Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Syrchalis

Why is this game balanced for ship compositions that don't exist?

49 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
1,401 posts
3,712 battles

We all know how ranked and now clan wars will look like. Very limited BBs, lots of DDs, some cruisers.

 

These restrictions are there so that the game is fair and fun, right? Right. Obviously WG wishes for the normal random battle to be similar in ship composition. 3 BBs, 4 Cruisers, 5 DDs, or alternatively 5 Cruisers and 4 DDs. Guess what, that's now going to happen, not with the popularity of BBs.

 

I understand why they strafe for this composition - it's relatively close to "historically realistic" - but it's absolutely unrealistic right here, right now, as a game - because of the popularity of the classes. BBs > Cruisers > DDs. A real game looks more like 5 BBs, 4 Cruisers and 3 DDs, we all can agree on that, can't we?

 

But why in gods name does WG balance this game for a ship composition that does barely ever happen? Why don't they balance the game for the compositions that DO happen? I don't mean make BBs OP - that's what they already did. But actually make BBs so cruiser-friendly, that a 5/4/3 (BB/CA/DD) game is similarly enjoyable for everyone and not skewed towards the BBs? Why does BB AP have to obliterate DDs?

 

It feels like WG gives no damn about making a fun game, rather balance for what they WISH to be the ratio of ships.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,130 posts
2,359 battles

The way I see it is that the removal of carriers and the limiting of BBs to 1 per team is basically an admission of WG's refusal to even attempt to balance them. Rather than balancing them, they are metaphorically flipping the table over and attempting damage control to limit the problems they cause without actual solving the problems themselves.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,401 posts
3,712 battles
43 minutes ago, RamirezKurita said:

The way I see it is that the removal of carriers and the limiting of BBs to 1 per team is basically an admission of WG's refusal to even attempt to balance them. Rather than balancing them, they are metaphorically flipping the table over and attempting damage control to limit the problems they cause without actual solving the problems themselves.

Yeah, that's exactly my point of view on the current issue with the clan wars, but I was going a step further and questioning why they don't even ATTEMPT to balance the game in which every game is 5 BBs, 4 CAs and 3 DDs (or similar ratios with BBs on top).

 

They had 2 years and ever since beta BBs have been super duper popular - it will never change, not with how famous those ships are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
7,973 posts
11,395 battles

As much as I like the game, I've played enough of it to know the gameplay is inherently flawed and will likely never be fixed.

 

The way BBs are portrayed is simply too powerful in a straight up battle. Cruisers are marginalised as a support role that has to run and hide or risk getting nuked instantly. DDs have a viable role as if no one is spotting then a game is basically lost. 

 

It's weird actually as BBs are both the most powerful class in terms of over all firepower/tankiness but are still at the mercy of DDs which seem to suffer nerf after nerfb but still remain very important.

 

Then you have the CVs that are basically being God on the battlefield if you're good enough to rise those levels, everyone else loses planes like flies then whines about it. 

 

I've always thought WG simply shouldn't waste time pretending this game is "pro" or has a competitive scene due to the imbalances, it can survive fine without such things I think. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
7,973 posts
11,395 battles
4 minutes ago, aboomination said:

 

How?

Higher tier Cruisers can never be balanced against BBs unless you're talking about something like a Moskva and even then you're not going to last long if the MM gives you 5 enemy T10 BBs lol...

 

The higher tier BBs reach pretty much OP heights as they have a combination of very heavy armour, high speeds, accurate guns and often extra stuff like 11km secondaries, super heal, radar, hydro etc etc The balance is a bit better in the mid tiers but fast battleships and HE spammers are eroding this too.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
5,318 posts
8,151 battles
2 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

Higher tier Cruisers can never be balanced against BBs unless you're talking about something like a Moskva and even then you're not going to last long if the MM gives you 5 enemy T10 BBs lol...

 

The higher tier BBs reach pretty much OP heights as they have a combination of very heavy armour, high speeds, accurate guns and often extra stuff like 11km secondaries, super heal, radar, hydro etc etc The balance is a bit better in the mid tiers but fast battleships and HE spammers are eroding this too.

 

I'm not talking about anything, I was asking OP how he'd imagine a BB to be cruiser friendly?

Lower dmg per shell but higher rof? That's a cruiser. More RNG? Laughable.

Less range? Kiting BB is already pretty easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
7,973 posts
11,395 battles
17 minutes ago, aboomination said:

 

I'm not talking about anything, I was asking OP how he'd imagine a BB to be cruiser friendly?

Lower dmg per shell but higher rof? That's a cruiser. More RNG? Laughable.

Less range? Kiting BB is already pretty easy.

Lel I guess as its not 100% clear what OP was getting at...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,401 posts
3,712 battles
1 hour ago, aboomination said:

 

How?

Less damage to cruisers, MUCH less damage to DDs - no reason that BB AP has to deal same damage to everything.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
7,973 posts
11,395 battles
2 minutes ago, Syrchalis said:

Less damage to cruisers, MUCH less damage to DDs - no reason that BB AP has to deal same damage to everything.

Well that's the issue, AP is meant to be a Cruiser killer... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,401 posts
3,712 battles
Just now, Negativvv said:

Well that's the issue, AP is meant to be a Cruiser killer... 

It's too effective at that. Nerf it, buff consistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
7,973 posts
11,395 battles
1 minute ago, Syrchalis said:

It's too effective at that. Nerf it, buff consistency.

RNG is a part of WGs product, they've even stated this in WoT Q&As etc

 

Consistent AP damage would actually be more powerful than the odd Devastating Strike, would you rather have AP that will kill a cruiser in 2 or 3 salvos or have scatter guns that might kill in one or half a dozen salvos? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,401 posts
3,712 battles
36 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

RNG is a part of WGs product, they've even stated this in WoT Q&As etc

 

Consistent AP damage would actually be more powerful than the odd Devastating Strike, would you rather have AP that will kill a cruiser in 2 or 3 salvos or have scatter guns that might kill in one or half a dozen salvos?

 

It comes down to the exact numbers. Sure, if every hit is a pen then that would be a huge nerf for cruisers (even if they had no citadels anymore) but that's not what I was suggesting. I was more thinking along the lines that AP deals 100% to BBs/CVs, 80% to CAs, 50% to DDs or something like that. And in turn they could for example buff the dispersion of lower tier BBs or make sure absolute paper cruisers (especially at lower tiers) can't have their citadel overpenned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,462 posts
7,850 battles

I'm not quite cynical enough to believe that WG don't want more BBs in CW because they are too powerful.

As for the "no CV"-rule I do believe it's them admitting defeat on having CVs fixed enough for CW. I'm sure we'll see future CW seasons with different compositions once they think CV play is polished enough.

Just like for ranked I think they want the different seasons to be varied by way of what ships can be used. What they do now for the first season is guaranteed to change for the second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BGNAV]
Players
745 posts
14,100 battles

all that no CVs 1BB cap is very simple

WG is trying to gently force the playerbase to grind hi tier  CAs.and DDs

 

forcing DD grind is more than problematic when we all have to play Domination mode no matter did we want or did not

 

+WG is Protecting the sanity of all unexperienced  BB players with oldBBs:Smile_trollface:(that ones that get detected from the moon and have ruders of 17+s)

 

you think 7GKs have any chance against 5hiTier Cruiser players and 2DDs like Grozo and Z- no not to torp, just to maintain the spot lulz and 1 to cap if one freed or if bbs split u have again spotting

or 4shimas - type93 mod 3 with TA go dodge overlapping carpet of 60torpedoes more than enough range of 9.6kms even 37s RT with Hydro is not enough to find hole to sneak that island:Smile_trollface:

than go count mimimimimTreads forum will crash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,130 posts
2,359 battles
2 hours ago, Nechrom said:

I'm not quite cynical enough to believe that WG don't want more BBs in CW because they are too powerful.

As for the "no CV"-rule I do believe it's them admitting defeat on having CVs fixed enough for CW. I'm sure we'll see future CW seasons with different compositions once they think CV play is polished enough.

Just like for ranked I think they want the different seasons to be varied by way of what ships can be used. What they do now for the first season is guaranteed to change for the second.

 

However, removing them from CWs isn't just an admission of defeat on CVs, it's also a removal of an important reason to get them fixed. As they aren't in clan wars then there's no reason for them to sort them out in a hurry, they can just delay the CV rework by another 5 years without them affecting CWs. Conversely, if they allowed CVs in CW then it would give WG the greatest possible motivation to get them sorted - every day they are available in their broken form they will be causing problems in clan wars and so every day closer to a fix is an improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,462 posts
7,850 battles
2 minutes ago, RamirezKurita said:

However, removing them from CWs isn't just an admission of defeat on CVs, it's also a removal of an important reason to get them fixed. As they aren't in clan wars then there's no reason for them to sort them out in a hurry, they can just delay the CV rework by another 5 years without them affecting CWs. Conversely, if they allowed CVs in CW then it would give WG the greatest possible motivation to get them sorted - every day they are available in their broken form they will be causing problems in clan wars and so every day closer to a fix is an improvement.

 

Correlation doesn't equal causation. Just because there are no CVs in CW doesn't mean they are getting fixed any slower.

You are ignoring the fact that intentionally putting something broken into CW is irresponsible. It's supposed to be as good of an experience as possible, not be a sacrifice to push CV change.

Bottom line is they can't fix CVs before CW, so this is the solution for the short term.

 

I want CVs fixed as well, but I'd rather them do it right than be rushed by some arbitrary deadline. *cough*Graf Zeppelin*cough*

They are prototyping candidates for an extreme overhaul, not just adjusting some values here and there. Let them do their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,351 posts
13,881 battles
6 hours ago, aboomination said:

I'm not talking about anything, I was asking OP how he'd imagine a BB to be cruiser friendly?

Lower dmg per shell but higher rof? That's a cruiser. More RNG? Laughable.

Less range? Kiting BB is already pretty easy.

Well, my suggestion would be to fix the ballistics to a more realistic model. In short, the dispersion ellipse, which is now horizontal in order to guarantee more hits on ships actually favors BB's a lot, because of course a large Cruiser is as long or even longer than a battleship with none of the protection. Hence insta-delete.

 

Now, in real ballistics, gun dispersion is indeed elliptical, BUT it is vertical instead of horizontal so it should be turned 90 decrees to reflect this. Doing that would have 3 important effects:

 

1) Hitting ships at long ranges would hinge more on their beam width, than ship length. Guaranteeing more long range hits on BB's than Cruisers, since Cruisers tend to be significantly narrower than BB. Therefore creating an operational "Safety Zone" for Cruisers. Of course, safety is relative, as someone famously said so though hits would be more rare or most likely near-hits causing less damage, direct hits would still be devastating. From close range this would mean that ship's profile height is the deciding metric, so sadly any Cruiser straying too close would still be insta-deleted but that is a given anyway.

2) The other effect of doing this would be to negate head-on camping. As any ship angled bow-on (or retreating) would present an easy target and risk multiple hits (please refer to the fate of HMS Hood in the Battle of Denmark Strait / Tsushima) on its thin deck armor. This would have the effect of being realistic AND improving the game balance while also eliminating one mechanic causing passive gameplay.

3) It would allow warships to function, as they were designed to - Firing broadsides at each other, being able to use all their guns, because why have 8 guns, if you are able to use only 4 of them? Also, it would not punish the players for turning their strongest armor towards the enemy, namely the belt armor, as would seem logical. After all, in WoT, it is recommended to keep your thicker front armor towards the enemy, as it is the strongest. The same logic should apply to warships. So since belt armor (located on the sides of a ship) is the strongest and deck armor is the flimsiest, it would make sense to follow the same principle here for the dual benefits of better use of armor protection and actually being able to maximize the use your main guns properly.

 

HOORAY!:cap_cool:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,130 posts
2,359 battles
45 minutes ago, Nechrom said:

 

Correlation doesn't equal causation. Just because there are no CVs in CW doesn't mean they are getting fixed any slower.

You are ignoring the fact that intentionally putting something broken into CW is irresponsible. It's supposed to be as good of an experience as possible, not be a sacrifice to push CV change.

Bottom line is they can't fix CVs before CW, so this is the solution for the short term.

 

I want CVs fixed as well, but I'd rather them do it right than be rushed by some arbitrary deadline. *cough*Graf Zeppelin*cough*

They are prototyping candidates for an extreme overhaul, not just adjusting some values here and there. Let them do their job.

 

It doesn't necessarily mean they are getting fixed slower, but it also doesn't mean that they are even getting fixed in the first place. Quite simply, we don't know and the only piece of information we have to go on is that they are removing them from competitive play until further notice. Particularly as WG has shown time and time again that they don't care about carriers in the game at all, almost every single change in the game has resulted in them getting more fiddly and unforgiving. Even the new lines being added show a similar story, as we are still at 2 carrier lines while BBs are sailing along with 4 and cruisers have a massive 6 lines - this all points to carriers being all but abandoned.

 

Banning carriers from competitive play is sending a very strong signal that they place clan wars, a single game type, above carrier gameplay. If they truly cared about the quality, they would delay CW until carriers were fixed - but instead they are effectively stating that they do not care about carriers enough to even consider their nonexistence to be a problem. Think of it like having a swear jar, it's a way of self-regulating by putting a metaphorical gun to your own head, sometimes you need to threaten to hurt yourself to give yourself motivation to get something done that you don't want to do.

 

You mention they are prototyping things, but have you seen any evidence of this? As far as we are aware, the giant carrier rework that they said was coming this year was just the alternative UI, we haven't even heard rumours about what/if they are planning for actual gameplay changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,462 posts
7,850 battles
10 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

Now, in real ballistics, gun dispersion is indeed elliptical, BUT it is vertical instead of horizontal so it should be turned 90 decrees to reflect this.

 

The in-game dispersion is also "vertical" or long rather than wide.

Or did I misunderstand what you were referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,462 posts
7,850 battles
1 minute ago, RamirezKurita said:

It doesn't necessarily mean they are getting fixed slower, but it also doesn't mean that they are even getting fixed in the first place. Quite simply, we don't know and the only piece of information we have to go on is that they are removing them from competitive play until further notice. Particularly as WG has shown time and time again that they don't care about carriers in the game at all, almost every single change in the game has resulted in them getting more fiddly and unforgiving. Even the new lines being added show a similar story, as we are still at 2 carrier lines while BBs are sailing along with 4 and cruisers have a massive 6 lines - this all points to carriers being all but abandoned.

 

Banning carriers from competitive play is sending a very strong signal that they place clan wars, a single game type, above carrier gameplay. If they truly cared about the quality, they would delay CW until carriers were fixed - but instead they are effectively stating that they do not care about carriers enough to even consider their nonexistence to be a problem. Think of it like having a swear jar, it's a way of self-regulating by putting a metaphorical gun to your own head, sometimes you need to threaten to hurt yourself to give yourself motivation to get something done that you don't want to do.

 

You mention they are prototyping things, but have you seen any evidence of this? As far as we are aware, the giant carrier rework that they said was coming this year was just the alternative UI, we haven't even heard rumours about what/if they are planning for actual gameplay changes.

 

We know as much as we're going to know this early in the process of the large scale stuff.

Short term they are looking at IJN v USN balance and making the USN decks more versatile.

Long term (2018) they are looking at big overhauls, like completely changing how you control squads and how AA is handled etc.

 

This comes up several times in every Q&A they do, so we have lots of tidbits of information to go on. Not just old information from 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,351 posts
13,881 battles

You did, my friend Nechrom you did... Observe, the difference between Vertical and Horizontal:

Vertical.jpg.776cb4a6d6612a27a25cfa9d1e0bb479.jpg

Vertical = at right angles to a horizontal plane; in a direction, or having an alignment, such that the top is directly above the bottom.

Horizontal = parallel to the plane of the horizon; at right angles to the vertical.

 

Now, Wows dispersion ellipse (which is clearly somewhat in error, so I understand your confusion):

Wows.jpg.708b5a904468a8adb2ef25b8ec0f92ba.jpg

Hence it is Horizontal = Skewed off by 90 degrees in the wrong angle...:cap_book:

This error is of course a deliberate thing WG did in order to increase the number of hits scored, but it is also the singe feature responsible for all the most appalling failures of this game (not being able to use all guns, strongest armor being the weakest, bow-on camping etc etc - ad nauseam). What I mean shown below:

Dispersion.jpg.aae2865a3650eadab8ce875b215f1dc1.jpg

Sorry for any confusion caused, should have done this to begin with. Oh well, there's a reason why I did not become a teacher eh?:Smile_teethhappy:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,299 posts
1,085 battles
26 minutes ago, Nechrom said:

 

We know as much as we're going to know this early in the process of the large scale stuff.

Short term they are looking at IJN v USN balance and making the USN decks more versatile.

Long term (2018) they are looking at big overhauls, like completely changing how you control squads and how AA is handled etc.

 

This comes up several times in every Q&A they do, so we have lots of tidbits of information to go on. Not just old information from 2016.

sKprGA8.jpg?1

 

Fool me one, shame on me.
Fool me twice, shame on you.

 

I don't know why you think anyone should have any faith in the dev team regarding CVs when they consistently ignored CV feedback and made baffling changes against the community. They just openly admitted that they were doing nothing for the last two years. People have right to be angry and to not believe what WG is saying. People expect results not words and here is their result.

 

I mean how funny it is that to have "fun" experience WG had to butcher their comp? Their balance cycle just sucks, never was made with anything remotely competetive in mind, no future proofing, no long term plans and predictions... But here is their anwser, let's take axe and go to town. Hillarious

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,130 posts
2,359 battles
34 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

Well, my suggestion would be to fix the ballistics to a more realistic model. In short, the dispersion ellipse, which is now horizontal in order to guarantee more hits on ships actually favors BB's a lot, because of course a large Cruiser is as long or even longer than a battleship with none of the protection. Hence insta-delete.

 

Now, in real ballistics, gun dispersion is indeed elliptical, BUT it is vertical instead of horizontal so it should be turned 90 decrees to reflect this. Doing that would have 3 important effects:

 

1) Hitting ships at long ranges would hinge more on their beam width, than ship length. Guaranteeing more long range hits on BB's than Cruisers, since Cruisers tend to be significantly narrower than BB. Therefore creating an operational "Safety Zone" for Cruisers. Of course, safety is relative, as someone famously said so though hits would be more rare or most likely near-hits causing less damage, direct hits would still be devastating. From close range this would mean that ship's profile height is the deciding metric, so sadly any Cruiser straying too close would still be insta-deleted but that is a given anyway.

2) The other effect of doing this would be to negate head-on camping. As any ship angled bow-on (or retreating) would present an easy target and risk multiple hits (please refer to the fate of HMS Hood in the Battle of Denmark Strait / Tsushima) on its thin deck armor. This would have the effect of being realistic AND improving the game balance while also eliminating one mechanic causing passive gameplay.

3) It would allow warships to function, as they were designed to - Firing broadsides at each other, being able to use all their guns, because why have 8 guns, if you are able to use only 4 of them? Also, it would not punish the players for turning their strongest armor towards the enemy, namely the belt armor, as would seem logical. After all, in WoT, it is recommended to keep your thicker front armor towards the enemy, as it is the strongest. The same logic should apply to warships. So since belt armor (located on the sides of a ship) is the strongest and deck armor is the flimsiest, it would make sense to follow the same principle here for the dual benefits of better use of armor protection and actually being able to maximize the use your main guns properly.

 

HOORAY!:cap_cool:

 

I think this issue is made worse by a couple of other issues in the game, namely the effectiveness of autobounce and the impossibility of long range fire.

 

Autobouncing basically means that 3mm extra on the bow is more effective than 300mm on the belt, as nobody actually angles to increase effective armour thickness but instead angles to attempt to autobounce. It's the same problem players have with the KGV, a thick belt is completely pointless as everyone just goes for the autobounce off the bow. To be honest, I'd prefer it if they altered the overmatch mechanics so that no unarmoured sections on ships would ever be able to autobounce anything bigger than a destroyer AP shell, but keep the ability for the armoured belts to autobounce with sufficient angle. This would bring angling in line with WoT where it is there to increase effective armour thickness rather than to attempt to autobounce the shells.

 

Secondly, the lack of long range fire means that plunging fire doesn't work against battleships. Even against battleships with weak deck armour, like the Kriegsmarine ones, it is still extremely difficult to land citadel penetrations even at maximum range. Obviously, simply increasing ranges in the game to allow for plunging fire wouldn't really help as it would just make the game even more of a campfest. I've suggested before that they should remap the ballistics so that shells have the arcs and penetration of 150% of their distance, so that a shell fired 10km would have the ballistics of one fired at 15km, while long-range plunging fire would be quite possible as a NC firing at it's maximum range of 23.3km would have the ballistics as if it were firing at 35km (complete with massive deck penetration). The trouble is that in-game long-range is basically mid-range historically, putting engagements between BBs straight into each other's immune zones unless they close the gap, meanwhile mid-range in game is basically knife-fighting range for a historical battleship where armour doesn't matter.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,462 posts
7,850 battles
1 minute ago, Ishiro32 said:

Fool me one, shame on me.
Fool me twice, shame on you.

 

I don't know why you think anyone should have any faith in the dev team regarding CVs when they consistently ignored CV feedback and made baffling changes against the community. They just openly admitted that they were doing nothing for the last two years. People have right to be angry and to not believe what WG is saying. People expect results not words and here is their result.

 

I mean how funny it is that to have "fun" experience WG had to butcher their comp? Their balance cycle just sucks, never was made with anything remotely competetive in mind, no future proofing, no long term plans predictions and plans... But here is their anwser, let's take axe and go to town. Hillarious

 

Aaaaaand we're back at this old chestnut.

If nothing WG says mean anything to you then why are we even having this discussion? Give up, continue playing, stop playing, I honestly don't care.

This kind of stupid reasoning is anti-discussion.

 

Oh and the saying is the other way around.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×