Degree of counter

[Syrchalis]

I wonder I wonder, why is the balance triangle so skewed?

 

To wreck a BB in a DD, there has to be a lot of variables right for it to happen. Either I need to ambush it and immediately disappear behind an island so his AP and secondaries can't obliterate me (and pray his 50% torpedo protection isn't enough) - or the BB needs to not know I'm in the general direction and drive broadside to me while not slowing down or turning. Also DCP needs to be on cooldown and not active anymore. I also need to get relatively close, exposing myself to my counter (CAs). Man, that's a lot of if's.

 

To wreck a DD in a CA I need to get up close so I can properly hit it (<15km in every CA, in many even closer), exposing myself to my counter (BBs). Either I have hydro (and give up def AA for it) and I need to take a great risk, or I have radar and can efficiently strip the DD of it's defense. I have to make the few salvos I can shoot count, because many won't focus the DD - this requires good aim and judging the speed of the DD well (EXTREME variance in shell velocity from DM to Moska etc. also makes this pretty hard when switching ships) - in short, skill is needed.

 

To wreck a CA in a BB it just needs to be "not behind an island". Angle, distance, dodging are all largely irrelevant.

 

Good thing games usually have 2 BBs, 5 CAs and 5 DDs per side, so the skewed triangle is at least somewhat offset by the popularity of ships.

 

Oh wait...

 

In short:

DD tries to counter BB? Gets radared and killed by CA. CA is in position to radar and shoot DD? Gets obliterated by a single BB salvo. BBs? All save and sound at 15-20km, enjoying only having to face their own class.

[Major_Damage225]

I know i posted this in another thread but. 

A day in the life of:

 

Akizuki vs a BB

 

CA against a BB(dodge, dodge and get a shot off, hopefully) 

 

BB vs CA and DD 

 

Unrelated

Kamikaze R & company... buisness as usuall 

 

 

[Vaderan]

That´s how the community wanted it to be: make BBs depending on RNG and vulnerable towards anything you can throw on them. So the majority of players plays BBs the only way possible to not die a quick death: stay out of harms way, sacrifice teammates for spotting and try to score as many lucky hits as possible.

Deep water torpedoes won´t change that, AP-Bombs won´t change that, better IFHE on small calibres won´t change that, smoke penalties for BBs won´t change that, even improved armorprotection (if considered at all) won´t change that.

[MacFergus]

2 hours ago, Syrchalis said:

I wonder I wonder, why is the balance triangle so skewed?

 

To wreck a BB in a DD, there has to be a lot of variables right for it to happen. Either I need to ambush it and immediately disappear behind an island so his AP and secondaries can't obliterate me (and pray his 50% torpedo protection isn't enough) - or the BB needs to not know I'm in the general direction and drive broadside to me while not slowing down or turning. Also DCP needs to be on cooldown and not active anymore. I also need to get relatively close, exposing myself to my counter (CAs). Man, that's a lot of if's.

 

To wreck a DD in a CA I need to get up close so I can properly hit it (<15km in every CA, in many even closer), exposing myself to my counter (BBs). Either I have hydro (and give up def AA for it) and I need to take a great risk, or I have radar and can efficiently strip the DD of it's defense. I have to make the few salvos I can shoot count, because many won't focus the DD - this requires good aim and judging the speed of the DD well (EXTREME variance in shell velocity from DM to Moska etc. also makes this pretty hard when switching ships) - in short, skill is needed.

 

To wreck a CA in a BB it just needs to be "not behind an island". Angle, distance, dodging are all largely irrelevant.

 

Good thing games usually have 2 BBs, 5 CAs and 5 DDs per side, so the skewed triangle is at least somewhat offset by the popularity of ships.

 

Oh wait...

 

In short:

DD tries to counter BB? Gets radared and killed by CA. CA is in position to radar and shoot DD? Gets obliterated by a single BB salvo. BBs? All save and sound at 15-20km, enjoying only having to face their own class.

 

To be fair a CA that kills a DD is doing his job , A DD that sinks a DD is doing his job + More , A BB that sinks a DD ohh wait they don't they focus on other BBs cos its a bigger target and they have there head in Zoom.

[Syrchalis]

2 minutes ago, MacFergus said:

 

To be fair a CA that kills a DD is doing his job , A DD that sinks a DD is doing his job + More , A BB that sinks a DD ohh wait they don't they focus on other BBs cos its a bigger target and they have there head in Zoom.

I am not sure what your point is, maybe rephrase.

 

My point was that CAs counter DDs well, but the DD has options and the CA has to take risks. Same as DD countering BB, though they are even worse in that regard. However, BB completely brute-force overpower CAs and force them to essentially remove themselves from battle (hide behind island, don't shoot so they don't get detected).

[MacFergus]

14 minutes ago, Syrchalis said:

I am not sure what your point is, maybe rephrase.

 

My point was that CAs counter DDs well, but the DD has options and the CA has to take risks. Same as DD countering BB, though they are even worse in that regard. However, BB completely brute-force overpower CAs and force them to essentially remove themselves from battle (hide behind island, don't shoot so they don't get detected).

BBs can be so blind when it comes to DDs most will ignore them as a waste of a salvo and focus on other BBs nice easy target to hit if they took there head out of zoom they might find a DD parked 7km from them.

[ColonelPete]

5 hours ago, Vaderan said:

That´s how the community wanted it to be: make BBs depending on RNG and vulnerable towards anything you can throw on them. So the majority of players plays BBs the only way possible to not die a quick death: stay out of harms way, sacrifice teammates for spotting and try to score as many lucky hits as possible.

Deep water torpedoes won´t change that, AP-Bombs won´t change that, better IFHE on small calibres won´t change that, smoke penalties for BBs won´t change that, even improved armorprotection (if considered at all) won´t change that.

Vulnerable to everything?

If BB are vulnerable, what are the other classes? 

Seems like you have no idea how much damage BB can take.

[RAHJAILARI]

The only way these issues can be resolved, is to implement caps on ship types and numbers allowed per team. Similar to CV's. So cap on numbers or radar allowable, cap on number of BB and perhaps DD's and the rest a mix of Cruisers both Heavy and Light. This is doable

 

BUT...

 

The problem is that due to lack of player numbers overall (20k+ at most) the MM would find it very hard to find suitable ships to compose a team so it would just result in long queuing times and stump teams (less than 12 players teams) for randoms, which would put players off even more. The only way WG would be able to do anything like that would be to introduce bot-players, who would then fill-in the gaps just like in War Thunder. Unfortunately AI players still tend to be fairly easy targets so that is also less than ideal.

 

Of course, what they COULD do is to improve the in-queue information, which tells you what types of ships are in queue so one can change their own ship to better adapt to what is needed to form a team, but of course, then also Radars should be separately itemized in the queue. This might not solve the problem though, since there are many players, who will obtusely cling on to their one chosen ship / ship class, no matter what and would just queue on and complain about the queuing times or MM, even if they themselves are the ones basically causing it.

 

Woe! Life (and Wargaming) is hard, ain't it?

[Namolis]

18 hours ago, Syrchalis said:

I wonder I wonder, why is the balance triangle so skewed?

 

To wreck a BB in a DD, there has to be a lot of variables right for it to happen. Either I need to ambush it and immediately disappear behind an island so his AP and secondaries can't obliterate me (and pray his 50% torpedo protection isn't enough) - or the BB needs to not know I'm in the general direction and drive broadside to me while not slowing down or turning. Also DCP needs to be on cooldown and not active anymore. I also need to get relatively close, exposing myself to my counter (CAs). Man, that's a lot of if's.

 

To wreck a DD in a CA I need to get up close so I can properly hit it (<15km in every CA, in many even closer), exposing myself to my counter (BBs). Either I have hydro (and give up def AA for it) and I need to take a great risk, or I have radar and can efficiently strip the DD of it's defense. I have to make the few salvos I can shoot count, because many won't focus the DD - this requires good aim and judging the speed of the DD well (EXTREME variance in shell velocity from DM to Moska etc. also makes this pretty hard when switching ships) - in short, skill is needed.

 

To wreck a CA in a BB it just needs to be "not behind an island". Angle, distance, dodging are all largely irrelevant.

 

Good thing games usually have 2 BBs, 5 CAs and 5 DDs per side, so the skewed triangle is at least somewhat offset by the popularity of ships.

 

Oh wait...

 

In short:

DD tries to counter BB? Gets radared and killed by CA. CA is in position to radar and shoot DD? Gets obliterated by a single BB salvo. BBs? All save and sound at 15-20km, enjoying only having to face their own class.

I will try to answer this for a third time (fat fingered the two first.... )

 

There is more to the game than a simple rock-paper-scissor. And yes, I know the early commercials focused heavily on the r-p-s aspect of this game. Weirdly, I might add, since I've always associated r-p-s with the kind of lazy cop-out by devs who tend to just add an out-of-rare-end x% modifier to certain ammo vs certain targets to force mixed forces and then go "there! FIXED!". This game bases itself on rules of how ammo interacts with water and armor of certain thickness. Much more elegant! (When it isn't bugged ofc.)

 

And, yes, that means I'd have wanted the DW torps to be based on depth, not class. And yes, I believe CE skill should be a flat 10% for all ships. Etc.

 

Let me offer another perspective: the power vs utility scale. A destroyer has the most utility of the three classes. It can scout, it can cap, it can smoke up friends. It can do area denial. it can extract itself from difficult situations, it can react to battlefield requirements; it can be very difficult to predict. It can, through intelligent play, force enemy teams to make bad choices and allow friendlies the option of several good ones. In return for all this, it tends to do the least amount of damage (at least in higher tiers).

 

The battleship, conversely, has the most raw power of the three classes. In return for that it can't really cap, can't really scout, can't really extract itself from hard situations or easily react to battlefield needs. It is also quite easy for the enemy to see where they are going and what they want to do.... (when they aren't given better-than-cruiser concealment *hrmf*). The one amount of utility they have is area denial.

 

Cruisers are in the middle of the three on both counts. That can be seen as a difficult situation, because no matter what you want to do in a particular situation, there is probably a ship out there that could have done it better. It can also be seen as a boon, since you can do these things at all, should the situation call for it - but identifying when that is takes some skill (I certainly get it wrong all the time, even after almost 8k battles...)

 

Carriers are sort of outside this. They are in a horrible state, and have been since the start of the game. They have as much power as a battleship (or more) and as much utility as a destoyer (or more). So unbalanced that WG has almost given up on them - they tried to introduce very strict class limits (one each) and mirror MM, but all that does is to sometimes turn the game into an 1v1 with 22 spectators. So bad is it that they have now taken the extreme step of banning CVs altogether in CW. (Yes, I have seriously suggested that before. And no, I didn't think they would actually do it. I must be in the unique position on this forum to have on several occasions gotten the feeling that WG both reads my posts and actually listens.)

 

****

 

That all leaves one question ofc: why are battleships played so much more? To me the answer right now is that they are the most like chess - slow, meticolus and calculating. In the beginning it was because they were battleships!!! I got attracted to the game in the first place because I knew about the Bismarck, Yamato and Iowa and had read about its big brother Montana, and I wanted to play them all. I stayed because the game is less fast paced than other titles out there which suits me better and lets me play for long periods of time without building up too much adrenaline.

 

I think many are like me: the ships they know about are battleships. They are the icons of the era and that is where you want to start. Early on, WG did something to combat this: they made the T3 and T4 battleships so god-awful that people didn't play them unless they really, really meant it. The low-tier destroyers were in many cases straight up equals with the higher ones (remember the old, old Minekadze?), so that added to the feeling of being a punching bag. Now, they have stopped treating the low tier battleships special, and made them equally playable as everything else, so that road block is no longer present. Players who originally came to play battleships (before they knew anything about the gameplay) stay with battleships all the way up.

 

And tbh: It probably doesn't help that any new player coming to do some resarch and lurk the forums will be met with an endless amount of posts and threads begrudgingly declaring battleships to be "the way and the truth and the life " and everything else obsolete and hopeless. This will not exactly encourage people to try going up other lines.

[RAHJAILARI]

23 hours ago, Namolis said:

Cruisers are in the middle of the three on both counts. That can be seen as a difficult situation, because no matter what you want to do in a particular situation, there is probably a ship out there that could have done it better. It can also be seen as a boon, since you can do these things at all, should the situation call for it - but identifying when that is takes some skill (I certainly get it wrong all the time, even after almost 8k battles...)

Totally agree with you there, just as a reminder of that I had an awesome game with my Emile Bertin playing Destroyer (a very BIG, very bad destroyer with no concealment and much less torps than adequate, but anyways), it was indeed possible - Managed to cap 2 caps and torp a Nagatou, all because our team's only DD was AFK the entire game and so I was the smallest, the fastest, the prettiest, the sexiest, the most expendable AND the one with the best (read this, as the "least horrible") concealment...

 

It was not really the kind of game I was originally expecting to have at all, but hey, whatever works right? I was within an inch of being dead though just before the match ended (Nagatou does have fairly badass secondaries, when you are in something so large and unarmored, as Emile) but it was quite a hilarious game and we won. WOHOU!

[RamirezKurita]

1 hour ago, RAHJAILARI said:

The only way these issues can be resolved, is to implement caps on ship types and numbers allowed per team. Similar to CV's. So cap on numbers or radar allowable, cap on number of BB and perhaps DD's and the rest a mix of Cruisers both Heavy and Light. This is doable

 

BUT...

 

The problem is that due to lack of player numbers overall (20k+ at most) the MM would find it very hard to find suitable ships to compose a team so it would just result in long queuing times and stump teams (less than 12 players teams) for randoms, which would put players off even more. The only way WG would be able to do anything like that would be to introduce bot-players, who would then fill-in the gaps just like in War Thunder. Unfortunately AI players still tend to be fairly easy targets so that is also less than ideal.

 

Of course, what they COULD do is to improve the in-queue information, which tells you what types of ships are in queue so one can change their own ship to better adapt to what is needed to form a team, but of course, then also Radars should be separately itemized in the queue. This might not solve the problem though, since there are many players, who will obtusely cling on to their one chosen ship / ship class, no matter what and would just queue on and complain about the queuing times or MM, even if they themselves are the ones basically causing it.

 

Woe! Life (and Wargaming) is hard, ain't it?

 

That's not fixing the problem, that's merely hiding it behind even more broken matchmaking. If they fixed the actual issues behind the large numbers of BBs then we wouldn't always see so many of them, and the times when we do see too many they wouldn't be a problem as a BB heavy team would have it's own set of weaknesses.

[RAHJAILARI]

Oh yes, my friend RamirezKurita That is absolutely true, BUT fixing problems behind large numbers of BB's may not be possible. You see, this plaque (BB overpopulation) is due to the fact that many, who play BB's are not actually very skilled players themselves and WG, since it cannot possibly force anyone to magically improve has decided to address the "problem" of BB's dying too easily by providing gimmicks and nerfs to those, who might pose a threat to them.

 

And let's face it, the BB's, especially premiums are the cash-cows at the moment, so that's what they have to cater for. Most players, including myself as Noob, will immediately go for the mighty Battleship as their first ship of choice, that is a given and their expectation will not change. Only later on, since BB play is kinda slow-paced, do players begin to seek out and try other, more action packed options. So in practice you end up with a player pool, where the more skilled players are the ones playing Cruiser or DD against generally less skilled pool of BB players (now now, before you fly off the hinges - I mean on average guys, I know there are also many BB players, who are very good) and that is what they are balancing for. This is why you will notice, that there are less average skilled players specializing or Cruisers or DD's (because it is consequently that much harder simply to survive, let alone achieve good results in them).

 

Simply put, all this was quite unavoidable and entirely foreseeable to begin with. No-one starts playing WoWs because they are absolutely aching to play DD or some Cruiser or another. They come to play the Mighty Yamato or Montana, Hood or Bismarck. Personally, I only started because I really really wanted Fuso and perhaps Nagato a bit (I did NOT go: Wohou! I can get Kuma! - Though now I absolutely love that ship). Now, rather bizarrely I specialize on DD's mostly with some dabbling with Cruisers and hardly touch a BB anymore, but that was only an afterthought, since I already got my Fuso and sucked, my deluded dreams of a mighty BB cruising through the map smashing all before it slowly evaporated and so I began looking for a ship class I could actually become good at or at the least suck less in and have fun while doing it.

 

With this in mind, I see no way WG could possibly "fix" this problem, they will be damned, if they do and pretty much equally or even more damned, if they do.

[Vaderan]

5 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Vulnerable to everything?

If BB are vulnerable, what are the other classes? 

Seems like you have no idea how much damage BB can take.

 

Reflect about the difference between "vulnerable" and "how much damage xx can take".

Differ between the hypothetical ammount of damage a BB could possibly take, and how long it takes to sink a BB, once it dares to join the first line of combat. A camping BB might absorb tons of damage, burning through all repairs and even survive the battle pretty much often (with variable results, most of them below average, i suppose, in terms of team support), while an active BB in the hand of an average player (who might provide the majority of players) won´t make it even to the second repair before sinking.

 

BBs require the ability to "absorb"/take damage, to compensate for sluggishness and size, to compensate the lack to avoid taking damage. Just because they are tanky, they are not tanks. Nobody plays BBs because he is sadistic and loves to get pounded by everybody.

The lack of the ability to avoid damage, the vulnerability to even small HE shells, the tendency to burn like torches and the lack of a reliable chance to hit shells where they were aimied, even at close distance, are what drives the majority of BB players to the second or third line.

[VC381]

11 hours ago, Syrchalis said:

To wreck a CA in a BB it just needs to be "not behind an island". Angle, distance, dodging are all largely irrelevant.

 

And this is where you are so very, very wrong...

 

To be honest, saying stuff like that about cruisers is no better than people complaining BBs are vulnerable. Just different people taking sides to ridiculous extremes to suit their own opinions. Cut the exaggeration then maybe we can have a discussion about this.

[Culiacan_Mexico]

11 hours ago, Syrchalis said:

I wonder I wonder, why is the balance triangle so skewed?

 

DD tries to counter BB? Gets radared and killed by CA. CA is in position to radar and shoot DD? Gets obliterated by a single BB salvo. BBs? All save and sound at 15-20km, enjoying only having to face their own class.

My opinion, CV and DDs in open beta were too strong and DDs were overplayed.  WG want to change that, but over-corrected dramatically.

[Culiacan_Mexico]

37 minutes ago, Vaderan said:

...The lack of the ability...

 

...drives the majority of BB players to the second or third line...

I edited that a bit.

 

An effective BB player needs to know when and where to position their ships to achieve maximum effectiveness.  It is skill that is developed through experience, sometime painful experience; or they could bypass learning those abilities and sit at the second or third line throughout the game.

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, Vaderan said:

 

Reflect about the difference between "vulnerable" and "how much damage xx can take".

Differ between the hypothetical ammount of damage a BB could possibly take, and how long it takes to sink a BB, once it dares to join the first line of combat. A camping BB might absorb tons of damage, burning through all repairs and even survive the battle pretty much often (with variable results, most of them below average, i suppose, in terms of team support), while an active BB in the hand of an average player (who might provide the majority of players) won´t make it even to the second repair before sinking.

 

BBs require the ability to "absorb"/take damage, to compensate for sluggishness and size, to compensate the lack to avoid taking damage. Just because they are tanky, they are not tanks. Nobody plays BBs because he is sadistic and loves to get pounded by everybody.

The lack of the ability to avoid damage, the vulnerability to even small HE shells, the tendency to burn like torches and the lack of a reliable chance to hit shells where they were aimied, even at close distance, are what drives the majority of BB players to the second or third line.

Fire is not a problem.

BBs do not get sunk faster by fire than other classes. To the contrary, they need longer to get sunk.

The same applies to torpedos, AP and HE shells.

 

 And only incompetent players need to camp with their BBs to survive until the second heal.

[AnotherDuck]

1 hour ago, Vaderan said:

...an active BB in the hand of an average player (who might provide the majority of players) won´t make it even to the second repair before sinking.

 

A destroyer or cruiser in the same situation will get deleted in one or two salvos. Forget about making it to the second repair; the first repair won't even have time finishing. The things battleships are "vulnerable" to are what outright sinks other ships. Everything that hurts battleships hurts other ships more.

 

1 hour ago, Vaderan said:

Just because they are tanky, they are not tanks.

 

Battleships are absolutely tanks. The best way to play them is to try to take the focus away from the far more vulnerable destroyers and cruisers.

[VC381]

58 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

 

A destroyer or cruiser in the same situation will get deleted in one or two salvos. Forget about making it to the second repair; the first repair won't even have time finishing. The things battleships are "vulnerable" to are what outright sinks other ships. Everything that hurts battleships hurts other ships more.

 

False assumption that they will be in the same situation. A BB is more likely to be in a situation where it is targeted and has far fewer tools to get out of those situations. Of course it's a skill to manage how long you spend in those situations and the incoming damage. But the point is cruisers and destroyers survive by better being able to avoid those situations in the first place, so it's not logical or fair to compare what happens when they get in the "same situation" without considering what circumstances put them there.

 

"Everything hurts other classes more" is also not true. A BB could eat a salvo of normal penetrations that could be 4 misses and 2 overpens on a cruiser. Again, you cant compare direct result without factoring circumstance and probability.

[Skyllon]

13 hours ago, Vaderan said:

That´s how the community wanted it to be: make BBs depending on RNG and vulnerable towards anything you can throw on them. So the majority of players plays BBs the only way possible to not die a quick death: stay out of harms way, sacrifice teammates for spotting and try to score as many lucky hits as possible.

Deep water torpedoes won´t change that, AP-Bombs won´t change that, better IFHE on small calibres won´t change that, smoke penalties for BBs won´t change that, even improved armorprotection (if considered at all) won´t change that.

 

 

People stay at the back not because of deplorable health pool, but because "I have 21 km range, noob, l2p, ffs"...

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, VC381 said:

 

False assumption that they will be in the same situation. A BB is more likely to be in a situation where it is targeted and has far fewer tools to get out of those situations. Of course it's a skill to manage how long you spend in those situations and the incoming damage. But the point is cruisers and destroyers survive by better being able to avoid those situations in the first place, so it's not logical or fair to compare what happens when they get in the "same situation" without considering what circumstances put them there.

 

"Everything hurts other classes more" is also not true. A BB could eat a salvo of normal penetrations that could be 4 misses and 2 overpens on a cruiser. Again, you cant compare direct result without factoring circumstance and probability.

Yes, it could also be instant deletion.

Now be serious. Which ship is better at taking gun fire? Cruiser or BB?

Answer should be obvious.

[VC381]

7 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Now be serious. Which ship is better at taking gun fire? Cruiser or BB?

Answer should be obvious.

 

Yes, if you compare direct impact, of course. And it should be like that, it's what BBs were designed for.

 

But if you consider over a period of time,  including proportion of actual time spent being targetted and what other things you can do to avoid damage other than just "tanking" it, the gap is much narrower. The classes have different styles and are vulnerable to different things.

[ColonelPete]

As soon as a cruiser becomes visible the ship is targeted more than BB.

The only safe space for cruiser are hard cover or long range sniping.

 

If BB and cruiser are at equal distance to enemy, the cruiser will sink first.

[Exocet6951]

8 hours ago, Namolis said:

 

 

That all leaves one question ofc: why are battleships played so much more? To me the answer right now is that they are the most like chess - slow, meticolus and calculating. In the beginning it was because they were battleships!!! I got attracted to the game in the first place because I knew about the Bismarck, Yamato and Iowa and had read about its big brother Montana, and I wanted to play them all.

 

 

Ah yes, everyone knows of the mighty Grosser Kurfurst, currently the most played tier10 BB

Funny how the argument of "it's an iconic ship" completely falls apart at the slightly bit of scrutiny and as soon as you realize that players want to have the best performing machine during a battle.
How else do you explain the Myoko, a cruiser of good renown, being played less a Soviet post war blueprint, the Shchors?
Or the FDG being played more than the Iowa?

 

 

Secondly, what does IRL fame have to do with balance?
"It's iconic, so people are going to play it more!" 
Is that a good reason to make them harder and harder to sink, giving them more and more ways to defeat their counters and what they counter?

Of course not, let's not be coy.
It's pandering to people who will shell out 50€ for a Tirpitz they can fail their way to tier10 with.



If people cared even remotely about iconic ships, we would already have the Italian Littorio class, WG would have crammed in the Ise as a poor man's Fuso with more fighter float planes, and we would already have some Dutch ships.
WG knows full well that people claim they want Historical ships, but are more than happy to discard real ships in favor of better performing blueprint ships, and that's a truth seen in every game that claims historical authenticity.
 

[VC381]

33 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

As soon as a cruiser becomes visible the ship is targeted more than BB.

The only safe space for cruiser are hard cover or long range sniping.

 

If BB and cruiser are at equal distance to enemy, the cruiser will sink first.

 

Not really, cruisers can dodge and disengage and generally play around at medium range while doing quite well at avoiding damage. It's great to abuse the greed you mention to get enemies to waste time turning turrets on you just to make them miss and then fade away. You can seriously mess with the effective RoF and damage potential of an enemy by doing this, as well as forcing tunnel vision and other mistakes. Does it work every time? Of course not. Does it work well enough to be effective? I would say yes.

 

Honestly, people spouting such extreme negative views of cruiser survivability as gospel aren't much better than the so-called BBabies.

 

As I said before, tone down the exaggeration and black-and-white thinking, then this might become a good discussion.