Helping cruisers is easier than what you might think.

[elblancogringo]

Hi fellow captains!

A recent thread (degree of counter) talks about the triangle balance between DDs, CAs, and BBs.

I come here with a really simple suggestion.

Please wargaming, just reduce the damages taken by a cruiser when citadeled by a battleship. The amount of reduction has to be tested, and be applied of course only to battleships APs.

I do think that it would move the meta in a more attractive way.

Cheers

 

 

[The_Tyke]

Nerf BBs? Give cruisers a few more precious seconds to set afire those polished teak decks?

 

This one should run and run.

[MacFergus]

How dare you suggest CAs get a buff , shame on you sir , But yep its a decent idea cant really see a problem with it personally.

[Strapps]

No thanks. If I allow a BB to citadel my cruiser, it's either because I've messed up (most of the time) or I've decided to take the risk in order to get shots on him and/or others. BBs should hit hard, that's their job, and my being punished for not paying attention is only ever my fault. A few more citadel hits and maybe I'll learn something about looking at the damn minimap a bit more often.

 

Besides, as so many of them prefer to camp the border rather than get up close and personal, any citadel hits I take are usually down to RNG.

[Exocet6951]

I disagree that CA/CLs need global and direct buffs.

What needs to change is the proportion of ships. Cruisers need to be the mainstay of the fleet, not BBs.
As soon as that changes, everyone's role on the battlefield will be clearer.

[RamirezKurita]

1 minute ago, Exocet6951 said:

I disagree that CA/CLs need global and direct buffs.

What needs to change is the proportion of ships. Cruisers need to be the mainstay of the fleet, not BBs.
As soon as that changes, everyone's role on the battlefield will be clearer.

 

Unfortunately, those proportions won't change unless the balance behind them does. Players aren't going to willingly migrate away from the stronger ships to the weaker ones, there needs to be some balance work done to prevent one class from being dominant and then the appropriate proportions will naturally follow.

[Exocet6951]

2 minutes ago, RamirezKurita said:

 

Unfortunately, those proportions won't change unless the balance behind them does. Players aren't going to willingly migrate away from the stronger ships to the weaker ones, there needs to be some balance work done to prevent one class from being dominant and then the appropriate proportions will naturally follow.

 

That's a discussion on the method of execution.
Either it can come in a hardcap, hard nerfs, or more creative methods.

 

In any case, no need to touch cruisers.

[Namolis]

People who complain about cruiser survivability should look into selecting the "incoming fire alert" skill.

 

It really works wonders - those two seconds of extra warning before the shells will save your ship.

 

(not to mention the times where the shells come from a direction you aren't looking).

[Tungstonid]

As long as you do something against the low overpen damage/pens without damage/bounces/ricochets on CAs broadsiding 8 km away from me which regularly nets me 4-5k damage salvoes with a reload of 30 seconds, I am fine with that.

And before you come here with the "Git gud" argument... Right back at you.

[elblancogringo]

33 minutes ago, Strappster said:

No thanks. If I allow a BB to citadel my cruiser, it's either because I've messed up (most of the time) or I've decided to take the risk in order to get shots on him and/or others. BBs should hit hard, that's their job, and my being punished for not paying attention is only ever my fault. A few more citadel hits and maybe I'll learn something about looking at the damn minimap a bit more often.

 

Besides, as so many of them prefer to camp the border rather than get up close and personal, any citadel hits I take are usually down to RNG.

You mention RNG, I will add the overmatch mechanic. You can angle like God himself, and still get penetrated. Then decrease the BB APs pen damage instead if you prefer!

 

27 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

I disagree that CA/CLs need global and direct buffs.

What needs to change is the proportion of ships. Cruisers need to be the mainstay of the fleet, not BBs.
As soon as that changes, everyone's role on the battlefield will be clearer.

Like it has been said, this proportion will never change, there will always be "too many" BBs per game.

 

14 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

That's a discussion on the method of execution.
Either it can come in a hardcap, hard nerfs, or more creative methods.

 

In any case, no need to touch cruisers.

Wargaming implicitly admitted the problem by caping the number of BBs to 1 maximum per game in clan wars. They know the issue of too many BBs per game! So yes, cruisers definitely need a buff, since BB number will not be nerfed. Reducing the AP damage of battleships when firing at cruisers then could have the same result than decreasing their number. 

 

13 minutes ago, Namolis said:

People who complain about cruiser survivability should look into selecting the "incoming fire alert" skill.

 

It really works wonders - those two seconds of extra warning before the shells will save your ship.

 

(not to mention the times where the shells come from a direction you aren't looking).

I admit it helps me with French cruisers, that I play at max range. All cruisers can not benefit from IFA in the same way, and still, one day RNG will get you.

[mtm78]

5 minutes ago, elblancogringo said:

Wargaming implicitly admitted the problem by caping the number of BBs to 1 maximum per game in clan wars. They know the issue of too many BBs per game!

 

So maybe they will finally limit babies per game to 3 instead of 5 like it is now.... 

[Namolis]

Just now, elblancogringo said:

I admit it helps me woth French cruisers, that I play at max range. All cruisers can not benefit from IFA in the same way, and still, one day RNG will get you.

I agree, RNG sometimes can f*ck you over. It happens at times, to all classes ("problem gelö... FEUER ALARM!!!" "Fun and engaging" etc.); the game demands that we just play to minimize the bad odds (even when you can't completely remove them) and remain confident enough in our strategies to do that even when they seemingly fail.

 

I use IFA in all my cruisers, and I'm quite happy with it in all classes. French cruisers can be downright evil at avoidance tanking with how well they change their speed.

 

And yes, sometimes hanging at max range is needed. I don't mind too much, but I can understand why it may not be very fun for everybody. that is largely down to lazy map design on higher tiers.

[Strapps]

7 minutes ago, elblancogringo said:

You mention RNG, I will add the overmatch mechanic. You can angle like God himself, and still get penetrated. Then decrease the BB APs pen damage instead if you prefer!

 

What part of my post didn't you understand?

[mtm78]

10 minutes ago, Strappster said:

 

What part of my post didn't you understand?

 

The part about skill in evading. Which I can semi understand since this skill is more or less useless with to many battleship on enemy team ( and your battleships not doing their job which means you're either giving up map control or you have to angle against two battleship threats. Don't tell me you can dodge them one at a time, I am not a potato I know I can if they are baddies. But two good battleships which will just work in conjunction naturally one forcing me into a turn and the other then nailing me. 

 

Evasion tanking and angling is much more important in a meta where you play in closer ranges and have less gun's which can have so much pen your angling doesn't really matter in many situations. 

 

edit: doesn't mean I agree with that other guy btw  Nothing should be changed, just limit BB's to 3 per team  

[Strapps]

2 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

The part about skill in evading.

 

That's understandable, given I didn't say anything about evading. I said that taking citadel hits means I've messed up or have chosen to take the risk because reasons, with a heavy bias towards the former. I didn't mention evasion, armour angling, looking for over-pens, playing for saturation or anything of that ilk.

 

OP appears to have taken a single point, the one about RNG, and thrown in overmatch as a counter without understanding the context in which I referred to RNG. That's why I asked.

[mtm78]

6 minutes ago, Strappster said:

That's understandable, given I didn't say anything about evading. I said that taking citadel hits means I've messed up or have chosen to take the risk because reasons, with a heavy bias towards the former. I didn't mention evasion, armour angling, looking for over-pens, playing for saturation or anything of that ilk.

 

Then you're wrong, citadel's aren't reserved to having 'messed up'. I mean, extreme example, go play Yubari... get shot at with AP and try to not take a citadel ( from 102mm VMF DD AP  ).  Tell me again that was because you messed up  You're expected to get shot at at some point. And in general I don't have an issue with cruiser survivability unless when you tie it with the number of battleships in relation to cruisers per game. The thing is, most cruisers which shoot me with AP at <10km still need a pretty flat broadside so you could say you actually messed up then.. unlike battleship AP which has >400mm penetration which is by far more than enough to negate most angling you do against any competent captain.  

[elblancogringo]

15 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

 

doesn't mean I agree with that other guy btw  Nothing should be changed, just limit BB's to 3 per team  

Well, such a limit would of course make the change I propose unnecessary. But this change was to have an alternative to a BB number reduction which unfortunately seems very unlikely to happen; 

Adjusting AP damage could be this alternative.

I also did not mention the pen damage to destroyers, which has been recently discussed by Notser and Flamu. One thing at a time.

[elblancogringo]

2 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

 

Then you're wrong, citadel's aren't reserved to having 'messed up'. I mean, extreme example, go play Yubari... get shot at with AP and try to not take a citadel ( from 102mm VMF DD AP  ).  Tell me again that was because you messed up  You're expected to get shot at at some point. And in general I don't have an issue with cruiser survivability unless when you tie it with the number of battleships in relation to cruisers per game. The thing is, most cruisers which shoot me with AP at <10km still need a pretty flat broadside so you could say you actually messed up then.. unlike battleship AP which has >400mm penetration which is by far more than enough to negate most angling you do against any competent captain.  

I totally agree, which is why I talked about overmatch mechanic above. I'm not a very good player, but I think my stats are ok, and I do enjoy playing cruisers btw. However, the fact that you just can't evade damage even with a perfect angle would be acceptable for me, if those damages were reduced a bit.

[mtm78]

I'm not sure... I mean I personally just want less battleships. I remember CBT where we wolfpacked isolated BB's with some cruisers and it was fine if we lost one or two of us as long as we killed the battleship it was such a tactical important target. And they were scary, and that was good as you couldn't give any broadside or you went poof. Now there are just so many they are still scary but they scared the whole gameplay into this static long range kemp island style. 

 

Also, some ships are in fact not able to angle at all, RN CL's angling has no effect for instance. Others like the French cruisers with their spaced armor seem to be like RU heavies in WoT ( is4 side armor -> black hole ). It's part of balance. 

 

I don't think all cruisers are doing badly even in this bad meta. I do think some which now might be good will be less good in a less BB heavy meta as those which are doing good do good because they fit the current meta. 

 

Adjusting some individual cruisers which need it is much more logical as making mechanical changes like you propose. Hindenburg is already incredibly tanky when properly angled, let alone Moskva. You can't buff those without making them quite broken. 

[lameoll]

1 hour ago, elblancogringo said:

Please wargaming, just reduce the damages taken by a cruiser when citadeled by a battleship. The amount of reduction has to be tested, and be applied of course only to battleships APs.

I do think that it would move the meta in a more attractive way.

Cheers

 

citadels are there to punish cruisers. nothing wrong with that. if they show broadside they get citadelled.

what they should fix is  that cruisers get citadelled from every angle tho at the state of the game.

its saver to not angle and get overpens with some ships. because if u do u  get some random citadel.

And ofc the dangerous long range citadels by one stray shell.

[Strapps]

8 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

Then you're wrong, citadel's aren't reserved to having 'messed up'. I mean, extreme example, go play Yubari... get shot at with AP and try to not take a citadel ( from 102mm VMF DD AP  ).  Tell me again that was because you messed up  You're expected to get shot at at some point. And in general I don't have an issue with cruiser survivability unless when you tie it with the number of battleships in relation to cruisers per game. The thing is, most cruisers which shoot me with AP at <10km still need a pretty flat broadside so you could say you actually messed up then.. unlike battleship AP which has >400mm penetration which is by far more than enough to negate most angling you do against any competent captain.  

 

How am I wrong? I said I'd messed up or chosen to take the risk ... if I'm playing a paper boat then I've accepted the risk that I'm going to take big hits from the moment I hit the Battle button.

 

I understand that you're making a point about ship numbers but that's separate to the point I was making.

 

 

6 minutes ago, elblancogringo said:

I totally agree, which is why I talked about overmatch mechanic above. I'm not a very good player, but I think my stats are ok, and I do enjoy playing cruisers btw. However, the fact that you just can't evade damage even with a perfect angle would be acceptable for me, if those damages were reduced a bit.

 

Absolutely right - you simply can't evade some damage ... which means you've either chosen to take the risk or you've messed up ... or you've messed up by choosing to take that particular risk. Which is the point I was making.

 

You know when a battle starts that certain ships might overmatch your armour - do you stay in spawn or try to hide behind islands or team mates for most of the battle or do you accept the worst could happen but accept that you need to accept some risk in order to win the battle?

 

You're asking for the punishment for your making a mistake to be reduced because you don't think it's fair. I'm saying that I'm fine with it as it is and that I accept that it might seem harsh sometimes but I know the problem (and resolution) lies with me rather than with the game.

 

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm saying that I don't agree with you.

[22cm]

28 minutes ago, Strappster said:

OP appears to have taken a single point, the one about RNG, and thrown in overmatch as a counter without understanding the context in which I referred to RNG. That's why I asked

 

But he has a point. I was citadeled when perfectly angling or evading because of an RNG dispersed shell or because the nub was badly aiming.

[Strapps]

2 minutes ago, 22cm said:

But he has a point. I was citadeled when perfectly angling or evading because of an RNG dispersed shell or because the nub was badly aiming.

 

You know that the 'R' in RNG stands for Random, right?

 

Apologies for being facetious but it's to make a point - we rarely remember the times that RNG had shells landing all around us or we put those instances down to our skills with the WASD hax but we remember the one occasion we get blown up by a single shell because they're so rare, thanks to RNG.

 

In my third battle with the Scharnhorst I was detonated (tier IX battle IIRC). Does that mean that mid-tier KM BBs need an armour buff or that higher tier BBs need an AP pen nerf or that one player managed to get incredibly lucky with his RNG? Personally I'll always default to the third option and think fair play to him, it'll come around to me in time.

[elblancogringo]

17 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

Adjusting some individual cruisers which need it is much more logical as making mechanical changes like you propose. Hindenburg is already incredibly tanky when properly angled, let alone Moskva. You can't buff those without making them quite broken. 

Correct.

But I only want to make BB-inflicted citadels reduced. that was imho the easiest way to proceed.

However you raise other problems, indeed. Maybe this mechanical change would need some other adjustments.

But I would love to just reduce BB number, that would fix the issue, for sure.

[Prospect_b]

Being citadelled in a cruiser is fine if you screw up, and it would be even more fine if BBs also could do it to other BBs if they screw up... The solitary shell leaving the rest of it's volley and hitting for max damage on your maximally angled *ss, could do with a nerf though.