players
765 posts
7,589 battles

The counter to BB overpopulation is very simple.  They have said that they were going to fix American Carriers in "one or two updates".  Can we have 6.11 doing that.  There is nothing, repeat nothing that can possibly need fixing in the game more urgently than the balance between carriers.  Its not necessarily just AP bombs either.  Yes US CV's need more alpha damage but not at the cost of only being able to hit one class of ship and possibly only one line at that

 

We need:

1) All stock loadouts for the Americans to have the optimal number of squadrons rather than one less.  a drop of one squad hurts the Americans much more than the Japanese. 
2)  Reduce servicing times on American carriers by 20%  Kaga takes 29 seconds to service 6 torpedo bombers.  Ranger takes 41.  This is wrong, these numbers should be equal

3)  Increase the amount of time  to 15 seconds to get a squad in the air after it has been serviced

4) Make US Dive bombers as accurate as german and Japanese ones.  This will give them the alpha we wanted. If you get 6 or 7 hits out of 7 then you can easily walk away with 15k dmg per squad with the 1000lb bombs which is ideal

5) If you are going to introduce AP bombs make them more consistent than they are now, not being all or nothing.  i.e allow them to do meaningful damage to ALL battleships rather than just German ones.  Also allow them to do something to cruisers.  maybe at the expense of some alpha

7) nerf AA on all Battleships by 30%.  A same tier carrier should be able to send a strike on a battleship and come away with at least half of his planes intact having managed to drop 75% of his payload.  This only happens at tiers 4, 5,6 and 10 at the moment.  Battleships should NOT be the counter of aircraft carriers, even American ones

8) Make sure carriers can only see one tier up and one tier down.  The exception being tier 10 CV's because there wouldn't be enough for a battle without tier 8's.  two tiers up or down is one sided for a CV one way or the other.  Try taking an Independence up against a fleet of North Carolina's.  The Independence has no chance,  but unlike other ship classes it can't just avoid those ships.  It has to fight what is there.  Tier 8 AA is not dissimilar from tier 10 in terms of BB's

9) end the practice of using AA guns in smoke while undetected.  If you can see a group of aircraft in a warship, then the aircraft should be able to see you, particularly if you are in a 70,000 tonne battleship

10) start working on Royal Navy Carriers immediately.  a premium is not what we need.  we have a fleet of premium carriers already, we need an entire line and particularly a 9 and 10 to spice up competition

 

If you make US carriers genuinely playable again and reduce AA across the board then suddenly BB's become less attractive.  Simple.  done and done.  At the same time we need to be careful not to go too far.  However, this will mean that cruisers and battleships have to work together to combat aircraft carriers.  It also makes battleship play less forgiving which is absolutely necessary

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Players
49 posts

I was thinking that what is needed is to make doing well require movement and tactics on the part of BB players. 

 

 

1)All know that there are 3 ranges of importance, view range (+ LOS), detection range, and weapon range(s). Fact: BBs weapon range is longer than the view range, so anything they are firing over that view range is due to someone else spotting for them.  RL is that ships used Artillery target devices to adjust their fire aim, elevation needed etc. These could only used within view range.  The communication with other ships planes etc spotting is much less effective.  My suggestion is that all shells shot beyond vision range have a dispersion multiplier!  This would work for all classes.

 

Let's hear some more ideas.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Players
49 posts
On 8/11/2017 at 6:22 AM, Panzerschreck1985 said:

BB overpopulation? You meant DD overpopulation... no one gets hurt by 5 BB's on both sides, but 4-5 DD's on both sides...

 

*edit* so far, 18 players don't understand this game  :)

Perhaps it's you that doesn't understand the game?  How many battles have you seen where even 4 DD's were on a team?  How many have you seen with 7 or 8 BB's on a team?  You may also have noticed that there are usually more BB's in que than all other classes combined!  Why if not BBs are overpopulated?  Perhaps, because risk and skill are not a requirement to do well playing in BBs.

 

I see the problem is to require doing well in BBs requiring more risk and skill.  I have a proposal,  BBs gun range and range of site (pre-radar) are different, so any shots over a ships view range is being spotted by someone else. Now ships have range detectors and even basic tables to shoot accurately.  When a ship is firing on a target reported by radio from the ship or plane spotting, the accuracy is going to drop so why not have that reflected in a large increase in dispersion?   This way you are not forcing BBs to not snipe, but are making it much less effective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[CATS]
Alpha Tester
630 posts
12,767 battles
1 hour ago, domen3 said:

 

Very funny.....let's use your logic then about 4-5 DDs per side. BBs are happy to oneshot them, cruisers love to slaughter them and CVs are delighted to torp them

They a) need to be spotted, b) the BB needs a perfect spreaded salvo on a broadside DD, c) the CA's need to know how to shoot, d) only japanese CV's have more then one torpedo squad and e) the DD needs to be braindead or be unlucky to die fast against anything else then a good CA. So, what was your logic about that again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[CATS]
Alpha Tester
630 posts
12,767 battles
Just now, domen3 said:

 

There isn't one...just like in your statement

You don't give any argument against what i said, just empty words and call it funny... just wow. Thats not how any discussion works, either you have arguments or your opinion is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[CATS]
Alpha Tester
630 posts
12,767 battles
1 minute ago, domen3 said:

Well so far you're the only one that thinks that way about BB overpopulation, so clearly it's you who's doing something wrong.

I gave arguments, no one of the downvoters has said anything - except you so far. And you gave no arguments, just some empty words and even you have not reacted with arguments. Just because more people "think" something is like "x", its worth NOTHING regarding to arguments and facts. Also, you know very well that the most part of people using forums for "feedback" like iron - who has NO CLUE about the game - are simply people who are more or less like him - bad in the game, ignoring game mechanics and even denying facts and trying to do things that they are not supposed to do. And they tend to make a huge mess about it in the forum about how the game is unfair to them...

 

So, you can either provide some valuable arguments why too much dd's hurt less then too much bb's or think about why you might be wrong. I think about it too, and so far no one has given me anything to show that i might be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[THESO]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
4,472 posts
11,562 battles
3 minutes ago, Panzerschreck1985 said:

I gave arguments, no one of the downvoters has said anything - except you so far. And you gave no arguments, just some empty words and even you have not reacted with arguments. Just because more people "think" something is like "x", its worth NOTHING regarding to arguments and facts. Also, you know very well that the most part of people using forums for "feedback" like iron - who has NO CLUE about the game - are simply people who are more or less like him - bad in the game, ignoring game mechanics and even denying facts and trying to do things that they are not supposed to do. And they tend to make a huge mess about it in the forum about how the game is unfair to them...

 

So, you can either provide some valuable arguments why too much dd's hurt less then too much bb's or think about why you might be wrong. I think about it too, and so far no one has given me anything to show that i might be wrong.

 

Considering the number of people that already made good arguments I don't feel the need to repeat every single thing they've said. If you want you can go read some of them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[THESO]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
4,472 posts
11,562 battles
3 minutes ago, Panzerschreck1985 said:

I gave arguments, no one of the downvoters has said anything - except you so far. And you gave no arguments, just some empty words and even you have not reacted with arguments. Just because more people "think" something is like "x", its worth NOTHING regarding to arguments and facts. Also, you know very well that the most part of people using forums for "feedback" like iron - who has NO CLUE about the game - are simply people who are more or less like him - bad in the game, ignoring game mechanics and even denying facts and trying to do things that they are not supposed to do. And they tend to make a huge mess about it in the forum about how the game is unfair to them...

 

So, you can either provide some valuable arguments why too much dd's hurt less then too much bb's or think about why you might be wrong. I think about it too, and so far no one has given me anything to show that i might be wrong.

 

Considering the number of people that already made good arguments I don't feel the need to repeat every single thing they've said. If you want you can go read some of them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Players
135 posts
3,716 battles

My 2 cents on this matter. 

 

When most people think of naval battles they think of big massive metal monsters spewing shells the size of a grown man, so no wonder that most people start going down those lines. Also, I guess that most are casual players, so grinding a line to tier X will take some time and might discourage people from starting over again. 

 

About the " Easier to play" I don't agree with this in general.  You get punished for making mistakes, some people learn and improve, others don't. To be broadsided in a cruiser or eat a volley of torpedoes in a bb is mostly due to not paying attention or making mistakes in any ship class.  Cruisers can also be useless in the same manner as a edge hugging BB simply by applying the same strategy of being far away from everything that matters, destroyers too for that matter.  

 

The Tools are fine, but it is the mentality of some players that needs to e adjusted. Question is, how to do so? I guess that most of these casual poor skilled players aren't seeking information on this forum, so most of these rage posts against the so called "BBabies" are like yelling at the sky  and expect the weather to change to something that suits you. Personally I started out in BBs, but as I got more and more battles under my belt, I started to switch to cruisers not just to try something new, but because there were videos presented in the game launcher about famous cruisers. When you start to read about a ship or watch a video, you want to sail it in game. Also, if you are good at sailing cruisers or DDs, share some comments in game about how good the ship is! I love my Hindenburg, Roon, Graf Spee, and yes the Prinz Eugen ( History), so I often share a little positive info about these ships in game. Sadly most people tend to communicate their own achievement rather than the actual trades of the ship.  

 

My final claim, well, not really a claim, but imagine what will happen if you successfully get these bb snipers to migrate to other classes.. Sniping cruisers all over the map showing you and your entire team a perfect 90* broadside. They would most likely be russian sniper cruisers or RN smoke poppers (at max range). or picture them in a destroyer! try to, I dare ya!   

 

I don't mind a large about on BBs in a game, I can handle them in my cruiser ( Not in my DD...yet), and yes I get annoyed when they snipe ( especially the german bbs), but getting support from cruisers when you push in a BB is just as rare and sniping BBs are common. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
[-RNR-]
Beta Tester
1,676 posts
16,915 battles
On 8/11/2017 at 0:22 PM, Panzerschreck1985 said:

BB overpopulation? You meant DD overpopulation... no one gets hurt by 5 BB's on both sides, but 4-5 DD's on both sides...

LOL. hehehe, no 5 dds on both sides make fast and fun game. 5 bbs on sides makes it boring camping. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
Players
49 posts
On 8/11/2017 at 6:22 AM, Panzerschreck1985 said:

BB overpopulation? You meant DD overpopulation... no one gets hurt by 5 BB's on both sides, but 4-5 DD's on both sides...

No one gets hurt!  They dominate!  Cruisers are easy targets for them as  they can't hurt a BB a lot quickly, BBs can take out a cruiser with 1 or 2 broadsides.  Cruiser are balanced against DDs, it only the BB that are hurt with a larger number of DDs.  However that is more due to the lack of skill for most of the BB players.  Also, when you have as many of one class in the queue all day, where the number of said class outnumber all the other classes together, you then have a overpopulation of that class! 

 

BBs require the least skill due to their having the most HP, the highest armour values and more repair parties and the lowest risk class with the higher reward potential.  DDs on the other require the most skill due to the least HP, lowest armour and no repair parties and have the highest risk with lowest reward potential.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
[THESO]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
4,472 posts
11,562 battles
48 minutes ago, Panzerschreck1985 said:

You should know better, that really hurts to see someone making a statement like that. Who gets hurt by many BB's? The CV's are glad to see them, a DD is glad to see them and a CA is happy to burn them down...

 

Very funny.....let's use your logic then about 4-5 DDs per side. BBs are happy to oneshot them, cruisers love to slaughter them and CVs are delighted to torp them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
[THESO]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
4,472 posts
11,562 battles
2 minutes ago, Panzerschreck1985 said:

They a) need to be spotted, b) the BB needs a perfect spreaded salvo on a broadside DD, c) the CA's need to know how to shoot, d) only japanese CV's have more then one torpedo squad and e) the DD needs to be braindead or be unlucky to die fast against anything else then a good CA. So, what was your logic about that again?

 

There isn't one...just like in your statement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
[THESO]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
4,472 posts
11,562 battles
2 minutes ago, Panzerschreck1985 said:

You don't give any argument against what i said, just empty words and call it funny... just wow. Thats not how any discussion works, either you have arguments or your opinion is wrong.

Well so far you're the only one that thinks that way about BB overpopulation, so clearly it's you who's doing something wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×