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

Any plans for discouraging camping through gameplay/meta changes?

70 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[ONE2]
Players
2,939 posts
17,656 battles
6 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

Or let me rephrase that in a fashion that you're more likely to understand: does the name USS William D. Porter, DD-579 ring a bell? That's you. And your teams are the USS Iowa, BB-61, carrying the objective.

HHEEY! I always thought it was Missouri? :Smile_amazed:

 

But you were right. Thanks for the correction. :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
1,936 posts
21,436 battles
1 hour ago, Vaderan said:

 

1.) I own the Yubari since preorder. I consider myself a very skilled player when it comes to aiming/leading my shots. I still struggle massively to score consecutive hits, even at (Yubari) medium range, which is around 6-8km range. Yubari shellgrouping is that tight, that it leaves no space for miscalculations. You hit, or you miss. As a result, even the slightest change of direction by the target results in a successfull dodge of the shells. Applied to BBs, this mechanic would require a drastical change to how they play and require to be played. Because you alredy pointed out: Yubari has fast firing guns, so you have at least a chance to get your aiming within a few salvos. This will not work with 30 seconds reload. Now add the turret traverse and size of a BB, and it will cost BBs a lot of defense capability in close combat. BB shots at close range will be "all or nothing" business. Now add overpens and bounces, aswell as the maneuverability of ships that are especially nimble and dangerous at close range, and in the end, nothing will have change, except for one thing. These days, close combat from the perspective of the BB and its attacker are decided by RNG. The BB simply needs to point into the targets direction and RNG decides, wether the shells are misses or result in a devastating strike/detonation. Neither the aiming skills of the BB, nor the dodging skills of the target are of considerable weight.

With Yubari gun accuracy, the BB now can take aim. It basically gets on shot. All or nothing. The attacker will/can/should be aware of this and has a predictable risk he can work with. Dodging skills become valuable. Aiming skills become valuable. Stupid/ignorant behaviour like broadside-tanking can be punished.

When refering to Yubari accuracy for BBs, only one factor really matters: hit ratio. Does the Yubari, with its fast firing guns, have a significantly better hit ratio than other tier 4 ships. No, wait, thats the wrong question. Tier 4 is compromised by inexperienced players a lot. The Yubari is a rare veteran premium. Does it perform significantly better than other veteran ships in terms of hit ratio?

 

In PvP, i have a 37% hitratio with my Iwaki Alpha, 35% with my Yubari, 33% with my Königsberg, Omaha and Murmansk. 39% with my Leander.

So, at least from my personal statistics, the super accurate Yubari compeltly lies within the range of all other cruisers, with the difference, that 35% of Yubari shells connecting means 1-2 shells, while 33% of the 9 Königsberg guns mean ~3 shells connecting on average per salvo.

 

I don´t see, where this will or could be a significant buff to BBs. The difference, if at all, will be, that average BBs won´t hit a barn from the insde when camping at range, but will score more hits at close range, where they are still dealing with bounces, shatters and overpenetrations.

 

I take any bet: if these mechanics would be implemented with all consequence (and i will repeat myself again: for god´s sake, no half-hearted OP change to Giulio Cesare accuracy, that would break the game indeed!), the dramatic reduction in "lolcitas" and the increasing ammounts of misses by all the below average BB players out there will result in countless posts in the forums, how WG could nerf BBs to death. Camping relies in great parts on BB "spray and pray" mechanics. Exchange this against a totally skill based mechanics, and camping effectiveness will degenerate drastically...

 

 

 

I also have and played Yubary.  I never had to much problems hitting things. In my experience if you can't consistently  hit something on range it is simple because you have just 4 guns and a lot of time you can use only 2 of them because how squishy you are and you have to dodge as mad t prevent being deleted. At close it eats DDs, but struggle with cruisers and BBs because again you have only 4 guns, and again mostly using just two, and very awkward torpedo tubes angles. But it is still ok-ish because it is a T4. Tell me how can you compare 4 guns cruisers at T4 with 8 to 16 guns BB? Also do you think that more precise BBs will suddenly stop sniping from far behind? Why would they do that if now they can be much more precise than before and less dependent on RNG? And at mid to close range nobody will be able to get nowhere near to you as you'll be basically be able to delete anything in one or two salvos. You can't force people to change their habits especially if they think that that is a correct way to play a class. This would not change a thing except make BBs more powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KVOR]
Alpha Tester
1,102 posts
2,632 battles
1 hour ago, fumtu said:

 

I also have and played Yubary.  I never had to much problems hitting things. In my experience if you can't consistently  hit something on range it is simple because you have just 4 guns and a lot of time you can use only 2 of them because how squishy you are and you have to dodge as mad t prevent being deleted. At close it eats DDs, but struggle with cruisers and BBs because again you have only 4 guns, and again mostly using just two, and very awkward torpedo tubes angles. But it is still ok-ish because it is a T4. Tell me how can you compare 4 guns cruisers at T4 with 8 to 16 guns BB? Also do you think that more precise BBs will suddenly stop sniping from far behind? Why would they do that if now they can be much more precise than before and less dependent on RNG? And at mid to close range nobody will be able to get nowhere near to you as you'll be basically be able to delete anything in one or two salvos. You can't force people to change their habits especially if they think that that is a correct way to play a class. This would not change a thing except make BBs more powerful.

No offense intended, but, at least to me, you leave the impression to have a very limited view, on how this mechanic would work out.

At first, neither me nor you are the benchmark for the average player, who is part of the majority who play this game. No matter if you or me have 30%, 40% or even 70% personal hit ratio with the Yubari, it is the overall result of what the playerbase achieves. And i claim to say, that at least 2/3 or even more have only limited skills in proper aiming.

 

Second, as already pointed out: my argument is the hitratio, not the number of hits. If Yubari"s hitratio would dramatically above all others, it would be a clear indicator for the OPness of her accuracy. Following your conclusion, the hitratio of the Yubari must be much higher on average, but it isn´t. If we go for the shells that connect, 33% of 900 shells are for sure more than 33% of 400 shells. We have a 33% hitratio with both ships, but the 9 gun ship firing 100 salvos conects ~300 shells, the 4 gun ship firing 100 salvos connects roughly 130. Following your conclusion, and to call out the increased Yubari accuracy as a buff/op factor, the Yubari´s accuracy must result in ~ 80-90% hitratio to match the number of shells connecting from the 9 gun cruiser, to make up and compensate for the lack of guns. But it doesn´t.

Yubaris hitratio stays within the range of other cruisers with lower accuracy. So, after all, she connects the same percentage of her shells fired, while the number of actual shells fired is far lower. Translated to BBs, this would mean, that it is highly expactable to notice no significant change in the overall hitratio of BBs. As you already pointed out: you do not struggle to "eat DDs" at close range. And that, my friend, is the point. You need to get close. And that is, what we want to achieve: to remove the BBs from their far away camping positions.

 

Which leads me to point three: Sniping from far behind will just become ridiculous difficult. The Yubari cannot hit reliably any cruiser or DD of her tier withing mid to long range, which is 8-12km for that cruiser. Simply because the few seconds and the distance to target allow for minimal corrections and far more miscalculations by the gunner, leading to misses. And it doesn´t matter, wether 2, 4, 6, or 8 shells go wrong. They simply miss. Or they connect. Then again, BB shells have to deal with all the overpen and bounce mechanisms. Long story short: with the exception for a few super-unicums, mid to long range sniping with BBs vs. moving targets will become highly unreliable, especially if the target uses the perk for long range fire detection. The only type of ships that will suffer greatly from this mechanic at long range will be those sitting still or just slowly moving. Which are? Camping BBs!

 

On the other hand, of course, BBs will become pretty dangerous at medium to close range. Especially broadside to broadside might end in oneshots. But, usually, there are BBs on both teams. And since each BB poses an unpredictable thread to each other, priorities will shift towards deleting red BBs asap.

The intentional question of the OP was, how to get rid of camping BBs in particular, and the camping meta in general. This is the answer. Don´t sit still, and you will be save from BB salvoes, until you get too close or make a mistake. It would also just be a big step towards true balance in this game. Right now, regarding the three classes involved in surface combat, DDs, cruisers and BBs, DDs and almost all cruisers have their highest damage potential, the closer they get to the target. BBs have the doubtbable priviledge, to be more or less equally (in-)effective at all ranges, thanks to "Spray and Pray" RNG, with only slightly increasing chances to hit, where they aim at, when distance decreases. With the Yubari effect, BBs would be put under the same rules like all others. Increasing efficiency with decreasing range. Closing in on a DD or torpedo cruiser has been a high risk-high rewards game ever since, only BBs were "special". With the Yubari effect, they would be equals. Being devastating at short range should not be an exclusive right for torpedoes.

Bringing BBs back to close quarter combats is, what many players are demanding for a long time now. This could be they way to achieve it. Or did anybody expect (and consider it "fair"), that BBs would come back to brawling without bringing weapons? This could only be the wish of those, who want BBs being and staying cash cows...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
1,936 posts
21,436 battles
57 minutes ago, Vaderan said:

Bringing BBs back to close quarter combats is, what many players are demanding for a long time now. This could be they way to achieve it. Or did anybody expect (and consider it "fair"), that BBs would come back to brawling without bringing weapons? This could only be the wish of those, who want BBs being and staying cash cows...

 

If I'm not wrong German BBs were balanced with intention to get closer and brawl and yet so many stays behind and snipe even thought that they were probably the worst ships for this. I'm sorry but I don't see how buffing already powerful class could stop this trend. Or you want to tell me that BBs as they are right now can't properly support their team from close range? Are BBs really so useless now and that sniping is only viable tactics left for them or is it a problem just misuse of the ships by some players that are less skilled or unwilling to learn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KVOR]
Alpha Tester
1,102 posts
2,632 battles
2 hours ago, fumtu said:

 

If I'm not wrong German BBs were balanced with intention to get closer and brawl and yet so many stays behind and snipe even thought that they were probably the worst ships for this. I'm sorry but I don't see how buffing already powerful class could stop this trend. Or you want to tell me that BBs as they are right now can't properly support their team from close range? Are BBs really so useless now and that sniping is only viable tactics left for them or is it a problem just misuse of the ships by some players that are less skilled or unwilling to learn?

First of all, i absolutely agree with your position considering german BBs. Designed as brawlers, even the torpedo armed units are sometimes abused as long range shotguns.

I have no explaination for that, i can only guess. My first guess would be: players don´t know better. They are used to snipe, as they do with other BBs. They beleave, since german BBs are supposed to be very accurate (at least in their imagination), sniping must work with them aswell. Another guess would be, they are still afraid of DDs/torpedoes, so they still try to avoid those, despite being (at least in BB terms) rather capable of dealing with them. My third guess would be the omnipresent camper-intention number one: avoid damage at any cost, no matter, how bad your personal performance is. After all, a Bismarck on 18km range might not hit anything, but won´t be hit aswell. Those players indeed will get teached a lesson, when BBs CAN precicely damage them even at range (since the campers usually are either stationary or rather predictable in their behaviour).

If you ask me, wether or not BBs can properly support from close range, i say: no! At least, not in a properly, reliable way.

You see, since alpha i always belonged to the active BB players. As such, i usually stick with the team and push, or try to push, if the situation allows for it. However, and you might understand what i am talking about, once you made your choice in a BB, you have to stick with it. There is no quick turning back or running away, once you dedicated to the frontline. More often than not, the ships you intended to support turn around and leave you burning and vulnerable to DDs, once the situation gets a little bit too hot.

Trapped and left alone, any BB is completly depending on RNG. You can have a floating citadell like a Phoenix, Murmansk or Yubari roght next to your broadside and showing broadside, unleash a perfectly aimed 8-12 shells salvo, and RNG turns it into a 3k tripple overpenetration damage roll, where a devastating strike was, what you were planing for and required, to survive. In return, the cruiser will simply throw some torps, which, for sure, will neither bounce, overpen or fail to fuse, once they manage to connect.

This unreliability is probably the main reason for camping. Why go into the heat of battle, if damage received is more certain than damage dealt? Why rely on incredible RNG influence, despite risking it all and doing the best you can, to maximize damage, getting screwed by rng in the worst possible moments, if you can completly stay out of harms way and let RNG work to your favour at long range?

 

So, to provide an answer: yes, BBs are so unreliable, that, in comparison to proper brawling, sniping and camping is the more viable and enjoyable strategy for any average or below average player. Because, thanks to damage avoidance and RNG, BBs are a very easy to play class at range, whereas they become probably the most challanging and demanding class to play, once you go for a brawl.

 

It might taste better for you, if you don´t consider the proposed Yubari accuracy change as a buff for short range, but as a nerf for medium and long range combat... well, as long as you claim for yourself to be an objective, neutral player with similar interests on all classes and a good balance in this game. In case i am talking to a DD-statpadder or fanboy, i can fully understand if you don´t like the idea of BBs being able to defend themselves reliably within the comfort zone of DDs... just in case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[_OPC_]
Players
442 posts
13,114 battles

Plans to discourage camping....

Spoiler

hahahaha.jpg

 

Maybe majority of player base are one cell organisms but for sure not people in WG responsible for milking them.

 

WG will never ever to anything regarding meta change and camping..the stake is too high.

 

PS. This problem is as old as the game it self so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-T-O-]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,185 posts
6,367 battles
On 2/19/2018 at 12:56 PM, Blood_Rave_1984 said:

I see nothing wrong with hanging back and shelling from distance but things like going AFK is unacceptable (I've rage quit just before being sunk in the past, something I'm not proud of). 

Are you incapable of listening or just comprehending?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MASLO]
Beta Tester
663 posts
1,238 battles
20 hours ago, morgoroth said:

Plans to discourage camping....

  Reveal hidden contents

hahahaha.jpg

 

Maybe majority of player base are one cell organisms but for sure not people in WG responsible for milking them.

 

WG will never ever to anything regarding meta change and camping..the stake is too high.

 

PS. This problem is as old as the game it self so...

 

Kinda interesting considering WG are the ones who created it and actually changed the game to create this meta. But sure... its players fault, right? o_O

When you have certain meta and WG comes and makes changes stating that they dont like it, and creates abomination that we have today, you cant go and say its not their fault... or that they will never do anything regarding meta change.

 

But i agree, that they wont improve it, maybe make it just even worse.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BFLAG]
[BFLAG]
Players
72 posts
8,145 battles

Discouraging camping  is pretty easy. I got a 6 point plan:

1. Give cruisers all cruisers a heal or 2  so they can be more confident to move forward.

2. Make all Battleships bows overmatchable to BB shells stop that nose on BS . Angling is fine to bounce shells on the belt but making ships nigh on invulnarable front on for AP is just inviting BBs sitting bow on sailin in reverse.

3. Change concealment expert and/or stealth module so that, within  the difference between normal spotting distance and spotting distance with CE the ship is still visible but not targetable. 

4. Make firing arcs flater so that shooting over islands only works at long distances. Buff surviveability to ships that would suffer from that change.

5. Make radar and hydro a line of sight system. And change them so that the ship bekomes visible at 100 percent range but not targetable until within 75 percent of radar range.

6.Make ships firing in smoke visble but not targetable as an outline or shadow for 1 second when they fire.

 

That would get alot more movement into the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
2,187 posts
14,049 battles
3 minutes ago, Eddy209 said:

Discouraging camping  is pretty easy. I got a 6 point plan:

1. Give cruisers all cruisers a heal or 2  so they can be more confident to move forward.

Unfortunatly, cruisers at tiers IX and X have those. And the heal in itself is not enough to make them go forward.

3 minutes ago, Eddy209 said:

2. Make all Battleships bows overmatchable to BB shells stop that nose on BS . Angling is fine to bounce shells on the belt but making ships nigh on invulnarable front on for AP is just inviting BBs sitting bow on sailin in reverse.

And this in the gameplay tierspread ( so a tier VI should be able to overmatch a tier VIII)?

3 minutes ago, Eddy209 said:

3. Change concealment expert and/or stealth module so that, within  the difference between normal spotting distance and spotting distance with CE the ship is still visible but not targetable. 

This kills torpedo DD gameplay.

3 minutes ago, Eddy209 said:

4. Make firing arcs flater so that shooting over islands only works at long distances. Buff surviveability to ships that would suffer from that change.

This kills a lot of (high) tier cruiser gameplay.

3 minutes ago, Eddy209 said:

5. Make radar and hydro a line of sight system. And change them so that the ship bekomes visible at 100 percent range but not targetable until within 75 percent of radar range.

Not sure I understand this you want radar to be a permanent thing?

3 minutes ago, Eddy209 said:

6.Make ships firing in smoke visble but not targetable as an outline or shadow for 1 second when they fire.

That would be reverting the latest smoke changes. Those changes already reduced smokecamping a lot. So don't see the need to change this again.

If you mean: make them visible at any range like this: no need, just learn to shoot in smoke or get closer to spot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[O-P-C]
Beta Tester
81 posts
3,229 battles

Simple,  disable guns in or increase fire and flooding chance and duration for BBs on A, B 9, and 10 lines (maybe also C and 8), so campers suffer more from fires/flooding, and cannot shoot back

It's simple

Fire/flooding chance=X , if on A, B, 9, 10 line Fire/flooding chance = Const+X (Lines A & 10, const=40%, lines B & 9, const=30%)

Fire/Fl00ding duration= Y, if on A, B, 9, 10 line Fire/flooding duration = Const+Y (Lines A & 10, const=35%, lines B & 9, const=25%)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,877 posts
16,974 battles
8 hours ago, Eddy209 said:

2. Make all Battleships bows overmatchable to BB shells stop that nose on BS . Angling is fine to bounce shells on the belt but making ships nigh on invulnarable front on for AP is just inviting BBs sitting bow on sailin in reverse.

 

This actually was tested once. It was ultimately discarded, but nowadays I ask myself whether or not it would've been better to keep it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,324 posts
11,279 battles
1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

This actually was tested once. It was ultimately discarded, but nowadays I ask myself whether or not it would've been better to keep it.

The tests (and nothing more than that) caused an enormous upheaval with the bbabies, so the idea was (of course) immediately thrown away.

 

I'd like it to be in the game as well. There is nothing but bowcampers anymore sometimes it seems. I've even seen bbs that have no benefit at all doing that, bowreversing, such as nagato, friedrich, etc.

 

(not to mention I even see idiots in cruisers trying it in things like schors or hinden... like wtf)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BFLAG]
[BFLAG]
Players
72 posts
8,145 battles
9 hours ago, 159Hunter said:
  9 hours ago, Eddy209 said:

Discouraging camping  is pretty easy. I got a 6 point plan:

1. Give cruisers all cruisers a heal or 2  so they can be more confident to move forward.

Unfortunatly, cruisers at tiers IX and X have those. And the heal in itself is not enough to make them go forward.

 

 

True, but Tier IX and X  they do have the range AND accuracy to stay back - they have no incentive to get close. But i think a reduction in either would be too harsh. Besides Tier IX and X cruisers are strong enough.  The 2 most dominant causes of cruiser kills , especially high tier , is 1.sailing broadside and 2. Battleship dispersion. Sure they can manouver but some stray shells might hit them hard even while manouvering hard. In away the inaccuracy of some BBs kills cruisers alot. In lower tiers cruisers actually move alot but it suddely stops at tier VIII. Tier VIII cruisers are very very carefull because the often face higher tiers and are easily deleted by Tier X BBs and CAs. ANd as mentioned Tier IX and X cruisers dont share their lower tier oiers weakness to the same extend

 

9 hours ago, 159Hunter said:
  3 minutes ago, Eddy209 said:

2. Make all Battleships bows overmatchable to BB shells stop that nose on BS . Angling is fine to bounce shells on the belt but making ships nigh on invulnarable front on for AP is just inviting BBs sitting bow on sailin in reverse.

And this in the gameplay tierspread ( so a tier VI should be able to overmatch a tier VIII)?

 

Yes - I know it sounds a bit to much but all that bow on stuff gives BBs basicly a big shield that can only be ocercome by bigger calibers.

But for the most part from tier VII onward BBs are way to tanky bow on to not use it.

Forcing BBs to manouver more would at least push them forward abit. B

B Bows should be overmatchable by the lowest Caliber BB Gun at their tier. Especialy at TIer VIII and up this would do alot to get them to move.

 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, 159Hunter said:
  3 minutes ago, Eddy209 said:

3. Change concealment expert and/or stealth module so that, within  the difference between normal spotting distance and spotting distance with CE the ship is still visible but not targetable. 

This kills torpedo DD gameplay.

 

Actually 1. I dont think so because alot of DDs already have longer range torpedos than their base concealment and 2. the whole Torpedo DD gameplay is one of the major reasons why BBs dont push in.And if BBs dont push most of the times cruisers wont either because they dont have the staying power. 

Imho it would be better to make torps  less avoidable than to make them less visible or omnipresent (walls of skill ). But again , id like to have DDs to be more allround than on thing or the other. Japanese DD guns for the most part are a Joke and alot od russian and american torps are as well. Id rather sacrifice diversity a bit than to make the whole game worse just for the fact to cater more to the ninja torp gameplay. 

 

 

9 hours ago, 159Hunter said:
  3 minutes ago, Eddy209 said:

4. Make firing arcs flater so that shooting over islands only works at long distances. Buff surviveability to ships that would suffer from that change.

This kills a lot of (high) tier cruiser gameplay.

 

It shouldnt have been a thing in the first place. Other cruisers can live without it so those can too. Having for example the highest DPM cruisers able to lob shells high over obstacles is a pretty lame Idea. ID rather see cruisers get some better shells with better bounce angles across the board and maybe AP shells that can be triggered more reliably by hitting supperstructure 

 

9 hours ago, 159Hunter said:
  3 minutes ago, Eddy209 said:

5. Make radar and hydro a line of sight system. And change them so that the ship bekomes visible at 100 percent range but not targetable until within 75 percent of radar range.

Not sure I understand this you want radar to be a permanent thing?

 

No not permanent -still a consumable. But it shoudnt go through islands. And it shoult make the enemy ship visible at max radar range but not targetable meaning not able to lock on to it, so shots at it would be less accurate. Only at lets say 75 percent of max radar range should the now uncovered enemy be targetable via normal means.

So Radar should spot but not provide a good firing solution until the target is closer. It would give DDs a cance to react. 

 

9 hours ago, 159Hunter said:
  3 minutes ago, Eddy209 said:

6.Make ships firing in smoke visble but not targetable as an outline or shadow for 1 second when they fire.

That would be reverting the latest smoke changes. Those changes already reduced smokecamping a lot. So don't see the need to change this again.

If you mean: make them visible at any range like this: no need, just learn to shoot in smoke or get closer to spot.

 

Oh im actually pretty good at shooting ships out of their smoke, but alot of players consider it very hard. But smoke firing is camping in its most stationary sense and it works against a flowing gameplay. So in all honesty I would make it even a bit less viable

I give you an example what I had in mind.

Lets say we got ship sitting in smoke. It fires like normal. But at the moment of shooting they  fade in and out for half a second or even less. Just to give an indication where they are in smoke.  Real spotting aka ship gets full uncovered and is targetable via lock on (x key) should not happen.

9 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,844 posts
14,993 battles
2 hours ago, Eddy209 said:

...the whole Torpedo DD gameplay is one of the major reasons why BBs dont push in...

Not in my experience. 

 

Sure torpedoes are to be respected, but there are few, if any DDs, on any tier, that do enough average damage to destroy a same tier BB, and in most case not enough to sink a same tier cruiser.  The last statistics I saw showed torpedo damage to BBs at around 20% of all damage, while AP. HE, and fire represented 80% of all damage to BBs.

 

When BBs sit in the back afraid to move anywhere unless the herd moves... this is a lack of intestinal fortitude. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,877 posts
16,974 battles
3 hours ago, Eddy209 said:

the whole Torpedo DD gameplay is one of the major reasons why BBs dont push in

 

BBs camp even in pure BB games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,433 posts
11,497 battles

Threads of this kind pop-up all the time.

I hate BB campers like everyone else do, but people need to get rid of the stupid idea that changes to BB mechanics are the answer to this.
BBs need to have tankiness and long-distance threat in order to fulfill their role. Just because potatoes can not see when its best to keep distance and when to get close, you don't have to remove a part of a ships role. 

Just look at Clan Battles with just 1 BB available. Its like a completely different game. One BB alone can not zone the whole map against cruisers like the 5 BBs in random battles can do.

Also a single BB that gets focused by a lot of cruisers will melt like nothing, and cruisers can do it even faster than other BBs because the BB has no real counter to HE-spam - but he always can angle and WASD against 30 sec reload AP salvos.

Wargaming can refuse a BB-number-hardcap as hard as they want, the truth is the core issue is the plain number of BBs. Max 3 BBs / team for random battles would fix a lot of the current meta issues without changing any mechanics.

Less BBs = cruisers can come close to the DDs = campy BBs ain't that much of an issue anymore since cruisers can support their DDs easier now.

 

#VotingForBBHardcap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BFLAG]
[BFLAG]
Players
72 posts
8,145 battles
2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

BBs camp even in pure BB games.

True to some extend but guess where that comes from. But its not only BBs. 

BBs dont push forward so they do not tank, therefore crusiers will refuse to go forward unless able to use even more lame game mechanics , so DDs fight it out amoung themselfs alot of times and that can bite you in the back as well, because than alot of times the team with better and or more DDs win.

Or the team with more and/or more commpetent radar cruisers has a big advantage. 

And then in comes the carriers where one halfway competent player can shut down a team by permaspotting DDs and Torps  and punishing whoever comes forward enough to be out of an AA umbrella. And im not only talking about BBs. Cruisers often take hydro nowadays because the chance to meet a CV is not big enough to always take defensive fire or fully spec into AA. That means that umbrella IF available is somewhere between 4 and 6 km. Especialy on hightier that is laughable small to expect cohesion in random team matchups.

So again , pushing forward far from being incentivised.

 

Maybe they should buff the 3 ships closest to the enemy a buff , and some economical benefits as well. Something like a survivability buff for cruisers , a radar jamming aura for the foremost DD and maybe a manouvering buff for BBs if closer than 8 km to the enemy. And a big AA buff when close AND alone .Or other stuff . 

Something that rewards being offensive not punishing it. 

 

Other than that i wouldnt mind a BB hardcap of 4. But i would also hardcap DDs at 4 to be honest. 5 or even more is not so much a problem on lower tiers but on tier VIII and up it becomes old very quickly. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×