• 1
FireRM

Counter to BB overpopulation

  • You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.

Question

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.

 


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 answers to this question

  • 4

@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.

 


2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3

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
  • 2

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


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
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.


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
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
  • 1

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


2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
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...


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
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


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
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?


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
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
  • -1

I was thinking that requiring them to do a set amount of damage (adjusted by tier) before damage started earning credits and rep.

I was also thinking if you reduce the number of repair parties to 2 with a level 2 bring 3 while at the same time give cruisers 1 with a level 2 giving them a 2 starting Tier 5.  

The other change needs to be made to catching fire as BBs do enough damage with HP damage and 49% chance of causing a fire is too much.  I would suggest that only HE penetrating shots would have a low chance of fire and a slow rate of eating hit points! No-penetrating HE rounds act only Modules/ low damage to hitpoints as explosives!   The BB player would then have to chose what ammo for what ship type.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
1 hour 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).

 

@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.

 

 

I can see your point in regard to heals, but then again they have armour and most Hps in the game then why do they need so many heals/repair?.  They target cruisers first because they are easier to kill and especially with HE and fire.  You rarely see a BB using AP except for shooting at other BBs and even that has decreased with HE buff for creating fires.  Logic would direct that CAs have more heals/repairs, but by giving them 1 at least they have a chance and not be one shot kills.(1 massive hit followed by fire) which is hurting 1 class by making another class OP and need lower skill to play. Imho if this doesn't change it will become a game of BBs vs BBs. 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
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
  • -5

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...


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.