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

Ideas for Cruiser/Battleship Rebalancing

Which do you prefer?  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Which do you prefer?

    • BB-1/CLCA+1
      7
    • Cruiser Smorgasbord
      5
    • Lol Noob! You're ideas sux! Mine r better!!! (Please leave a comment)
      11

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
1,192 posts
3,451 battles

I've had a couple of thoughts recently regarding how to balance cruisers and battleships in WoWS, and I thought I'd share them with the forums to see what others think.

Please vote for whichever you think sounds better, or leave your own idea if you think my ideas are rubbish.

 

BB-1/CLCA+1

What this means is Battleships have their consumable counts reduced by 1 while Cruisers get their consumable counts increased by one.

To clarify: take my Nelson, she currently has 4 uses of the Damage Repair Party (Premium but no Superintendent) while my Atago has 3 uses of DRP (Premium and Superintendent). My proposal would mean Nelsol would get one less use (3) while Atago gets one more use (4). This would also apply to all other consumables mounted on the ship, so Missouri (for example) would get one less DRP and one less Radar while Baltimore would get one more of each (and whatever other consumables she has).

The idea behind this one is both to takle the BB survivability issue and promote what cruisers are all about (consumables) all in one motion.

Exceptions:

October Revolution. I get the feeling that with limited access to the Damage Control Party, reducing her access to it may make her go from 'alright' to 'barely playable'.

 

Cruiser Smorgasbord

Give all cruisers access to all consumables available at their tier, but limit them to a maximum number dependent on their tier (like 2 for T2-5, 3 for T6-8 and 4 for T9+10). So they can customise what kind of consumables they want, e.g. one player could have a Mogami with DRP, Radar and Smoke, another could have a Mogami with Defensive AA Fire, Hydroacoustic Search and Spood Beest. Further, players can also choose what order they want their consumables in, so one player may go for (T)DRP-(Y)Smoke-(U)DefAA the other may go for (T)Smoke-(Y)DefAA-(U)DRP. Obviously, different nations would still have their national 'flavours', such as German Efficient Uber Hydro, Russian OPdar and British Tea-Fixes-Everything Repair.

The idea behind this one is, while leaving consumable charges the way they are, to promote cruisers being the 'Jack-of-all' they were envisioned when this game began.

 

I'm sure someone's noticed that (apart from RN CLs) T8 cruisers don't get the DRP, as such my above example of Mogami with DRP doesn't make sense, but I'm of the opinion that in addition to the above ideas, cruisers from T6 upwards should have access to a Heal anyway.

 

Let me know what you think of my ideas and what you think would be better.

Edited by Captain_LOZFFVII
I have no idea why everything is suddenly underlined, but I can't get rid of it. :S
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,316 posts
13,602 battles

Hmm... Not bad. That might be an idea too, especially since the Cruisers have been advertised to the "jacks-of-all-trades" after all. Would certainly help Cruiser players customize their ships to better suit their playstyle and perhaps therefore improve the results. BTW, we have some suggestions regarding this same issue also on another thread called: "Where are all the Cruisers at". Take a look and tell us what you think. Mebbe some combination of all these suggestions would work the best.:Smile_smile:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OM]
Beta Tester, WoWs Wiki Team
3,206 posts
11,015 battles

Improving cruisers is a good idea, but this shouldn't happen at the cost of DDs.

Giving so much smoke and radars to cruisers would be complete cancer for poor underage ships.

Letting them have Def-AA, Hydro, Heal and Spoodbeast should be enough (of course cruisers that currently have smoke/radar will keep it).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,192 posts
3,451 battles
6 minutes ago, Commander_Cornflakes said:

Improving cruisers is a good idea, but this shouldn't happen at the cost of DDs.

Giving so much smoke and radars to cruisers would be complete cancer for poor underage ships.

Letting them have Def-AA, Hydro, Heal and Spoodbeast should be enough (of course cruisers that currently have smoke/radar will keep it).

Funny, I consider myself a DD main and yet I totally forgot about CLCA/DD interactions!:Smile_teethhappy:

Anyway, maybe reduce the base number of charges for the smoke generator to prevent it becoming too prevalent (although it will still become quite prevalent, given potatoes wanna stealth as much as possible). Honestly, Radar is workable if you know what you're doing, but then you might also need assistance from your team so you could fall flat there.:Smile_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
503 posts
1,775 battles
13 minutes ago, Commander_Cornflakes said:

Improving cruisers is a good idea, but this shouldn't happen at the cost of DDs.

This, cruisers aren't weak. Good players can have a huge impact in them (even average players like me can in certain matches carry with them). Buffing them directly to deal with BBs being too strong/versatile won't help the other classes and won't neccesarily help with the BB problem.

 

I'd rather look into a couple of choice nerfs to BBs or general changes to the maps and game, my fav ideas are making certain high tier maps less open and allow BBs to cit each other more easiliy (this will allow cruisers more room to maneuver/not being crossfired and make BBs less of a pain to kill respectively). Buffing cruisers directly might end up having a lot of unforseen consequences.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AMOK]
Players
945 posts
5,561 battles
9 minutes ago, Commander_Cornflakes said:

Improving cruisers is a good idea, but this shouldn't happen at the cost of DDs.

Giving so much smoke and radars to cruisers would be complete cancer for poor underage ships.

Letting them have Def-AA, Hydro, Heal and Spoodbeast should be enough (of course cruisers that currently have smoke/radar will keep it).

Right. Was thinking the same. I totally agree that more variability would really help cruisers overall.

Anti DD consumables (Hydro, Radar) should stay where they are.

 

Btw. its needless to think about nerfing BBs in any form since it won't happen before hell freezes... :cap_old:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,192 posts
3,451 battles
9 minutes ago, CleverViking said:

This, cruisers aren't weak.

I never said they were. The whole point of my ideas were 'leaving ship stats exactly where they are, but playing around with consumables to make BBs a little less appealing and cruisers a little more'.:Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
503 posts
1,775 battles
11 minutes ago, Captain_LOZFFVII said:
20 minutes ago, CleverViking said:

This, cruisers aren't weak.

I never said they were. The whole point of my ideas were 'leaving ship stats exactly where they are, but playing around with consumables to make BBs a little less appealing and cruisers a little more'.

Oops, that's what happens when you just skim through the posts. I see now my post isn't quite on point.

 

Anyway, onwards to the topic. I don't think consumable number would have much impact for the as the average player won't live long enough to use them all anyway. Giving BBs fewer is a thought though but not sure how much it would actually affect the game.

 

Not a fan of option 2 as it removes/reduces the national flavour and in my opinion could be abused to make some ships ridiculously strong ( also we don't want to add more smoke/radar ships into the game). A possible alternative is to add an additional slot to all cruisers so ships don't have to choose between hydro/radar or hydro/Def. AA though that might be a bit too strong as well on certain ships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
3,558 posts
6,385 battles
48 minutes ago, Captain_LOZFFVII said:

What this means is Battleships have their consumable counts reduced by 1 while Cruisers get their consumable counts increased by one.

To clarify: take my Nelson, she currently has 4 uses of the Damage Repair Party (Premium but no Superintendent) while my Atago has 3 uses of DRP (Premium and Superintendent). My proposal would mean Nelsol would get one less use (3) while Atago gets one more use (4). This would also apply to all other consumables mounted on the ship, so Missouri (for example) would get one less DRP and one less Radar while Baltimore would get one more of each (and whatever other consumables she has).

The idea behind this one is both to takle the BB survivability issue and promote what cruisers are all about (consumables) all in one motion.

 

- Weeh weeh BBs aren't tanking, they only sit back and camp weeh weeh!

 

- Well then, what can we do about it?

 

- Make them able to heal even less!!!

 

You should be hired by WG, they are good at "fixing" passive BB gameplay by pushing more and more BBs into passive positions and punishing every BB who plays aggressive / with their team.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
769 posts
3,524 battles

The problem with tweaking is that it simply won't be enough. Any balance overhauls large enough to result in a significant enough exodus of BB players to cruisers will do more harm than good to the health of the game, anything small enough to not damage the balance will do next to nothing to affect the class populations.

 

Fully agreed with @CleverViking that maps should be less open and BBs should be able to deal more damage to each other, but these are things that should be implemented in addition to a fix for the BB overpopulation. I don't see how they can be the solution. At the risk of sounding like a broken record I honestly think the only solution to be found is in the MM and soft-caps, clan battles should be a model in that regard. Disheartening to see that possibility downplayed by Conway in the other thread after the BB cap in CB gave so much hope :(.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,453 posts
7,229 battles
50 minutes ago, Captain_LOZFFVII said:

BB-1/CLCA+1

The problem is that this messes up the balance between different ships of the same class, such as Atago (+1 heal, hydro and fighter) or Edinburgh (+1 heal, smoke & hydro) would gain a lot more than Mogami (+1 hydro + fighter).

 

57 minutes ago, Captain_LOZFFVII said:

Cruiser Smorgasbord

 

Would wreck the balance of all ships that are balanced around their consumables similar to above, RN CL would become pointless if IJN ships could mount smoke, USN would become pointless if IJN could mount radar.

 

Would also have huge knock on effects for DD when every cruiser decides to mount radar and WG won't tolerate every cruiser having smoke either.

 

A case can be made for being able to mount def. AA + Hydro at the same time but that's about it.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,453 posts
7,229 battles
14 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Weeh weeh BBs aren't tanking, they only sit back and camp weeh weeh!

 

Make BB immortal so that they can finally do their job and tank.

 

BBaby logic at it's finest.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,316 posts
13,602 battles
1 hour ago, Capra76 said:

The problem is that this messes up the balance between different ships of the same class, such as Atago (+1 heal, hydro and fighter) or Edinburgh (+1 heal, smoke & hydro) would gain a lot more than Mogami (+1 hydro + fighter).

Would wreck the balance of all ships that are balanced around their consumables similar to above, RN CL would become pointless if IJN ships could mount smoke, USN would become pointless if IJN could mount radar.

would also have huge knock on effects for DD when every cruiser decides to mount radar and WG won't tolerate every cruiser having smoke either.

A case can be made for being able to mount def. AA + Hydro at the same time but that's about it.

Yeah, you got a few points here. Perhaps, if CL and CA were to be treated as different ship classes (specifically in terms of consumables). Meaning some smoke (but no radar) would only be available for CL's, while a limited heal (but no smoke)  would only be available to CA's and some consumables should obviously be mutually exclusive. perhaps while at it, they could introduce IJN Light Cruisers into the game, as scout cruisers with hydro/AA+fighter+Spotter plane combo. Or some such thingy anyways. :Smile_Default:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
3,595 posts
7,456 battles

picked the last option, although I would have phrased it a bit nicer than that :Smile_teethhappy:

 

The issue is that neither of your proposals does anything to adress the actual problem.

Extra consumable charges dont help a cruiser that is dead because he got BB'd (even a heal won't because you dont heal much citadel damage, and you often dont even have time to go through the four heals you already have access to).

And giving cruisers access to all consumables affects their interaction with BBs... how exactly? Oh right, it doesn't, just screws over DDs (which, by the way, are supposed to somewhat keep BBs in check... so you're acutally being actively counterproductive).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRKEN]
Beta Tester
3,552 posts
8,863 battles
3 hours ago, Captain_LOZFFVII said:

What this means is Battleships have their consumable counts reduced by 1 while Cruisers get their consumable counts increased by one.

To clarify: take my Nelson, she currently has 4 uses of the Damage Repair Party (Premium but no Superintendent) while my Atago has 3 uses of DRP (Premium and Superintendent). My proposal would mean Nelsol would get one less use (3) while Atago gets one more use (4)...

The idea behind this one is both to takle the BB survivability issue...

Exceptions:

October Revolution. I get the feeling that with limited access to the Damage Control Party, reducing her access to it may make her go from 'alright' to 'barely playable'

 

Reducing heals won't do anything to those (often top tier) Balless Boats using team as meatshield.

 

And if anything at T5 it's New York which is damage pinata eating HE pens like there's no tomorrow and unable to bounce much any APs, because all or nothing armor scheme doesn't work well in game mechanics.

While October Revolution would stand good chance for bow tanking Yamato and takes very little damage from smaller caliber HE spam.

Also Atago with its heal has already advantage over other T8 cruisers. (which other than RN CLs get only at T9)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
6,929 posts
9,129 battles

I'll just regurgitate what I've posted on numerous occasions:

 

I propose two fundamental changes.

 

  • First of all, any AP shell that overmatches armour will result in a regular penetration at most. No more overmatching weak armour/hull sections and then smashing through the citadel armour layer next to it. If you overmatch something, you get a normal penetration and that's it (unless you overmatch AND overpenetrate).
  • Secondly, make BBs considerably more accurate (yes, you read that right).

 

What would that achieve?

A more skill-dependant interaction between player and target.

 

I think everyone who's played cruisers for long enough knows how it feels when you see a BB shooting you from 18km, you instantly make a hard turn to dodge and all but one shell miss you ... except that one shell that went nowhere near the BB actually aimed (and where you never where due to the evasive turn) but dispersion put it soo much off-target that it manages to hit you by fluke, overmatches your aft hull and then citadels you.

 

With my proposed change, no more citadels through your arse, just normal pens (still hurts, but not as much). And with BBs being much more accurate, dodhing becomes proportionally more effective, since there's much less shells being guided by RNG dispersion. Shells go where the enemy shot at and if you're not at that point of aim, they miss.

However for BBs that know how to shoot, predict and adjust for such defensive evasions, being more accurate also means landing more shells which should offset the lack of lolpen citadels as you land more consistent regular penetrations. And if your target isn't evading and just straightlining, being more accurate also means you can punish such inattentive gameplay more consistently (no more perfectly broadside targets only to see all your shells splash perfectly around the target cuz RNG said nope).

 

In addition, it would allow to roll back the change of dropping battleship citadels like the Iowa's/Montana's (which had been lowered because Yamato would consistently lolpen citadel them through the bow), since as I said, no more citadels following an overmatch. With (again) raised citadels however, BB players that are carelessly showing their broadside can (and with the better BB accuracy, will) punished just as much as any other broadsiding potato.

 

In short, it would reward competent play (evasive dodging, correct aiming) and punish poor play (showing broadside).

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,703 posts
13,142 battles

Personally I would try:

Revert HE penetration rules to CBT ones (HE always penetrates regardless of armor).

Cut down fire chance and BB HE alpha (especially RN BB HE alpha) to compensate.

Give T6+ cruisers heal, additional charge at T9+.

 

I don't particularly care if this makes BBs camp even harder, because it is impossible to make BBs camp harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-FF-]
Players
609 posts
5,414 battles

I'll quote myself from another post about the same topic:

 

I think there is a simple way to increase cruiser player number --> Increase cruiser survability.

How?

Reduce citadel damage made by BB AP on cruisers. 50% less. That's it. The fact that cruisers can be instantly deleted or too crippled by one salvo is terrible for the game.

And don't say, it's because you don't know how to play, etc etc... With 5 BBs per game and their long range shoots, you can't angle properly all the time, it's just impossible. The RNG factor taken into account it's even more terrible.

Unless you play extremely safe to a point that you won't really be able to help your team, you're taking the risk to suffer massive damage and get deleted because of the crossfire inherently produced by the big number of BBs.

I'll say it again: reduce BB-induced citadel damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOCKS]
Players
679 posts
5,258 battles

Lots of ideas that won't work because they won't do anything about the spawn "sniping" BBs, while overpowering a class that might have a very high skill floor (it demands quite a bit of skill to do well in it) but also an extremely high skill ceiling (in very good hands a cruiser is actually more dangerous than a BB because it's a much more balanced combination of maneuverability and DPM/DoT firepower).

The solution is more simple. +/- 1 matchmaking for cruisers. DDs and BBs get the usual +/-2. You don't change the skill floor/ceiling of the class, but you incentivate using them by giving them a more lenient matchmaking, on top of not exposing them to the niceties of BBs 2 tiers higher.

And problem solved.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,499 posts
4,638 battles
1 hour ago, RAMJB said:

The solution is more simple. +/- 1 matchmaking for cruisers. DDs and BBs get the usual +/-2.

And problem solved.

Well the BB's used to have +3 MM and what happened?

 

So no, problem not solved by giving xruisers +/-1 MM. Even that I would like to get the old +3 for BB's, that just brings confusion to divisions. Well at least to those who like to mix'n'match with classes and not all sail with one class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JR-IT]
Alpha Tester
607 posts
5,972 battles
13 hours ago, Aotearas said:

I'll just regurgitate what I've posted on numerous occasions:

 

I propose two fundamental changes.

 

  • First of all, any AP shell that overmatches armour will result in a regular penetration at most. No more overmatching weak armour/hull sections and then smashing through the citadel armour layer next to it. If you overmatch something, you get a normal penetration and that's it (unless you overmatch AND overpenetrate).
  • Secondly, make BBs considerably more accurate (yes, you read that right).

 

What would that achieve?

A more skill-dependant interaction between player and target.

 

I think everyone who's played cruisers for long enough knows how it feels when you see a BB shooting you from 18km, you instantly make a hard turn to dodge and all but one shell miss you ... except that one shell that went nowhere near the BB actually aimed (and where you never where due to the evasive turn) but dispersion put it soo much off-target that it manages to hit you by fluke, overmatches your aft hull and then citadels you.

 

With my proposed change, no more citadels through your arse, just normal pens (still hurts, but not as much). And with BBs being much more accurate, dodhing becomes proportionally more effective, since there's much less shells being guided by RNG dispersion. Shells go where the enemy shot at and if you're not at that point of aim, they miss.

However for BBs that know how to shoot, predict and adjust for such defensive evasions, being more accurate also means landing more shells which should offset the lack of lolpen citadels as you land more consistent regular penetrations. And if your target isn't evading and just straightlining, being more accurate also means you can punish such inattentive gameplay more consistently (no more perfectly broadside targets only to see all your shells splash perfectly around the target cuz RNG said nope).

 

In addition, it would allow to roll back the change of dropping battleship citadels like the Iowa's/Montana's (which had been lowered because Yamato would consistently lolpen citadel them through the bow), since as I said, no more citadels following an overmatch. With (again) raised citadels however, BB players that are carelessly showing their broadside can (and with the better BB accuracy, will) punished just as much as any other broadsiding potato.

 

In short, it would reward competent play (evasive dodging, correct aiming) and punish poor play (showing broadside).

I do very second this, i have enought of times where a ship 3kms away from me ( hapened yesterday in my iowa against a des moine at 3.2 kms) where i aim at their citadel, fire, 7 hits but no citadel, or times where you fire 3-4 salvos at enemy bbs 15 kms away and rng trolls you.

Other things that i would change:

-give the repair party to cruiser from tier 6 onwards, not 9+, so that fuso's and friends won't nuke you every time, 

-delete the radar consumable, I might be an old tipe of wows player ( very active in alpha end beta) and imho this consumable breaks the game for dd, especially if on BBs, even if it last 20-25 secs, a 99.2 kms aura is just too much and it helps too much unaware bbs player.

-give more power to tier -6-7-8 carriers so that there is more chance that more bb player will learn to move their asses the hard way but at the mean time give more meaning to cruiser to stay close the bbs ( so improving teamplay, lke it was back in alpha-beta)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TS1]
Players
467 posts
7,152 battles
10 hours ago, Flavio1997 said:

-give the repair party to cruiser from tier 6 onwards, not 9+, so that fuso's and friends won't nuke you every time,

I don't think heals help that much against being nuked. If you die in one or two salvos your heals won't have much effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRKEN]
Beta Tester
3,552 posts
8,863 battles
On 3/28/2018 at 5:22 AM, RAMJB said:

Lots of ideas that won't work because they won't do anything about the spawn "sniping" BBs, while overpowering a class that might have a very high skill floor (it demands quite a bit of skill to do well in it) but also an extremely high skill ceiling (in very good hands a cruiser is actually more dangerous than a BB because it's a much more balanced combination of maneuverability and DPM/DoT firepower).

Problem is really that of those Balless Boats using cruisers and destroyers as meat shields.

Trying to make cruisers more 1 vs 1 face off against battleship capable could easily lead them becoming very OP.

With slow reload battleship is easily at mercy of RNG trolling.

 

And especially slow USN BBs could become very vulnerable to charging torpedo equipped cruiser...

Unless BB had more consistency in landing shots at actual aiming point.

 

Though less dispersion/RNG would likely make battleships stronger against destroyers.

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Runegrem said:

I don't think heals help that much against being nuked. If you die in one or two salvos your heals won't have much effect.

Yep, dead ship doesn't benefit from heal.

And neither is citadel hit damage healable.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BGNAV]
Players
741 posts
13,827 battles

@Captain_LOZFFVII  i picked the 3rd option. "You're ideas sux!".

(Lol Noob! - in wows community we use "potato")

 

- BBs needs their heal charges(not lolheal) to tank and survive, otherwise BBs will run more from HE shells than from torps.

- CAs extra charge of heal for CAs smells more like buffedCAMPINGmeta.

- CAs @TX needs more rudder shift ( they need the stats of T8 CA for rudder ). That will be enough to buff their survivability.

 

and just 1 friendly suggestion.

pls get few hundred battles in each Class at hiTiers(T9+) before posting balance threads ;)

 

@EsaTuunanen  http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Consumables#Repair_Party for CA/Ls cit.dmg heal is 33% - 50%

unfortunately u cant know that, after more than 85% of ur battles are in T5 DD

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Players
2,835 posts
4,162 battles

Neither, because there is no need for drastic rebalancing.

 

The second idea, there are enough different cruiser lines now for a player to pick the one that best suits their style without adding pointless and potentially game-breaking customisation options to all of them.

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.

×