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

Players
4,215 posts
7,592 battles
3 hours ago, mariouus said:

actually fully understand why peopel are accusing BB to beeing OP. Because BB is the one who deales damage to them. But they do not realase that it was the DD who outspotted them and enabled BBs to do so.Equal contribution of those specialaised classes where the actual culprit.

 

Not really, even if there are no DD in the game you still have the basic problem that the moment you fire your guns you're targeted by over half the enemy fleet.

 

BB are simply too good at killing CA, so there are too many BB and too few CA, which means that those CA that are in the game get focused even harder until you end up with those 5-2-5 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
144 posts
21 minutes ago, SovietFury43 said:

 

"the entire royal navy would be after it if it left port."

 

Exactly, don't let your stupidity get in the way of logic.

 

With your puerile rant you never posted any logical points.

Just ignorance about battleships due to personal hatred for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
4,420 posts
8,147 battles
5 hours ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

You know what, all the statistics I will ever need is seeing my own clan of unicums say: "in future clan wars, we're going to have to start looking at limiting BB numbers, like we once did with limiting CV numbers".

 

[...]

 

Do we even care if BBs are "overbuffed" anymore? Definitions have become meaningless. It's just broken. Broken data is still broken.

 

Are you really trying to argue with clan wars (a highly specialised scenario without any random factor at team setups and tactics) with the random matches? Seriously? I mean seriously?

 

Again... it is meaningless to talk about feelings. If anyone states that something is broken, he has to prove that claim. Please show us these "broken data" about the BBs! That is the point, if you cannot show us this, the claim has no relevant backup.

 

And again: the original claim was, that BBs are overbuffed. Thus BBs must show some clearly evidences in their performance (aka server statistics).

 

(I guess there is a disclaimer needed: I did not wrote down my opinion in this matter. BBs are very noob-friendly. Maybe too friendly? And also BBs are overladen with consumables those should be cruiser exclussive. But as a scientist I got triggered by those claims - without any backup data - like the TO did. This topic is too emotional. And about anyone feelings we need not to dispute, or?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR-S]
Players
658 posts
24,840 battles
9 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

If you are talking about IJN DD torps (which you obviously are) - that's a nerf to IJN DDs not a buff to everyone

I disagree with your logic. If bank robbers complain that police makes their lifes too hard, then i can:

 

> give the robbers a faster car, which is a buff to robbers (but in no way a nerf to the cops, no no)

or

> i give the police a slower car. That affects only the police and is in no way a buff to the robbers.

 

....

 

See the problem? Nerfed DD-torpedoes are a buff to battleships. And the lowering of the citadel on US BBs was a crime huge buff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,075 posts
10,465 battles
3 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

Not really, even if there are no DD in the game you still have the basic problem that the moment you fire your guns you're targeted by over half the enemy fleet.

 

BB are simply too good at killing CA, so there are too many BB and too few CA, which means that those CA that are in the game get focused even harder until you end up with those 5-2-5 games.

I do partially agree. But usually what killes me, when playing in high tiers, is being permaspotted by a DD. Avoiding opening salvose from BBs is not hard.Luckily they are far. But if I remain spotted, then I run out of options fast. If I can use my consilement, I have a way to dictate engaments. But currently in tier.X there are 3. caps. And if there is 4-5 DDs there is atleast one in every cap and if there is 4-5 BB there are alot of firepower directed at you.You can not directly challange those caps, because aginst DD you have no camo. So mostly only safe option for cruiser is to hold back and fire at the BBs.And hope for improved situation. While cruisers have decent damage outbut, they will never match a BBs. And in this scenario they will never relaise their universal role. Why people play more BBs and DDs is because of the game design, BBs and DDs can realise more of their potential than cruiser.So they are more popular.

 

I think that only reason why I have 65% winrate on Zao ontop of poor overall performance, is that I am more than wiling to do dumb things. Like driving in caps with DDs. Sure, I will die fast, but as long as enemy looses their DDs in this cap and our DDs are safe it is more than worth it.So for high tier, cruiser is more or less a meatshield for better ships like BBs and DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
7,541 posts
8,139 battles
19 minutes ago, principat121 said:

Please show us these "broken data" about the BBs! That is the point, if you cannot show us this, the claim has no relevant backup.

 

And again: the original claim was, that BBs are overbuffed. Thus BBs must show some clearly evidences in their performance (aka server statistics).

 

The problem is - how can anyone show that? The fact that almost all the time the matches consist of 5vs5 BBs makes looking at stats pretty hard.

Also the fact that the worst players seem to play BB, which makes sense because u can live the longest, which will lower overall stats like damage done and kills.

And also that no matter what BB, most wallet warriors will just buy it because BB, so there are plenty individual BBs around to normalize the stats.

U would need a BB which basicly noone is playing to see if its overperforming - doesnt exist, many ppl hop on the BB-train. F.e. it exists for other ships like Flint or Black, which mr potato cant get his hands on (or hardly can).

 

The only way is to look how BBs perform for individual players compared to other BBs or even other classes. With a reasonable amount of games AND played within a certain timeframe to compensate the increase in skilllevel. Can hardly use myself as evidence, but its an indicator:

Look at Orion: Basicly highest WR compared to amount of matches (only taking a backseat to CVs - which makes sense). Very high avg damage, on par with T7 BBs. Highest avg kills per match compared to amount of matches.

The problem is, i cant compare it to my other T4 BBs. Kaiser i played first of them all, so i was a newbie back then. Wyoming i played later, thus it has better stats already, because i already was a better player. Myogi cant be looked at - it has only 1 match played (and ill never touch it again btw). 2nd problem with that is, that when i played Kaiser and Wyoming, Orion didnt exist, which is OP for its tier.

 

And when u look at overall Orion stats its not even that special except maybe damage done. But explanation above why its like that. One could also say, Myogi is just exceptionally bad - which is ofc true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
7,541 posts
8,139 battles
12 minutes ago, mariouus said:

But currently in tier.X there are 3. caps. And if there is 4-5 DDs there is atleast one in every cap and if there is 4-5 BB there are alot of firepower directed at you.You can not directly challange those caps, because aginst DD you have no camo.

 

U just described flaws in the current Maps on highertiers. Which are commonly known but WG doesnt seem to care. Look at Okinawa f.e. Everyone wants to be smart and says take B+C for win ignoring that CAs with bad concealment cant really do anything there. Watched Flamu couple of days ago with Moskva... guess how useful he was? Wasnt because he lost... But thats the problem. Shoot from maxrange and accomplish very little or rush in and die because u cant hide or turn back. And look at how many bad maps are on highertiers, they u know why Cruisers struggle.

Thats why i like North - because u can help your DDs at B and C. Unfurtunately so many ppl go to A/D which may leave u vulnerable in the center of the map also...

 

Quote

No. For reason unknown to me, my phone have not mastered the skill of multi-quoteing or quoteing in general in fact. So it was mostly not directed at you.

 

Then its ok :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,075 posts
10,465 battles
3 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

U just described flaws in the current Maps on highertiers. Which are commonly known but WG doesnt seem to care. Look at Okinawa f.e. Everyone wants to be smart and says take B+C for win ignoring that CAs with bad concealment cant really do anything there. Watched Flamu couple of days ago with Moskva... guess how useful he was? Wasnt because he lost... But thats the problem. Shoot from maxrange and accomplish very little or rush in and die because u cant hide or turn back. And look at how many bad maps are on highertiers, they u know why Cruisers struggle.

Thats why i like North - because u can help your DDs at B and C. Unfurtunately so many ppl go to A/D which may leave u vulnerable in the center of the map also...

 

Yes, Moskva is a somewhat problematic. At one point I had somethin like 120k+ of average damage in it and had 25% winrate. Did 219.k of damage in Oceane once and result was spectacular loss, ended up 1 vs 6. Now I will accumulate some free captain skill and try stealth built. Zao seemes to reward "no balls no glory playstyle".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,215 posts
7,592 battles
54 minutes ago, principat121 said:

Please show us these "broken data" about the BBs!

 

Just look at the number of games played: https://eu.warships.today/vehicles

 

  • As many Bismarck/Tirpitz games as all T8 DD combined, with NC third most played ship and Amagi 5th;
  • As many Iowa/Missouri games as all T9 DD combined;
  • Monty, GK and Yamato 2, 3 & 4 at T10;

 

and those are tiers where players complain about the number of DD!

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
665 posts
5,455 battles
1 hour ago, mariouus said:

You apparently have not seen statistic that how many cruisers and destroyers were sunk by aircraft.Most of the time they were not even main targets. Even first ship to go down in Ten-Go was a cruiser, what was sunk just because "Why not". Sinking BB took more effort.

 

Determined attack from the aircraft will sink any ship.Even AA frigates were sunk by bombs in Falklands.

 

I agree, Tirpitz mostly had a pointless career, but if you consider that how much resources was spent because of this ship in being, it actually was not that pointless.

 

About Type93. IJN Mikuma, IJN Furutaka,IJN Aoba, IJN Mogami, IJN Suzuya, IJN Abukuma, IJN Chōkai were all crippeled or sunk by onboard Type93 detonation. Fact is that Japan naval planners considered 8% hitrate as benchmark. They did not achive it, nor did they sink any Battleship. So, sadly, because they did not fulfil any of the requirements set by IJN. There is nothing other do consider it as a failure.

 

Aerial torpedo, the Type91, was separate torpedo and was not connected to Long Lance.

 

And no, I actually to not fancy Iowa.

 

The only reason for that is again because Battleships barely even fought, while the Destroyers and Cruisers were in the thick of it. Kinda hard to get sunk when your ship is rusting in port for most of the war. Which again proves how useless Battleships actually were, and also explains why everybody stopped using them after WW2. Bismarck, Prince of Whales, Barham, Hiei, Kirishima, Roma even Yamato. Every time a Battleship was in action for an extended period of time it ended up on the bottom. They simply were no longer worth the price.

 

You are right about the Type 91, i thought it was derived from the Type 93, apparently i was misinformed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
665 posts
5,455 battles
4 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

Just look at the number of games played: https://eu.warships.today/vehicles

 

  • As many Bismarck/Tirpitz games as all T8 DD combined, with NC third most played ship and Amagi 5th;
  • As many Iowa/Missouri games as all T9 DD combined;
  • Monty, GK and Yamato 2, 3 & 4 at T10;

 

and those are tiers where players complain about the number of DD!

 

Exactly this.

 

And it is not surprising at all considering BBs can now delete cruisers in one salvo, delete DDs in one salvo, spot DDs and torps with hydrophones, spot DDs with radar, carry their own AA cover with them, have turtlebacks and underwater citadels and some of them even have better concealment then cruisers.

 

Why would you ever play anything else.

 

Want to know why i have a personal hatred for Battleships? His is why. I would just like to know if WG isnt aware of how batshit OP they made Battleships or if they just simply not care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,075 posts
10,465 battles
1 minute ago, SovietFury43 said:

The only reason for that is again because Battleships barely even fought, while the Destroyers and Cruisers were in the thick of it. Kinda hard to get sunk when your ship is rusting in port for most of the war. Which again proves how useless Battleships actually were, and also explains why everybody stopped using them after WW2. Bismarck, Prince of Whales, Barham, Hiei, Kirishima, Roma even Yamato. Every time a Battleship was in action for an extended period of time it ended up on the bottom. They simply were no longer worth the price.

No, this is wrong assumption. BBs in Pacific and in Atlantic and in Mediterranean. Well everywhere in fact. Where heavily engaged. Yes, they where not used in All-Big-Gun way. But, as AA platforms in Pacific or as safeguard in Artics or firesupport in Guadalcanal or Normandy, they were well regarded. Infact US mildly considered building AA BBs, ship with armor and torpedo protection of the BB, but with way more numerous AA armament rather than 16.inchers. Thing what stopped them, was the fact that BBs used same slippways that CVs (you can not knock-up a BB or CV in your local boat-yard). They did not have production capability for that.

 

What killed the mighty Battleship was cost. Cruiser or destroyer, while mutch less capable, where cheaper. And could be built way more. "Slippes" used do build BB where used do build CVs. When you were a soldier in Normandy, ready do go over the top, you where dying do hear the mighty roar of the 15/16 inch guns as a fire support. This is a faith of most man-of-war or ship-of-war, as long as it is more cost effective it is a fair game.

 

Fact is that all military equipment is expendable.

 

Now, I do not know what you think. But, in Wows I  like my BBs, I do. But I also like my cruisers. I just think that problem is not in in class to class balance. And I think BBs have recived way less buffs as people claim. I play them both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
665 posts
5,455 battles
2 minutes ago, mariouus said:

No, this is wrong assumption. BBs in Pacific and in Atlantic and in Mediterranean. Well everywhere in fact. Where heavily engaged. Yes, they where not used in All-Big-Gun way. But, as AA platforms in Pacific or as safeguard in Artics or firesupport in Guadalcanal or Normandy, they were well regarded. Infact US mildly considered building AA BBs, ship with armor and torpedo protection of the BB, but with way more numerous AA armament rather than 16.inchers. Thing what stopped them, was the fact that BBs used same slippways that CVs (you can not knock-up a BB or CV in your local boat-yard). They did not have production capability for that.

 

What killed the mighty Battleship was cost. Cruiser or destroyer, while mutch less capable, where cheaper. And could be built way more. "Slippes" used do build BB where used do build CVs. When you were a soldier in Normandy, ready do go over the top, you where dying do hear the mighty roar of the 15/16 inch guns as a fire support. This is a faith of most man-of-war or ship-of-war, as long as it is more cost effective it is a fair game.

 

Fact is that all military equipment is expendable.

 

Now, I do not know what you think. But, in Wows I  like my BBs, I do. But I also like my cruisers. I just think that problem is not in in class to class balance. And I think BBs have recived way less buffs as people claim. I play them both.

 

LOL shore bombardment and the occasional convoy/carrier escort is not "heavily engaged". And statements like "mighty Battleship" and "mighty roar of the 15/16 inch guns" make me think you are repressing your homosexuality.

 

You are right about one thing, all military equipment is expendable. Which is exactly why cheaper and more practical Destroyers and Cruisers fought a war while Battleships mostly rusted in ports. 

 

And neither i nor most people here give a rats [edited]what you like and what you play. What the majority of players play is what is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,385 posts
9,321 battles
2 hours ago, mil71 said:

Tirpitz sitting in port might have something to do with fuel shortages from the internal politics between the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe and the fact the entire royal navy would be after it if it left port.

 

Tirpitz wasnt allowed to leave port after ´43 (? gotta check the exadt date). Hitlers order. He was afraid to lose the last big surface ship. Also, with Tirpitz stationed in northern Norway, the ship was a constant thread to the Royal Navy, Convois headding to the Sowjet Union and England. Thus the RN needed to protect the Convois and have Planes & Fleet ready constantly. Which did cost them loads of resources - which were low anyway. From that point, it was even a smart move to keep Tirpitz in port. A Tirpitz doing nothing was still more worth then a Tirpitz on the bottom of the sea - even if it would sink 3 big RN ships while going down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,075 posts
10,465 battles
Just now, SovietFury43 said:

LOL shore bombardment and the occasional convoy/carrier escort is not "heavily engaged". And statements like "mighty Battleship" and "mighty roar of the 15/16 inch guns" make me think you are repressing your homosexuality.

Maybe. Call me old fashioned, but I tend not do take my diagnose from forums.

 

10 minutes ago, SovietFury43 said:

And neither i nor most people here give a rats [edited]what you like and what you play. What the majority of players play is what is important.

My thought exactly. With 300 battles of BB how can you tell that what was a BB buff or not?

1 minute ago, SovietFury43 said:

You are right about one thing, all military equipment is expendable. Which is exactly why cheaper and more practical Destroyers and Cruisers fought a war while Battleships mostly rusted in ports. 

Name US or RN BBs that rusted in ports? And now name those that did not? Some BBs where rushed do service with hasty patch of concrete holding off the flooding from previous battledamage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,970 posts
6,477 battles

Ah, but Mr. Sir Comrade, battleships are only popular due to their historical performance or importance! I mean, when the Grosser Kurfurst demolished the Montana at the battle of Belarus, the war took an unfortunate turn for the allies.

 

It's also quite sad that the Shimakaze's war record recently was proved to be fake news or else we would see more of her. The old nerf of course had nothing to do with it.

 

37 minutes ago, mariouus said:

What killed the mighty Battleship was cost.

 

In a way, yes. Destroyers and cruisers (to some degree) are still being used since they still retain their roles: escort, screening and support duties (among other things). Battleships on the other hand lost out to the carrier when it came to actually fighting battles. Why put a battleship at risk (with the corresponding hands aboard) when you could send more resource efficient warplanes?

 

The aforementioned escort duties are also why destroyers and cruisers were more vulnerable to carriers. They were simply expendable compared to a battleship.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
665 posts
5,455 battles

Also i think the complete and utter inability of naval bombardment to significantly reduce the Japanese defenses in the Pacific hints that Battleships were not even good at that.

 

All you had to do to counter the "mighty Battleships and their mighty 15/16 inch main guns" was dig some tunnels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,247 posts
16,253 battles
33 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

In a way, yes. Destroyers and cruisers (to some degree) are still being used since they still retain their roles: escort, screening and support duties (among other things)

Well that and the fact that firepower improved to such an extend that heavy armor and heavier guns were largely pointless. Destroyers with missiles could carry the destructive payload of battleships and better at a fraction of the cost and immeasurably better precision and range. Even missile cruisers became largely pointless due to the fact that ballistic missile technology largely outstripped any necessity of heavy payload bombardment whilst maintaining the ability of being largely impervious to even modern point defense systems if deployed in any number at all makes it so that a large metal fortress that is a perfect target for any guided ballistic warhead or even a bunker buster bomb of sufficient quality. Battleships, even in WW2, are often outstripped in actual war records by destroyers for a reason.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,075 posts
10,465 battles
4 hours ago, SovietFury43 said:

Now go masturbate to your Iowa poster or something.

I am an infantryman through and through. If MG-3 would be a girl, I would marry her right away, I would move into nice cottage by the sea and raise a full litter of little MG-3s. But Iowa, not really.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
4,420 posts
8,147 battles
3 hours ago, Capra76 said:

 

Just look at the number of games played: https://eu.warships.today/vehicles

 

  • As many Bismarck/Tirpitz games as all T8 DD combined, with NC third most played ship and Amagi 5th;
  • As many Iowa/Missouri games as all T9 DD combined;
  • Monty, GK and Yamato 2, 3 & 4 at T10;

 

and those are tiers where players complain about the number of DD!

 

So, being a ship played alot now means that the ship is overbuffed?!

Intresting... :cap_hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles
1 hour ago, principat121 said:

 

So, being a ship played alot now means that the ship is overbuffed?!

Intresting... :cap_hmm:

 

6 hours ago, principat121 said:

 

Are you really trying to argue with clan wars (a highly specialised scenario without any random factor at team setups and tactics) with the random matches? Seriously? I mean seriously?

 

Again... it is meaningless to talk about feelings. If anyone states that something is broken, he has to prove that claim. Please show us these "broken data" about the BBs! That is the point, if you cannot show us this, the claim has no relevant backup.

 

And again: the original claim was, that BBs are overbuffed. Thus BBs must show some clearly evidences in their performance (aka server statistics).

 

(I guess there is a disclaimer needed: I did not wrote down my opinion in this matter. BBs are very noob-friendly. Maybe too friendly? And also BBs are overladen with consumables those should be cruiser exclussive. But as a scientist I got triggered by those claims - without any backup data - like the TO did. This topic is too emotional. And about anyone feelings we need not to dispute, or?)

 

I am quite interested in what conclusion you managed to draw from your observations and analysis of the "data".

My conclusion, so far, is that most people perceived something wrong, got tired of it, and left. You are free to argue whether that is an "emotional" response or not.

 

Also, my predictions are that unless the bllsht gets changed, more people will simply get tired and leave, because can we seriously expect people to take up arguments on "data" and whatnot when they just came to game? They won't bother to argue. They'll simply leave. And that is the point. This game is too much about arguments. Game design can be many things, but tiring contradictions and arguments, not even puzzles, are in my opinion not the best away to go about it. 

 

Also, I am pretty sure sometime ago I presented a theoretical example in one of my posts of "popular consensus becoming popular reality". The point is, sometimes, unfortunately, your data matters zero null.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles

Thus in my opinion a good design would be a "superposition" capable design, not a "self-contradicting" design or, god forbid, a player-contradict-player cgck-blocking design aka rock-paper-scissors when the rock also becomes a sledgehammer.

It means, in example, a design where the BB could just as well be a fully justifiable lord of the seas most op tanky singular ship on the map, yet at the same time could also be the biggest useless pile of iron-junk-slag weighing down the team, as situation dictates.

 

And my example of such a system was a "Tierpoint" system, assigning a real "power-score", and thus "value-score" to each and every ship. A T10 BB would score high, but could also become a liability because it costs so much. Yet, sometimes, a high-tierpoint BB is precisely what is needed to accomplish something dire. Very precise, concise, and fair.

 

Now, there are still many reservations with such a system, but the point is in the current WoWs design, there are no secondary checks or a self-check system to push against the core system. The resulting excess friction and contradictory forces are instead leveraged on the players, to much detriment. This is the true implications I have observed from this whole fiasco, and in dire need of address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,458 posts
2,644 battles

The incapability of some people to realize that some changes to the game can indirectly affect one class more than others is astounding.

 

Where oh where are the times where cruisers were relevant to the game and not just a lol-ship waiting to be deleted.

 

Remember playing a Kuma and actually being significant to the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,247 posts
16,253 battles

Thinking about it for a moment, is it a common sentiment that battleships are overbuffed? I remember hearing people being angry every time a battleship is buffed on account of the general sentiment that they're overpowered. The sentiment that battleships are overpowered is common enough. Overbuffed though? Are we sure that we didn't get swept up in this thread without realizing that the OP is just arguing with a strawman or a sentiment that is so rare that is may as well be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
4,945 posts
8,110 battles

Soooo many answers, and pretty much nothing on the original topic. So I guess I drop these last answers and... Well, topic's kind of done. Feel free to continue your discussions, small chance I'll go through all of them again.

Pretty much noone proved anything in favor of the "BBs are overbuffed" claim, closest you got was just stating that other ships got nerfed here and there (ignoring that BBs have got nerfs awell) or that US BBs got multiple buffs while in your opinion any one of them alone would have been enough.

Hapy New Year! :cap_happy:

 


 

20 hours ago, darkstar73 said:

Better concealment than many crisers in some cases.

Is 4 many? AFAIK it's Hindenburg, Donskoi, Moskva and HIV

 

20 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

If the plan for removing stealth fire was in place before the German DDs were launched, there was no need to falsely give them the ability - and take it away later on. To make this more evident: If WG would release a DD line with good torps today and is planning to remove torpedoes from the game in 2 weeks, then it would be kinda stupid wouldnt it?

Ok, that was not a good example. Lets put that same idea like this: Zao could stealthfire, right? Surely there were cruisers in Zaos MM range who couldn't? They benefited that Zao couldn't do it anymore, as 1st - Zao lost an advantage he had and 2nd - it's extra visible target for enemies to shoot at.

I mean, it's a big non-point anyway, but yeah

 

20 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

NC is not the same tier as Conqueror.

NC's 8, Conq's 10 -> 9 games out of 10 they will see the same MM

 

20 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

they are pretty much OP. T4 (..)

I don't play DDs, despite that already scored a 6-kill game in that thing :cap_haloween: I mean, Minekaze is good @ tier 5, why would it be bad at 4?

 

20 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

And better than before i think? Forgot how it was before the change.

FP was 7% fire chance reduction, now it's 10% and the middle fire zones combined (at double point cost). But keep in mind other skills at this point - it's a t4 so you can't get it sooner than 10p. But at 10 you want concealment, so you'll have to wait till 14. And it's a grind till you get to 14 points, unless you are carrying your captain through ship to ship you'll always finish the grind (even at t9) before you get it. If you carry your captain through - you'll get it no sooner than late t7 / early t8. Of course yo can boost it with Elite XP, but that would already require having at least one 19pt, which is a situational requirement.

 

20 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Since there are only max 4 point and not 5 point skills anymore did that really change much? Still its worse than before. Its not like i can have another skill which gives me additional fire chance. I just can have more AA f.e.

From 4 to 3 -> that's 1 extra point. Then 19 is actually reachable unlike previously - 1 extra point. So you now have 2 free points, and AR (afaik most people use it on their cruisers?) by increasing your fire rate in theory increases the number of fires you can score.

 

20 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Not every Cruiser benefits from IFHE. Still they rely on fires.

I bet people would love their cruisers with 152s pretty much useless against any BBs tier 6 and up (do 5s get 25mm bows? I don't remember) :Smile_teethhappy:

 

Well, without IFHE I guess germans would be way more popular

 

20 hours ago, Verdius said:

And unrelated, but can I ask you to not manually set the text to be black? It is really hard to read for people using the dark forum theme

That could actually be a bug, some people to whom I've said that have claimed that text already was default, they hadn't changed the colour. But yeah, I too see the annoyance.

 

19 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

MM does stupid things like 2 Bismarck on one team and 2 Tirpitz on the other team, so naturally one of them gets 100% WR and the other 0% WR.

Exactly, as soon as someone goes into bad WR someone else will go into good WR. The total sum always has to be 50% (except with defeats when they were still a thing, in that case sum WR would go sub-50%)

 

19 hours ago, darkstar73 said:

Text in black? Mine is black. Check your settings 

Exactly that I meant to Verdius. You didn't change the text colour, right? It stayed at default? In dark mode you sometimes can't read it - it stays black instead of defaulting to white

 

19 hours ago, Panocek said:

And I had plenty of battles in cruisers where single UK BB salvo shaves entire AA clean, most notorious on Minotaur... I've yet to see single 203mm HE salvo clearing entire AA of a battleship.

Any BB HE can do that, it's not RN BB specific. Surprise surprise that's what HE does, especially high caliber HE.

Yet to see that? QE. KGV. Monarch. Lion. Hit them midships. What they will be left with will be AA values that t4 ships laugh at.

 

18 hours ago, Aotearas said:

I apologize, I must have missed that we were talking about RN BBs specifically.

But if you wish to ascertain my experience in RN BBs in particular I recommend looking through my ship stats rather than taking wild guesses.

People are constantly complaining about RN BB AA, and when you mentioned "BBs getting plastered with AA" the connection seemed obvious ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you mean those AA buffs - I mean, giving half of the games BBs extra 3...5 AA dps for the 2km range AA isn't exactly what I'd call gamebreaking buffs :Smile_teethhappy:

 

17 hours ago, dasCKD said:

Why does it matter what I'm doing to the cruisers? Did I touch the battleship to create my BBaby deleting missile? Of course not. I have made no changes to the battleships, and so it doesn't count as a nerf. I'm just giving cruisers a new thing to buff them. I'm making zero changes to battleships? Why does it matter if it only affects battleships?

Your example: Cruisers gets anti BB missile. Source: cruiser. Target: BB. Exclude one

*gets anti BB missile

*Cruisers gets anti missile

Which one of those makes sense? Answer: none. Source: specific. Target: specific. Thus both are in buff / nerf list.

Now make it in 2 separate categories.

*Cruiser gets anti ship missile.

*Ships get anti BB missile.

1st one -> Source specific, not target. Source buffed.

2nd one -> Target specific, not source. Target's nerfed.

 

Shimakaze getting her HP buffed by 100 wouldn't mean Kagero got nerfed, would it?

But Shimakaze dealing 1% more damage to Kagero would be a buff to Shima and nerf to Kagero, even tho Kagero itself didn't change.

 

15 hours ago, principat121 said:

And again: the original claim was, that BBs are overbuffed. Thus BBs must show some clearly evidences in their performance (aka server statistics).

Correction: original clam was that people claiming that BBs are overbuffed have no idea what they are talking about and should get some proof to back up their claims. None have done that tho :cap_hmm:

 

15 hours ago, drmajga said:

Nerfed DD-torpedoes are a buff to battleships

Then that same IJN DD torp nerf is a buff to IJN DDs aswell, bcuz now they can see those torps from further away this have less chances to get hit by them! See how it works?

 

14 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

The only way is to look how BBs perform for individual players

:Smile_teethhappy: you are joking, right?

 

14 hours ago, Capra76 said:
  • As many Bismarck/Tirpitz games as all T8 DD combined, with NC third most played ship and Amagi 5th;
  • As many Iowa/Missouri games as all T9 DD combined;
  • Monty, GK and Yamato 2, 3 & 4 at T10;

When Derpitz was released like half of the server bought it, and obviously more have been bought since. I'd guess it's still the most popular premium ship in the game?

And I'll remind you that WG basically handed a free Bismark to everyone last spring. Famous t8 BBs, what a surprise they are popular ships to play by potatoes.

NC and Amagi have been here since the release, people who actually play the game even with a 0% WR and no XP boosts would have got them both by now.

 

Iowa - same as NC - has been here for ever, and Izumo isn't exactly the popular ship to play. Missouri is the 1st "free" premium in this game, and the moneymaking potential is known by everyone. What a surprise she's popular.

 

T10... well, yeah. Monty & Yama - same as previous ships in the line, GK - free Bismarks, remember? Lose enough games and you get to play the next ship. Repeat and you are at tier 10 for free. Actually I expected Gearing not Shima to be #1.

 

Also... Ok, ship be popular. So what? Does that mean it's OP? Ok, please open topic asking for Shima to be nerfed, I mean, most played DD on tier 10 has to be OP!

 

2 hours ago, Kazomir said:

changes to the game can indirectly affect one class more than others

Of course they can. But those are changes to that one class. Buffs to BBs are exactly that - buffs to BBs. So people claiming that BBs have got overbuffed should have clear evidence based on BB buffs - I gave you the list, still somehow don't see even one person keeping up their claims. Interesting... :cap_hmm:

 

1 hour ago, dasCKD said:

is it a common sentiment that battleships are overbuffed?

In forums it definitely seems that way, there's constantly someone yelling that. I mean, I didn't come up with the term "overbuffed" myself, I borrowed it from those who claimed it.

Had 3...4 guys yelling that at me in... was it 2 different posts? Right before I started this thread. Originally I tagged them in here to have a laugh at their expense (you know, all the "you said they are overbuffed - here are all the buffs - point to out to me where they got overbuffed" part), but decided not to name anyone (well, at least not immediately) so removed the line with their names while proof-reading right before posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×