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

The overbuffing of BBs

168 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[ADRIA]
Players
4,808 posts
6,919 battles

Since some people kept claiming that BBs have been constantly buffed, buffed and buffed some more (which isn't really a thing, but I digress) I spent a few hours going through all the patchnotes I had available to me - all since patch 0.5.2 - and collected all the buffs to BBs over this time - just so you wouldn't have to bother doing that yourselves.

 

Sources:

Patch 0.5.2 through 0.6.10.1 https://worldofwarships.eu/en/content/update-notes-main/

Patch 0.6.11 through 0.6.15.1 except 0.6.14.X https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/updates/

Patch 0.6.14.X https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/common/anchored-in-asia/

 

Now, please, feel free to go through all this list and point out to me where BBs were overbuffed :cap_popcorn:

Note: bugfixes are not buffs, thus no bugfix has been included

 

0.5.2

  • Increased XP ratios for Wyoming, Iowa, Montana, Izumo, Yamato
  • Increased Credit ratios for South Carolina, North Caroline, Iowa, Montana, Kawachi, Kongo, Izumo, Yamato

0.5.2.1

0.5.2.2

0.5.2.3

  • Increased credit gain for Mikasa

0.5.2.4

0.5.3

  • Increased XP ratios for Iowa, Montana

0.5.3.1

0.5.3.2

0.5.4

  • Hit points of secondary guns have been doubled (not a BB specific)

0.5.4.1

0.5.4.2

0.5.5

  • Shells from Izumos top guns are now available with the stock hull

  • Ishizuchi - penetrability of the steering gear and magazine modules by HE shell fragments is reduced. Rate of fire increased from 30s to 25s for her main guns

0.5.5.1

0.5.5.2

0.5.6

  • Tirpitz AA slightly improved (2km range AA increased from 78 to 84 points)
  • Tirpitz starboard torpedo launch sector width extended by 1 degree
  • Texas AA improved (2km range AA increased from 115 to 158 points)
  • New Mexico C hull AA slightly improved (2km range AA increased from 49 to 60)
  • Colorado C hull AA slightly improved (2km range AA increased from 119 to 133 points / 3.5km range AA increased from 152 to 161 points)
  • North Carolina AA significantly improved. A hull 3.5km rage AA increased from 132 to 159 points. B hull 3.5km range AA increased from 185 to 238 points
  • North Carolina secondary gun firing range increased from 4.5km to 5km
  • North Carolina 2nd and 3rd main turret traverse angles extended
  • North Carolina firing accuracy of her main guns was increased by adjusting the distribution of shell impact points within the dispersion ellipse
  • Iowa AA significantly improved. A hull 3.5km range AA increased from 158 to 223 points. B hull 3.5km range AA increased from 203 to 286 points. C hull 2km range AA increased from 165 to 195 points / 3.5km AA increased from 222 to 302 points.
  • Iowa secondary gun firing range increased from 5km to 6km
  • Iowa 2nd and 3rd main turret traverse angles extended
  • Iowa firing accuracy of her main guns was increased by adjusting the distribution of shell impact points within the dispersion ellipse
  • Iowa maximum speed increased from 26.6kts to 28.8kts
  • Montana AA improved. 2km range AA increased from 162 to 194 points /  3.5km range AA increased from 302 to 318 points
  • Montana secondary gun firing range increased from 5km to 6km
  • Montana firing accuracy of her main guns was increased by adjusting the distribution of shell impact points within the dispersion ellipse
  • Montana maximum speed increased from 28kts to 30kts
  • Myogi C hull AA improved (1.2km range AA increased by 8 points / 2km range AA 32 points transferred to 3.1km range AA)
  • Fuso C hull AA improved (3.1km range AA increased from 23 to 81 points)
  • Nagato C hull AA significantly improved (3.1km range AA increased from 93 to 188 points)
  • Amagi C hull AA improved (3.1km range AA increased from 189 to 215 points)
  • Amagi secondary gun firing rage increased from 4.5km to 5km

0.5.6.1

0.5.7

0.5.8

  • Tirpitz 2nd, 3rd and 4th turret pointing angles extended by 8, 10 and 6 degrees respectively
  • Warspite 2km range AA increased from 44 to 47 points

0.5.8.1

0.5.9

  • US BB armour models refined
  • Warspite armour model refined
  • Players now are able to see torpedoes spotted by allies (not BB specific)
  • Warspite draft revised, ship now sits 65cm deeper in water
  • Tirpitz revised the layout of the armour towards its forward and aft ends. Now the armour runs from one side of the ship to the other, while previously it protected only the citadel. Now it will be impossible to hit its citadel with a shell that bypasses the slopes of the deck and the transverse armour protection of the citadel
  • Tirpitz HE penetration for 360-mmSpr.Gr. L/4.6 increased from 64mm to 95mm.
  • Tirpitz penetration for 150-mm Spr.Gr. L/4.5 HE (secondary guns) increased from 25mm to 37mm

0.5.9.1

0.5.10

  • Secondaries do not cause damage to allies
  • Shell normalization unified for 241mm and higher cal guns at 6 degrees instead of individual values for each ship (assuming buff in some cases)

0.5.11

  • IJN BB armouor models refined

  • Kongo A hull removed

0.5.11.1

0.5.12

  • In-game economy now takes into account teamplay elements like spotting and potential damage dealt/received.
  • The thickness of the armoured deck slopes in the vicinity of the magazines located on the bow of Nagatos hulls B and C was corrected (from 76 mm to 289 mm) in accordance with its historical armour layout (no indication – buffed or nerfed, assuming the positive)
  • Gneisenau A hull 2km range AA increased from 89 to 101 points
  • The thickness of the upper part of the transverse armour protection of the citadel of Arizona was corrected (from 203 mm to 330 mm) in accordance with its historical armour layout
  • Friedrich der Grosse and GK dispersion slightly improved

0.5.12.1

  • Montana deck armouor improved (other information not given)

0.5.13

  • Tirpitz and Bismark lower part of armour belt recalculated with a new method, thickness value improved from 170mm to 240mm

0.5.13.1

0.5.14

  • Average credits and XP earnings increased by 1.5% … 3% for BBs
  • Tirpitz thickness of rear plating of the main turrets increased from 220mm to 320mm
  • Konig 305mm HE shell price reduced from 55 credits to 50 credits

0.5.14.1

0.5.15

0.5.15.1

0.5.15.2

0.5.16

  • König Albert increased the range of vertical angles at which the second gun can be fired by 8 degrees

0.6.0

  • Montana and Alabama reintroduced more accurate armour layout models for their main turrets (not stated buff or nerf, assume positive)
  • Nagato hull A removed
  • Amagi hull A removed

0.6.0.1

0.6.1

  • Maximum flooding duration reduced from 120s to 90s (not BB specific)
  • Maximum HP lost due to flooding reduced for ships tier 2 through 7
  • Konig Albert, Kaiser, Konig, GK and all US BBs except Arkansas Beta penalty to maximum speed while flooding reduced from 35% to 20%

0.6.1.1

0.6.2

  • Fuso hull A removed
  • New Mexico hull A removed
  • Colorado hull A removed

0.6.2.1

0.6.3

  • Ships detectability range by sea after firing main batteries equal to maximum firing range – BBs no longer are spotted past that
  • Nassau firing range increased from 9.208km to 10.82km
  • Kaiser firing range increased from 13.308km to 14.54km
  • Konig firing range increased from 14.544km to 14.99km
  • Konig Albert firing range increased from 10.84km to 11.86km
  • Kawachi firing range increased from 8.872km to 9.88km
  • Myogi firing range increased from 13.88km to 16.95km
  • Ishizuchi firing range increased from 12.9km to 15.3km
  • Ishizuchi decreased base detectability by sea from 16.56km to 15.2km
  • Mikasa firing range increased from 9.51km to 11.82km
  • South Carolina firing range increased from 10.218km to 14.24km
  • Wyoming firing range increased from 10.965km to 14.38km
  • New York firing range increased from 14.162km to 16.4km
  • Arkansas beta firing range increased from 12.06km to 14.38km
  • Texas firing range increased from 15.58km ti 16.42km
  • New Mexico firing range increased from 13.58km to 14.62km
  • Colorado firing range increased from 15.18km to 17.12km
  • Dunkeque floatplane improved – tier from 6 to 7, HP from 1180 to 1350 and average dps from 45 to 51

0.6.3.1

0.6.4

  • Tirpitz secondary battery range increased from 4.5km to 7km

0.6.5

  • Warspite main battery turn time reduced from 72s to 54.5s

0.6.6

  • Montana, Iowa and Missouri citadel lowered

0.6.6.1

0.6.6.1.1

0.6.7

  • Mutsu +5% credit income

0.6.7.1

0.6.8

  • Scharnhorst and Gneisenau secondary gun range increased from 5km to 5.3km
  • Bismark and Tirpitz secondary gun range increased from 7km to 7.5km
  • Friedrich der Grosse secondary gun range increased from 7km to 7.6km
  • GK secondary gun range increased from 7km to 7.7km
  • GK and Gneisenau (B hull) reload time of 128mm secondary batteries reduced from 5s to 4s

0.6.9

0.6.9.1

0.6.10

0.6.10.1

0.6.11

  • Can clan buildings that increase XP income and decrease service cost be considered as a buff?

0.6.11.1

0.6.11.1.1

0.6.12

  • Nelson slight increase to short range AA (added two single-barrel Oerlikon cannons – no other info given)

0.6.12.1

0.6.13

  • Arkansas Beta secondary gun range increased from 3.5km to 4.5km, their accuracy increased.

0.6.13.1

0.6.14

  • Colorado hull B HP increased from 51000 to 59300
  • Colorado hull A slightly increased accuracy (not mentioned how)
  • Giulio Cesare torpedo protection increased from 19% to 30%

0.6.14.1

0.6.14.2

0.6.15

  • Arkansas Beta: Added an option to mount the Damage Control System Modification 2 (is that even a buff?)

0.6.15.1

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 3
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,461 posts
9,768 battles

How about mentioning:

 

IJN torp nerfs?

 

CV nerfs?

 

Stealth fire removal?

 

Captain skill changes that further weakened HE and fire, ie nerfs to AFT, BFT, DE and buffs to FP.

 

All of which effectively are buffs for BBs, and huge ones at that.

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
123 posts
4,404 battles

Meh, I'll bite. :fish_nerv:

 

It isn't much to do with direct buffs to battleships, it's more that as a class battleships tend to be the biggest beneficiaries to 'balance' changes to the rest of the game.

 

I.e.

  • Stealth fire - Battleships benefit
  • IJN Torpedo Gutting - Battleships benefit
  • Radar and Hydro Introduction - Battleships benefit from DDs having to hang further back
  • Smoke Nerf - While battleships can't hide effectively in smoke any more, super-fragile CLs are more easily spotted and deleted
  • Battleship AA buffs (see above) - Cockblocks CVs, who are probably the most effective BB counter

Etc. etc. &etc.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
418 posts
9,370 battles

But we got "reduced fire time" on cruisers, so I guess I should shut the fokk up.

 

PS> new meta in ranked season 8: 4 BB + 3 DD per side. Wow, how surprising...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
3,828 posts
8,610 battles
11 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

How about mentioning:

 

 

All of which effectively are buffs for BBs, and huge ones at that.

 

If I remember Wilkatis from the last thread where this argument was held, it came down to semantics: A nerf to class 'X' is not a buff to class 'Y'. A nerf is a nerf and a buff is a buff. While that is correct, imho that's a very narrowminded approach.

 

A nerf of class 'X' has impact on the behaviour of class 'Y' nothing to argue against that.

 

 

Greetings

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,808 posts
6,919 battles

Edited

Edited by Asklepi0s
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to toxic remarks
  • Bad 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,808 posts
6,919 battles
23 minutes ago, Exohoritis said:

PS> new meta in ranked season 8: 4 BB + 3 DD per side. Wow, how surprising...

Games are "balancing" between 5 BBs and 2 DDs to 2 BBs and 5 DDs per side... Almost like noone saw that coming, totally wan;t predicted to be an absolute Bismark / Derpitz / LoYang / Kidd apocalypse  :fish_palm: Pretty dull gameplay, and with the holiday season windowlickers everywhere... yeah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,461 posts
9,768 battles

Allied winter wins the prize for correctly predicting the skewed and biased reply.

 

Suffice to say, it's just dishonest to pretend that nerfs to everything else isn't a buff to the one untouched class of ship.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
3,828 posts
8,610 battles
4 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

 

Exactly this. You can't call every change in the game a buff to a class you didn't like, that's not how it works.

 


 

You can see full list of buffs right here, I'm still waiting for someone to point me to the glorious point where BBs got overbuffed like it is claimed. Was it the lowering of Warspite by 65cm in 0.5.9 maybe? :cap_tea:

 

While that is true. You have to acknowledge that e.g. the IJN DD torp stealth nerf has a noticable impact on any BB game play. 

 

 

So yeah, while I agree with you that there hasn't been any 'direct' overbuffing to BBs, the sum of 'indirect' buffs is what most players are - on most occasions - criticising (on some occasions it's just whining).

 

 

Greetings

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
123 posts
4,404 battles

Wow - much anger and personal attacks.

 

Unnecessary.

15 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:
  • Shove a fork up where the sun doens't shine and go learn how the smoke works now. No class was shafted by smoke changes as heavily as BBs
  • You yourself go and check those AA buffs again. "Oh yeah, adding 5 dps to my 2km AA guns is now going to blast down enemy aircraft so much faster!!!!!1!!11! Almost as useful as adding 1 degree to Derpitzs starboard torpedo arc!!1!!"

Try positing counter-arguments in a civilised manner rather than resorting to insults and ad hominem.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KUMA]
Beta Tester
289 posts
9,062 battles

The US BBs at high tier have been over buffed with a combination of sigma changes, accuracy buffs and the reduction in size of their citadels. Any one of these changes alone would have been enough to make them competitive - hell, Iowa never wasn’t a good ship for her tier. All of them together are too much. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,238 posts
7,444 battles

BBs are fine right? That is probably why every ranked game is 4 or 5 BBs a side. Also probably why clan battles didn't allow more than 1 BB a side.

Nah its fine guys.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,830 posts
10,289 battles

One class's nerf is another's buff. Just because it is indirect does not mean it is not a buff. With all the patches, BBs are the least negatively affected class in the entire game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
4,002 posts
7,189 battles

I wonder wether the TO knowns that Wargaming is doing this game primary not for the fun of the players or the historical correctness or an aspired esport-like balance, but rather for their profit.

 

And that's the reason why BBs are so handy. Average Joe plays alot BB, average Joe spends alot of money. So ofc. this class will be threaten a bit special.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles
18 minutes ago, principat121 said:

I wonder wether the TO knowns that Wargaming is doing this game primary not for the fun of the players or the historical correctness or an aspired esport-like balance, but rather for their profit.

 

And that's the reason why BBs are so handy. Average Joe plays alot BB, average Joe spends alot of money. So ofc. this class will be threaten a bit special.

This hurts. This is so clear, concise and accurate it hurts.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,808 posts
6,919 battles
1 hour ago, AgarwaenME said:

Suffice to say, it's just dishonest to pretend that nerfs to everything else isn't a buff to the one untouched class of ship.

 

1 hour ago, AgarwaenME said:

IJN torp nerfs?

 

CV nerfs?

 

Stealth fire removal?

 

Captain skill changes that further weakened HE and fire, ie nerfs to AFT, BFT, DE and buffs to FP.

*buff to every ship in the game that can be hit by them (including IJN DDs themselves)

 

*buff to every ship in the game that can be attacked by those CVs (including those CVs themselves)

 

*buff to every ship in the game that couldn't stealthfire (some DDs, all CVs, most cruisers, all BBs)

 

*buff to every single ship in the game

 

Love your logic with it in that case :cap_like: Also - dude, have those CVs, DDs and cruisers been buffed a lot! I think they need some good nerfing right now :cap_popcorn:

 

1 hour ago, Allied_Winter said:

You have to acknowledge that e.g. the IJN DD torp stealth nerf has a noticable impact on any BB game play. 

Yeah, IJN DD torp nerf has been a significant buff to every ship that could be hit by them - including IJN DDs themselves. It's not a BB specific buff tho

 

1 hour ago, Allied_Winter said:

the sum of 'indirect' buffs is what most players are - on most occasions - criticising

Well then why are they calling them endless buffs if they are not actually buffs?

 

1 hour ago, Crow_Eschatologist said:

Try positing counter-arguments in a civilised manner rather than resorting to insults and ad hominem.

Ok.

  • Go learn how the smoke works now. No class was shafted by smoke changes as heavily as BBs
  • You yourself go and check those AA buffs again. Adding 5 dps to 2km AA guns is going to blast down enemy aircraft so much faster! Almost as useful as adding 1 degree to Derpitzs starboard torpedo arc!

I guess that removes all the "insults and ad hominem". Better? Doesn't change the point tho, not even a bit

 

59 minutes ago, Kittykami said:

The US BBs at high tier have been over buffed with a combination of sigma changes, accuracy buffs and the reduction in size of their citadels. Any one of these changes alone would have been enough to make them competitive - hell, Iowa never wasn’t a good ship for her tier. All of them together are too much. 

You have the list of all the buffs there were - please do point out all of the overbuffing changes they received. And I like how you have changed the "BBs were overbuffed" to "US BBs..."

 

1 hour ago, Loran_Battle said:

BBs are fine right? That is probably why every ranked game is 4 or 5 BBs a side. Also probably why clan battles didn't allow more than 1 BB a side.

Nah its fine guys.

Clearly not the point discussed here. And ofc we'll see 4...5 BBs per side when WG gave a free Bismark to basically everyone, what a surprise. Then again, interesting how you don't mention that there are pretty much as many games with 4...5 DDs per side :cap_hmm:

 

35 minutes ago, pra3y said:

One class's nerf is another's buff. Just because it is indirect does not mean it is not a buff. With all the patches, BBs are the least negatively affected class in the entire game.

Check the answer on the top of this comment - the one to Agarwaen - indeed, DDs, Cruisers and CVs have been buffed a lot with all those other nerfs!

 

25 minutes ago, principat121 said:

I wonder wether the TO knowns that Wargaming is doing this game primary not for the fun of the players or the historical correctness or an aspired esport-like balance, but rather for their profit.

 

And that's the reason why BBs are so handy. Average Joe plays alot BB, average Joe spends alot of money. So ofc. this class will be threaten a bit special.

If by special you mean pretty much unchanged unlike others who are almost constantly tweaked

 


 

Cmon guys, 2 hours, 16th comment and still noone can point to the spot? You surely can do better than that! I mean, BBs are so obviously overbuffed that there was / is / probably will be so much crying about it... you must be able to point it out! I even did the hard part for you - all the buffs are already listed here, you don't even need to go and look them up!

 

Oh wait...

maxresdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
4,002 posts
7,189 battles

@wilkatis_LV

 

Quite simple: Show us on statistic relevant data how BBs are overbuffed.

 

Because if they are overbuffed, it must be clearly visibly in the performance statitistics of these ships. I rather like to talk and discuss about actually data instead of someones "feelings". Do you know what I mean?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BRIT6]
Players
38 posts
4,985 battles

Why do so many people pander to this guys toxicity!??

Walkatis, post something positive

Please

Give it a try

Just once.........

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,461 posts
9,768 battles
3 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

 

*buff to every ship in the game that can be hit by them (including IJN DDs themselves)

 

*buff to every ship in the game that can be attacked by those CVs (including those CVs themselves)

 

*buff to every ship in the game that couldn't stealthfire (some DDs, all CVs, most cruisers, all BBs)

 

*buff to every single ship in the game

 

 

You're not this dumb so stop pretending. While your amazing bias towards BBs isn't something new (without going to lengths in here about how), this is going beyond the pale.

 

If something VERY RARELY sink you, but is your MAIN attack mode, then it's a nerf to you. If it makes your MAIN TARGET harder to hit, it's a buff to that target.

 

CVs literally had to get defensive fire added to make up for the changes since it caused CV sniping to be the obvious tactic. And since then it's pushed CVs to prioritise the other main counter to BBs, ie DDs, since they can be attacked in the early game while BBs are nigh impossible (slightly depending on MM). BBs thus got indirectly buffed from both angles.

 

And the ships that could easily drop concealment to stop getting stealth fired at, ie ships with lower detection range than the opposing ships stealth fire range, which was.. err every ship not a BB (and any BB who specced stealth) weren't even really a target by stealth firing ships to begin with. How hard the nerf hit these ships is fairly evident by how their relative results have shifted (just compare zao v DM now and then). Ie BBs sailing alone aren't grinded down as they could have been, and nothing much else changed. But this is somehow not a buff to BBs.. ye right.''

 

And pretending that losing BFT/AFT on low calibre CL guns, and losing fire chance from nerfed DE as a "buff to every single ship"? Nevermind the huge buff to FP, which basicly only BBs can afford to use (which is partly why DD and CAs got a small buff in how long fires last on them).

 

All of these, and more mentioned by others, and more on top of that, are a death of a thousand cuts to everything that threatened BBs. And everything people like me predicted would happen, and would get worse (ie, more and more BBs, and BBs being played more and more from the rear) is happening.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
3,828 posts
8,610 battles
20 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

 

Yeah, IJN DD torp nerf has been a significant buff to every ship that could be hit by them - including IJN DDs themselves. It's not a BB specific buff tho

 

 

I never claimed it would be a BB specific buff, did I? All I claimed was, that a nerf to class 'Y' can be considered a buff to class 'Z'. If 'Z' is now only one particular or multiple classes is up for debate and depends on the buff.

 

 

Greetings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,793 posts
15,933 battles

" Totally not clickbait "

 

posts a  list with all bb bufs singled out  so it has to look like too many buffs

rather than comparing buff ratios or any other reasonable measure...

 

this guy is trying to become the next skybuck flying with "100% less lel"

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KUMA]
Beta Tester
289 posts
9,062 battles

All of the things I mentioned are right there in your own list, why not pick them out yourself?

 

And your counter argument is semantics? Would you honestly argue that Montana and Iowa absolutely needed all of those buffs to be competitive? I’m not arguing that those changes individually are evidence of over-improvement, but that they are when added together as a collective. 

 

I’d agree that the IJN BBs have really not changed since game launch though, hence why a lot of them are feeling the effect of powercreep. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
4,322 posts
6,214 battles

If others get nerfed, the question is, who benefits the most from it?

F.e. the stealth fire removal (as i mentioned in the other Thread), because someone said, Cruisers benefit the most from the removal... Total nonsense ofc, because usually a DD would shoot a BB from stealth, not a Cruiser. Or lets take IJN Cruiser (i think they could fire from stealth?) would u rather shoot a slower, bigger, more sluggish BB at 16-17-18 or so km with shell flighttime at 12 sec (i guess), or a nimble Cruiser? Who most likely could stealth up/run and hide/evade the shots?

 

- Lowered Citadel for hightier US BBs: Totaly stupid buff not needed

- RN BBs with crazy concealment, HE, Heal, harder to citadel as US BBs.... They should be in the list, only because they dont need to be buffed anymore doesnt mean they are balanced. Where are other classes with same amount of strongpoints? dont exist... RN CLs have good Concealment (lets exclude neptune i think) and same heal, but a Citadel which gets hit by looking at it, not to mention how bad they are till leander.

 

About the captain skills:

No, its not a buff to every class. Lets take DE which gives u only 2% instead of 3%. Did u use that on BBs? ofc not (well maybe RN BBs could use it now i guess lol). Every Cruiser focusing on HE and DD was nerfed. Who was main target of Fire damage? BBs. Who profits from it?

Fire prevention - which class needs it the most? BBs. Cruisers need other skills, aswell as DDs. Using Fire prevention on a DD would ofc be total nonsense, by that time they would have been dead anyway. Cruisers ofc are also prone to be set on fire, but AP is still far more devastating to them. With the buff to fire duration, the skill would be a total waste on Cruisers too. Still they need the points elsewhere. Sure there are builds for BBs on which u cant take FP, f.e. secondary german BB. Question is - is it still viable? (and not Cruisers are to blame - its RN BBs!). But Cruisers are supposed to be AA, so skilling AFT or similiar is more needed for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×