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

Battery Mod.3 and Tier 8 BB

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
77 posts
10,699 battles

Hello fellow captains

As you know when you play T8 BB you have really good chance to face T9 or T10 BB due to the current MM mechanic.

Now I was wondering how fair is that your BB not only is downtier and therefore your potential enemies have stronger ships ( which is absolutely normal because they belong to superior tier) but in addition they have a shorter reload time!! Because at T8 you cannot slot the Battery Mod 3.

Would it be so bad to remove this upgrade from the one available? or in alternative what about granting it also to T8 BB?

I'm very interested in your opinion.

 

Thanks

May the Force be with you!!  

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
77 posts
10,699 battles
4 minutes ago, belalugosisdead said:

If you make it available a Tier lower, then you can make same Thread about T7 BBs. Or about T7/T8 DDs or Cls (Concealment). 

Ok I may agree with your point: what about removing it from the available ones? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,929 posts
7,756 battles
21 minutes ago, Alfa_Tau said:

Hello fellow captains

As you know when you play T8 BB you have really good chance to face T9 or T10 BB due to the current MM mechanic.

Now I was wondering how fair is that your BB not only is downtier and therefore your potential enemies have stronger ships ( which is absolutely normal because they belong to superior tier) but in addition they have a shorter reload time!! Because at T8 you cannot slot the Battery Mod 3.

Would it be so bad to remove this upgrade from the one available? or in alternative what about granting it also to T8 BB?

I'm very interested in your opinion.

 

Thanks

May the Force be with you!!  

It would make more sense to remove that equipment altogether and replace it with a new type of equipment, let's call it 'Overstocked Magazines - feed the guns faster lads!' for the sake of the argument, for all tiers of ships that can mount equipment that provides the same increase in rate of fires but which increases the probability of a magazine explosion, by say 50%, and can cause a magazine explosion when a turret or a barbette is damaged and which completely negates the Juliet Charlie signal. Then all ships can increase their dpm but at a tangible risk associated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
77 posts
10,699 battles
7 minutes ago, G01ngToxicCommand0 said:

It would make more sense to remove that equipment altogether and replace it with a new type of equipment, let's call it 'Overstocked Magazines - feed the guns faster lads!' for the sake of the argument, for all tiers of ships that can mount equipment that provides the same increase in rate of fires but which increases the probability of a magazine explosion, by say 50%, and can cause a magazine explosion when a turret or a barbette is damaged and which completely negates the Juliet Charlie signal. Then all ships can increase their dpm but at a tangible risk associated. 

 

Thanks very interesting point! Yes I agree with your logic. if you earn something you should be ready to lose something. Kind of happens with IJN DD, where you can slot Torppedo reload booster but you lose smoke. 

 

Honestly I was more thinking about making a new capt skill (perhaps 4 points?) This way it could also be available to all BB players (or even cruiser ) but you have to make a choice. And so you have to give up something else. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,929 posts
7,756 battles
Just now, Alfa_Tau said:

 

Thanks very interesting point! Yes I agree with your logic. if you earn something you should be ready to lose something. Kind of happens with IJN DD, where you can slot Torppedo reload booster but you lose smoke. 

 

Honestly I was more thinking about making a new capt skill (perhaps 4 points?) This way it could also be available to all BB players (or even cruiser ) but you have to make a choice. And so you have to give up something else. 

That could work as well but the equipment also serves the purpose of players having to grind credits to be able to afford them which means an inticement to buy premium account and premium ships and that has to be taken into account as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
607 posts
5,812 battles

A tier difference is not just a number increase but a whole pack of parameters. Additional slot for some tiers is one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,305 posts
9,548 battles
1 hour ago, belalugosisdead said:

If you remove, its in the end a Nerf for T9/10 BBs compared to T8 BBs, if you dont compensate. I dont see that comming. 

 

And we can't have BBs be nerfed, no no no. Where would that madness end? First you nerf the BBs, then you buff the cruisers, then you fix the CVs and sooner than you can google the BBingo those poor, poor battleships won't be dominating the MM anymore.

 

The horror,

the horror,

the horror.

 

 

Now in earnest, do you really mean to argue that tier IX BBs would need compensation against their tier VIII peers if WG removed that upgrade option? Like, are the typical advantages of a ship a tier higher not enough and it absolutely has to have that extra upgrade to perform?

 

 

26 minutes ago, PseudoMi said:

A tier difference is not just a number increase but a whole pack of parameters. Additional slot for some tiers is one of them.

 

Belfast begs to differ.

 

I still have no bloody idea why that ship at tier VII can slot tier VIII upgrades, or why it would even ever need be able as such in the first place.

Let's also not forget the Atago which at tier VIII has a heal, something which until the release of the RN CLs and the Graf Spee (which could arguably be excluded as a viable example due to its unique gameplay characteristics that place it outside the traditional role of a cruiser at its tier) was entirely exclusive to tier IX or X cruisers.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
Players
2,949 posts
14,953 battles
1 minute ago, Aotearas said:

 

Now in earnest, do you really mean to argue that tier IX BBs would need compensation against their tier VIII peers if WG removed that upgrade option? Like, are the typical advantages of a ship a tier higher not enough and it absolutely has to have that extra upgrade to perform?

It goes for all classes. You can ask the same question for any class. "Like, are the typical advantages of a ship a tier higher not enough and it absoultely has to have that extra upgrafr to perform?" 

Like someone has already said. Higher tier comes with some advantages and an extra slot is one of them. So imo they are just fine. 

 

Imo what wg has to do is making BBs less forgiving/easier to punish. That should lower their survivability. And the best way to do that is raising their citadels! but i dont expect this to happen because you know... wg...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,305 posts
9,548 battles
1 minute ago, ghostbuster_ said:

It goes for all classes. You can ask the same question for any class. "Like, are the typical advantages of a ship a tier higher not enough and it absoultely has to have that extra upgrafr to perform?" 

Like someone has already said. Higher tier comes with some advantages and an extra slot is one of them. So imo they are just fine. 

 

And as I mentioned in the later edit of my comment, all such is fine until WG decides to screw their own rules.

 

Anyhow, that comment of mine was mostly aimed at the notion that a higher tier ship needed to be compensated for losing access to an exclusive upgrade that improves it's already better characterstics compared to a lower tier ship.

 

I personally have little issues with the system in general, but it does result in some pretty lopsided performance gaps, the DD performance jump going from tier VII to VIII is just one such example where the system's flaws make themselves readily known.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,613 posts
5,167 battles

Personally, I don't really see a problem with having all modifications available at all levels, BUT, the number of slots to mount them in is limited by tier.

(but the way the system is designed is to give the more modern ships better capabilities outside of the standard stats (in addition to getting a bit of variety for each ship if the owners choose something...different).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,305 posts
9,548 battles
5 minutes ago, philjd said:

Personally, I don't really see a problem with having all modifications available at all levels, BUT, the number of slots to mount them in is limited by tier.

(but the way the system is designed is to give the more modern ships better capabilities outside of the standard stats (in addition to getting a bit of variety for each ship if the owners choose something...different).

 

Hmm, now that is an interesting idea. Every ship can mount every single upgrade (subject to possible tweaks, don't think say a Khaba needs Aiming Systems mod 3 for increased range for example), but are limited to a certain bulk/load that limits how many upgrades a ship can carry. So better upgrades take up more bulk and lwoer tier ships can't mount much more than one of those, but higher tier ships can mount more.

 

Would be a pretty nice way to balance ships without artificially gating any specific high quality equipment behind ship tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,613 posts
5,167 battles
6 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

 

Hmm, now that is an interesting idea. Every ship can mount every single upgrade (subject to possible tweaks, don't think say a Khaba needs Aiming Systems mod 3 for increased range for example), but are limited to a certain bulk/load that limits how many upgrades a ship can carry. So better upgrades take up more bulk and lwoer tier ships can't mount much more than one of those, but higher tier ships can mount more.

 

Would be a pretty nice way to balance ships without artificially gating any specific high quality equipment behind ship tiers.

You could split them into 'capable by ship type', so some would be limited to cruisers, some to DD's etc, might be easier than a 'bulk/load' tracking system to implement. There could still be overlapping mod's for ship types of course.

 

It would, however, seem quite..strange.. for my Emden to have Radar mod 1 on her! :D

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,305 posts
9,548 battles
Just now, philjd said:

You could split them into 'capable by ship type', so some would be limited to cruisers, some to DD's etc, might be easier than a 'bulk/load' tracking system to implement. There could still be overlapping mod's for ship types of course.

 

Naw, think blacklisting specific upgrades for specific ships for balance reasons is easier than trying to come up with sub-categories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,088 posts
14,054 battles

Where will this end exactly OP? Should we see carriers with the plane health mod at tier 8? Should we see Kutuzovs and Kievs with the reload booster? This is just a suggestion that will just proliferate the problem elsewhere. If anything, tier 8 battleships are just about the most resilient ships when uptiered with many, I would argue, being significantly superior to their tier 9 counterparts. Amagi is the obvious one, but I would also argue that the North Carolina and the Bismark are both superior to their tier 9 counterparts at general performance tier for tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CORNG]
Players
664 posts
12,031 battles
50 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

 

Now in earnest, do you really mean to argue that tier IX BBs would need compensation against their tier VIII peers if WG removed that upgrade option? Like, are the typical advantages of a ship a tier higher not enough and it absolutely has to have that extra upgrade 

 

 

Wargaming is balancing ships with all upgrades against each other. If you delete an upcrade, this is a Nerf for this ship. In my personal opinion it would be better for the game and the cruisers if BB Population would be less, but thats another question. But the T8 BBs in my Opinion are solid even uptiered. Your struggle much more with T8 Cruisers in my Opinion.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,305 posts
9,548 battles
18 minutes ago, belalugosisdead said:

 

Wargaming is balancing ships with all upgrades against each other.

 

Once again, take one look at the Belfast and try to say that again with a straight face.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,436 posts
13,843 battles
20 minutes ago, belalugosisdead said:

Wargaming is balancing ships with all upgrades against each other.

 

271.gif

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CORNG]
Players
664 posts
12,031 battles
38 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

 

Once again, take one look at the Belfast and try to say that again with a straight face.

 

and this OP ship, that is a premium, is relevant for the question of balancing t8 vs t9 BBs why excactly? In comparison, Bismarck, Amagi or NC are strong ships, compared to FtG, Izumo or Iowa.

If you want a General OP Diskussion, make a new thread :-))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,305 posts
9,548 battles
15 minutes ago, belalugosisdead said:

 

and this OP ship, that is a premium, is relevant for the question of balancing t8 vs t9 BBs why excactly? In comparison, Bismarck, Amagi or NC are strong ships, compared to FtG, Izumo or Iowa.

If you want a General OP Diskussion, make a new thread :-))

 

Because it disproves your argument about WG balancing ships with tiers and upgrades in mind.

 

How bloody hard is that to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
77 posts
10,699 battles
1 hour ago, dasCKD said:

Where will this end exactly OP? Should we see carriers with the plane health mod at tier 8? Should we see Kutuzovs and Kievs with the reload booster? This is just a suggestion that will just proliferate the problem elsewhere. If anything, tier 8 battleships are just about the most resilient ships when uptiered with many, I would argue, being significantly superior to their tier 9 counterparts. Amagi is the obvious one, but I would also argue that the North Carolina and the Bismark are both superior to their tier 9 counterparts at general performance tier for tier.

 

Do you mean Iowa is inferior to North Carolina and FDG is inferior to Bismarck?? Now a long time is passed since my last game in North Carolina BUT my experience in FDG is more recent and I don't understand how this ship can be considered inferior to Bismarck?? Perhaps I misunderstood you. 

My point was simply aimed at rebalancing the difference between Tiers due to MM mechanics. Captain skill already grant this benefit to those ships with low caliber guns ( meaning DD) ! So it will be up to you to choose it and give up something else. Anyway lower Tier BB will be inferiors in HP pool, gun caliber etc.

So I don't see this as a revolution or a disadvantage to high tier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
3,207 posts
10,386 battles
2 hours ago, dasCKD said:

I would also argue that the North Carolina and the Bismark are both superior to their tier 9 counterparts at general performance tier for tier.

 

The Iowa's submerged citadel would beg to differ.. :cap_old:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CORNG]
Players
664 posts
12,031 battles
9 hours ago, Aotearas said:

 

Because it disproves your argument about WG balancing ships with tiers and upgrades in mind.

 

How bloody hard is that to understand?

 

Belfast is only the example of a misbalanced ship. To misbalance ships, Wargaming needs no upgrades. Ask nikolai, Kamikaze, Gremi, Orion or others that are misbalanced Premiums or even Power Creep Silvers. The gap between t8 und t9 BBs with Reload Module is not so big, thats i see reasons to remove. And if you regards the gap  between 8 and 10 its also nothing special. Of course Montana is much better than NC. But NC also much netter than NM.   

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
Players
2,103 posts
12 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

It goes for all classes. You can ask the same question for any class. "Like, are the typical advantages of a ship a tier higher not enough and it absoultely has to have that extra upgrafr to perform?" 

Like someone has already said. Higher tier comes with some advantages and an extra slot is one of them. So imo they are just fine. 

 

Imo what wg has to do is making BBs less forgiving/easier to punish. That should lower their survivability. And the best way to do that is raising their citadels! but i dont expect this to happen because you know... wg...

 

Not just a raise to citadels.

 

The concealment values of many upper tier BB's are better than those of many cruisers.

The benefit of Concealment Expert is backwards, benefiting larger ships more than smaller ones.

The gun bloom on big guns is the same as on smaller ones which do far less damage, in fact on BB's they do blink out due to reload times which was specifically what WG stated gun blooms shouldn't do.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×