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

The Battleship Plague 2 - Broken by Design

104 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,023 posts
13,569 battles

There was a time where other classes pervaded the games in numbers that were simply too large to manage. Carriers and destroyers both have had their day of dominance. There are things that pervade the class, the developers, and the community at large that makes it so that battleships are such a problem where carriers and destroyers never were.

Yamato.jpg

 

The Battleship Class

The problem with battleships has escalated to the point where event the most virulent defendants of the status quo can't even pretend that there isn't a problem anymore. Admittedly this was like waiting until we have to start rowing to work before we start cutting down on coal power plants, but progress is progress. Wargaming's slow and iterative changes to the class could most charitably be seen as a way to not cause the class collapse formerly seen in the carrier class and uncharitably seen as the development team having some perverse sexual attraction to battleships (glass houses, I know) but the change is welcome regardless. Carriers and battleships both can be played without employing different tactical considerations depending on targets and both essentially exist outside of the hard counter system that means that most cruisers are incredibly weak towards battleships and that destroyers are incredibly weak towards cruisers but that battleships aren't particularly weak towards destroyers. Even in the context of 'anti-battleship' cruiser lines like the French or Russians, the damage that the cruiser does to the battleship could be returned with interest with just a few lucky shots should the circumstances conspire towards it and the same could be said about carriers if the matchmaker was particularly vindictive that day. Many similar issues exists as, depending on the game circumstance, explicitly AA based cruisers could be ripped to pieces by carriers. There is a battleship plague problem however and not a carrier plague. Whilst this could simply be traced back to the fact that battleships are easy to play whilst carriers aren't, the problem is often more difficult than that and solving the issue by introducing artificial difficulty to the battleship class as an equivalent to the lags and UI errors of the CV class will fail to address the core of the issue. By making the interclass interaction more similar to that between carriers, destroyers and the other classes, battleships would be able to be brought in line. Whether or not this is desirable however is another matter.
 

Currently, Wargaming's approach to re-balancing battleships is very much focused on how battleships interact with the other classes. The spotter plane nerf meant that they did not have the 5 minute resistance to torpedoes that the twin catapult fighters once offered. The changes to smoke mechanics meant that they would not be able to ambush cruisers and destroyers as easily. Among the changes closest to the top of the priority list was the ability of battleships to cause catastrophic damage to destroyers and their ability to use just one ammunition type for close to any circumstance. War Gaming has also stated that they objected to the excessive survivability of battleships. The issue has been raised multiple times and the changes that are being made are slow but there. This might be controversial but I do not see the ability for battleships to one-shot destroyers, never have to switch ammunition type, or even survive better than the other classes as the primary cause of the problem we see. I think the remaining issue with battleships can't be solved by changing the ways that battleships interact with other classes as much as it would likely need to come down to the options that other ships have in dealing with battleships. Whilst this may sound pedantic, it very much is and I don't know why you thought it was possible to read something written by me that doesn't collapse into pedantic arguments over terms that ultimately just ends with me declaring victory over whoever I was arguing with despite the fact that everyone who gets stuck in an internet argument has already lost. Anyways, on to the main topic.

Spoiler

temp.png

One Shell Type to Rule Them All

Very much is made of the fact that Battleships can simply keep firing one shell type and kill just about anything. Battleship AP is typically of such caliber that it could simply overmatch anything that isn't another battleship, devastating cruisers and destroyers alike. Wargaming has stated that they see this as an issue with destroyers as they are devastated by battleship shells that simply overmatch them at any angle and cause catastrophic damage. It is understandable why people feel that this is such an issue. When under fire from AP shells not from a battleship, the armor is typically thick enough that damage is significantly mitigated by heavily maneuvering. Battleship shells on the other hand typically only require one or two lucky shots to essentially cripple an equivalent cruiser or destroyer. Whilst this has been a point of fixation for a while, I can't help but feel like focusing on AP shell damage from battleship in a vacuum is something of a mistake. Battleship AP and overmatch mechanics is indeed a large strength of the battleship class and removing it from the class would weaken its relative strength, but I believe that the problems we see with the battleship right now is largely down to an issue of game design and making this change may not, in the long run, actually change anything.

 

Battleships naturally have low DPM which they compensate for with more punch in the firepower that they do have. Many of the same complaints that could be levied towards battleships could and have been levied towards carriers. They both have a standard tactic that they could use to deal with any ship with exceptions. They both have attack vectors that can't be resisted using conventional methods employed by other classes among other differences. The difference however is that the battleship problem is far larger than the carrier one ever was. Even at their worst hour, it was rare to see more than three carriers in a single match. In present day, it is rare to not see at least five battleships in every single battle. The disparity between the two could be attributed to many things but I have a hypothesis regarding the fundamental difference between the battleship, carrier, and even the torpedo destroyer that fundamentally means that the game doesn't suffer from a carrier or even a destroyer plague the same way that we are suffering from the battleship plague. I can't help but see such discussions as distractions however. There was a change a fair bit of time ago that was universally opposed when first proposed but was occasionally brought in later when discussing battleships. The change was to make it so that the bows and sterns of battleships were to be weakened to the point where they could be overmatched by other battleship guns. This would increase the vulnerability of battleships to other battleships. The 10k routine damage that battleships do to cruisers and destroyers could therefore also be done to other battleships. The problem with this change is of course that the game's health scaling would mean that the benefits of such a system would be almost entirely superficial. Battleships landing nothing but over penetrations would still be devastating thanks to the health pool scaling in the game and how much such scaling benefits ships with large health pools. 10k is devastating to a destroyer and crippling to a cruiser, but easily manageable for a battleship. Whilst the change may well be desirable for the health of the game, I do not think that it would do enough to change the battleship situation such that it is.

 

 

 

The Lie About the Tank

I think that we have all bought into a lie. Not just us the players, but also Wargaming itself. We have bought into the lie about the tanking battleships. When the ability for battleships to overmatch the bow of other battleships was first introduced, one of the main complaints leveled against this change was that battleships would no longer go forwards and tank. WG appears to have bought that line. The ability to tank was something that both the community and Wargaming are interested in and the unwillingness of battleship players to tank is an often levied complaint. Battleships, the large ships with lots of armor, and health would indeed survive the longest under fire and therefore would be the best tank according to that logic. That is quite frankly backwards and the better a ship is at tanking the worse at tanking they will get in a game like World of Warships. I'll explain.

 

Let's say you're a Shokaku, and you see two ships on either flank. You know for a fact that neither has defensive AA. One is an Ibuki, the other is a full AA Minotaur. Which target do you go after? Wargaming could extol the need for battleships to go forwards and tank all they like and this is a line often repeated by the players at large, but if you see a Kurfurst and a Des Moines coming towards your fleet, everyone knows that all the guns will turn on the Des Moines first. In many online games, it is perfectly valid for more strategically valuable players to be protected by less valuable or more survivable players. This is not possible in World of Warships however. Even when two ships are within a kilometer of each other, it is still perfectly possible to shoot over one and hit the other. If the enemy has even the tiniest sliver of self control and game knowledge, they would never choose to shoot at the 'tanking' ship. This could be seen by what happens every time a Minotaur is spotted. No one wants to shoot at the tough and hard to kill ship, they want to shoot at the squishy health pinata.

 

The game is unlikely to improve unless we entirely abandon the idea of trying to make battleships the tanking class as the simple fact that they are so good at tanking will essentially make it so that they simply can't serve as the tank. The continued insistence in attempting to preserve battleships as the tanking class makes it so that they simply do not fit into the greater scheme of things, giving them survivability that benefits the battleships but none of the other ships on their team. There is no reason to not shoot at the easier target in World of Warships considering how easy it tends to be. In game terms, the only time a battleship is a 'softer' target for a cruiser or battleship than a cruiser is at extreme ranges where cruisers can dodge which just goes further to demonstrate the futility of the tanking class. Damage at extreme ranges might stack up to form big numbers running into the 100k on the damage counter, but even strong 'anti-battleship' cruisers like the Hindenburg aren't truly effective against battleships the same way that something like a Minotaur is effective against a destroyer. The best 'anti-battleship' cruisers are those who are best at outlasting battleships whilst doing mostly inconsequential and easily recoverable damage to targets at such ranges that, if the battleship had the presence of mind, the battleship could simply stop firing and pull away the moment things go south. Battleships can't tank.

 

Long, hard, and full of Stupid

World of Warships wasn't conceived over entirely moronic circumstances. The foundation made sense. Destroyers were small and sneaky and therefore needed fast firing guns to hurt, like the guns on a cruiser. Cruisers were still slippery so needed a bigger punch to take down, like the hits from  a battleships. Battleships are big and clumsy, and therefore would take a lot damage from slow weapons that hit hard like the torpedoes on a destroyer. In practice of course this system entirely breaks down on the destroyer/battleship front. Torpedoes, such that they are, are simply not well implemented in the game considering how agility in the game scales. Any torpedo system that can surprise a battleship with concealment such that it could get a perfect broadside hit would be able to do the exact same thing to a cruiser or a destroyer. There is a limit to how quickly a ship can react, and in the end the higher health pool and better torpedo damage reduction is a far better defense than simple reflexes unless the captain has already anticipated the torpedo attack and taken steps to mitigate the incoming damage. This problem can be seen just about everywhere. Carriers, conceived at first as an anti-battleship measure, is most effective against destroyers. Destroyer torpedoes on the Shimakaze in particular, conceived as an exclusively anti-battleship destroyer, screwed over ships like cruisers and other destroyers because the torpedoes were so fast, so well concealed, and hit so hard that it was a far bigger threat to destroyers and cruisers than it would ever be to a battleship. Size and relatively poor maneuverability is not a weakness in World of Warships the same way the lack of armor and the ability to recover from damage is. Any 'anti battleship' weapon whether it be a Midway of the old Shimakaze serves as a weapon that excels at killing just about anything. When people complain about battleships having no weaknesses, that is where their sentiments are often born from.

Carriers, destroyers & the Problem of Choice

Wargaming largely depends on the classes to balance each other and this has led to endless grief for everyone involved. Apart from battleships. Obviously. Destroyers, battleships, and carriers all depart from the general template and have benefits that are essentially technically exclusive to them. At their worst, the game degraded into cheese tactics beyond comparison. The Shimakaze's wall of death is remembered to this day, the wall that dooms even the most agile of destroyers and covered the maps from border to border. Then of course there was the Hakuryuu with her quintuple Kamikaze attack, the name not coming from the fact that you could use her planes to commit suicide against enemy ships as much as from the fact that her torpedo bombers carried the payload of five Kamikaze class destroyers. There were various eventual nerfs to those ships, but even whilst it lasted they were not nearly as ubiquitous as battleships are as a class in the present day and that is largely due to the fact that conditional population control mechanics are built into the game to manage the numbers of carriers and destroyers in such a way that battleships simply aren't.

Spoiler

temp.png

Fighting a War Blind

When you pick a ship and hit 'battle', you have no idea whether or not you will be the one top tiered ship or whether you will be thrown in a middle of a battle where one lapse of concentration will cost you your ship. If you have no knowledge of the game's composition whatsoever, it is basically entirely random whether or not your ship's consumables, upgrades, and captain skills are built for the battle you're about to fight. None of this is helped by the fact that you will be required to build a single setup that you will need to keep with. As such, you need to build your ship carefully to make sure that you take advantage of the minute details of the battle. You could make yourself essentially immune to torpedo attacks by stacking torpedo acquisition traits. If carriers are suddenly in fashion then there's two AA upgrades and 3 AA captain skills for you to pick if you don't want to see a plane that isn't falling towards the ocean the moment it sees you. The base ships aren't able to deal with the unique weapon systems of battleships, destroyers, or carriers very well but with some modifications just about every ship could be turned into a fortress essentially entirely immune to plane and torpedo attacks. Not battleships however, there is no way that a captain can make a ship any more meaningfully resilient against battleships.

 

The modification system, something that I want to criticize in the future, is a problem for the game. A problem it does address however is that it allows players to, more or less, stick with the ships and play style they like and compensate for the weakness that they as players and ships suffer from. By modifying the ship, it becomes possible to entirely negate the effectiveness of carriers and destroyers. Almost any high tiered ship could be built to negate carriers as can be attested to by any carrier who tried to attack a 'low AA' cruiser like an Ibuki or Zao. Every cruiser can be built to deal with torpedo destroyers, especially the Hindenburgs with a heavy hydroacoustic build. Like everything else however, battleships remain untouched. If you think you'd be fighting a lot of destroyers, cruisers or carriers, there are things you can do about it. There are plenty of skills and upgrades to negate the effectiveness of fires, floods, planes, and torpedoes. If you'll be fighting against a lot of enemy battleships, there's very little you can do to negate the effectiveness of battleships. You can't tack on a few dozen more millimeters of armor to your cruisers to prevent overmatching. You can't build your destroyers with a special upgrade that adds a +4 to overcome flooding resistance against large ships. You can't build your carrier with a +50% trait bonus on attack rolls against chaotic stupid straight line sailing enemies. As a baseline, all ships struggle in one way or another to deal with the specialist classes. With ship and captain modifiers, the only class that the meta can't evolve to naturally eliminate is the battleship. The skill system will untimately weed out any issues with destroyers and carriers if they grow numerous enough to heavily invest into their countermeasures, but measures for this do not exist for battleships.

 

Oil Over Fire

There are, of course, things that can be done to survive battleships. Most of them however exacerbates rather than mollifies the issue. A carrier is essentially out of the question due to the fact that battleships in large numbers, are nearly immune to a proper smiting from a carrier. Torpedo destroyers suffers from an even worse problem. A torpedo destroyer might theoretically be a good countermeasure to deal with battleships which in theory would evolve a meta where battleship numbers would be culled. This would never actually happen of course due to the way destroyer works. The more torpedo destroyers are around, the less effective each destroyer becomes. A map swarming with destroyers in fact benefits battleships in that the enemy destroyers would be spotted far more often and they could take the proper precautions and take potshots at the destroyers for massive damage and XP. If you want to survive carriers, you build a full AA cruiser or battleship. If you want to survive torpedo destroyers, you stack acquisition traits and mount hydroacoustic search and radar. If you want to deal with long ranged HE spamming cruisers, you get a closed range ship with insane DPM. If you want to survive a battleship, you play another battleship or carriers, but no one plays carriers. The game is built such that pressure is relieved when players tactically choose to be risk averse. This may not be an issue on a game by game basis, but over hundreds and thousands of games the players change and evolve with the meta that perpetually preserves the dominance of battleships. Wargaming appears to be unwilling to introduce upgrades and captain skills that would improve the ship's performance against the weapons deployed by battleships which ultimately will mean that battleship numbers will never naturally fall the way that destroyer and carrier numbers once did.

 

The Lesson No One Learned

Battleship players, more so than players of any other ship class, are fundamentally selfish and are encouraged to be selfish thanks to the game mechanics. This might not be a revelation to most, but the selfishness of the battleship and the way that game mechanics works makes it so that it promotes battleships. For those unfamiliar with game theory, it could be best simplified as a way to predict the actions of selfish and perfectly rational agents. Humans aren't perfectly rational, but over a large amount of time and with the smallest level of self awareness the actions of even an online game like World of Warships could be approximated as rational. Players can observe their own results and apply what they've learn, and so players will slowly move towards the state of maximum profit for minimum effort. Players without the imagination to do this could always just copy the tactic of players that do. When discussing the balance between battleships and other classes, the topic does often steer towards the things that other classes outdo battleship in. Destroyers are far stealthier than battleships, could go the entire game without being spotted, and could carry games on literally 1 point of HP. Cruisers have significantly better DPM, tools like radar, defensive fire, hydroacoustics, smoke screens, and a plethora of other things that could be employed for the team's benefit. Carriers have unparalleled reconnaissance abilities and the ability to herd the entire enemy fleet. Next to all of that, it may superficially seem like better armor and more health would be a small thing. This however is just an obfuscation of the issue.

Spoiler

As players, we are ultimately selfish. If we could get the benefits without paying any of the price, we would. Cruisers and destroyers have massive tactical utility baring some, their ability to spot enemies, conceal allies, and entirely defend against air strikes makes them an asset for the team. They pay for it with their health pool and their armor, but relatively speaking their strengths benefits the entire team whereas the strength of a battleship benefits only themselves. On technical terms, cruisers, destroyers, and carriers wields far more strength than battleships on a technical level. I think this is where we all made the largest mistake. Wargaming's changes addresses the relative strength of battleships i.e. their ability to spot destroyers and torpedoes or their ability to null air attacks. I can't help but conclude that this will do nothing to address the battleship plague.

 

When you spot torpedoes, your entire team sees the torpedoes. When you spot ships, the entire team will at least see those ships on the minimap. Carriers, cruisers, and destroyers tend to be able to protect themselves from threats far better than battleships can in a lot of circumstances. The problem however is that those three classes shares their benefits with the entire team. The protections that cruisers and destroyers get is shared and so battleships benefit from the protections that cruisers and destroyers get. The protection that battleships get is entirely selfish which means that no one but the battleship benefits. Even the most cursory analysis of the problem using game theory will tell us that battleships are so much more common than cruisers, destroyers, and carriers. A player who plays a destroyer, cruiser, or carrier is an asset to the entire team. A player who plays battleships benefits from all of the above and their own private advantages as well. When playing a game blind, it simply makes more sense to pick a battleship. For most players and considering how the game manages rewards, it doesn't really matter who spots targets and torpedoes or scatters air strikes as much as it is necessary that someone does it. The game is built in such a way that cruisers and destroyers tend to mechanically be more altruistic than battleships, but altruism in an entirely random group never benefits the agent and rational agent will need to maximize the profit. It is necessary that the destroyer spots enemy ships and that AA cruisers shoots down the planes, it is not necessary for the player to occupy those roles especially if the player can't mechanically perform those roles regardless because they suck at the game. Battleships benefit from cruisers and destroyers without ever having to share any of their weaknesses or fragility which results in battleships being far more attractive to most players than cruisers or destroyers. When battleships get to reap the benefits of all the other classes, it is little wonder that most prefer them. Players who pick ships that are mechanically best for the team are rare compared to players who plays entirely selfishly and then blames the team they essentially abandoned for their failings.

 

Tweaks will not change this. It doesn't matter if WG makes it so that battleship planes have a 20 second duration or that the acquisition consumables are entirely purged from every battleship line. The strategic benefits of utilizing cruisers, destroyers, and carriers effectively is something that mostly appeals to players who have quite good command of the game mechanics already. The changes Wargaming is making is such that they are tweaking the technical strength of the classes without addressing the fact that the mechanics that governs agents who want to maximize profit fundamentally rewards the selfish behavior. Whilst nerfs to battleships might seem like the correct way to go, the role they occupy in the game means that players would never willingly abandon the class in large numbers. Wargaming's job is not easy here. The entire game's mechanics conspires against them. This is not something that could be addressed simply without collapsing the game. One thing is to be sure though: tiny and inconsequential changes like what we have seen recently will do nothing to treat the battleship plague.

I would like to make one last note. When I look at battleships, I can't help but see the very worst parts of carrier gameplay back when full strike carriers were still a thing. Facing another full strike carrier is rare, but when it happens it was quite memorable. I grinded through the Lexington in full strike configuration back when she still had that. I faced another strike Lexington on Northern Lights one battle. We all but ignored each other, flying our bombers past each other to bomb the enemy into oblivion. It was a constant damage race and that game I won by a sliver. If I had lost that match, I would likely have blamed the team for their failings and posted a screenshot online so I could have a laugh about it. I managed 170k that match in a tier X game but I did essentially nothing to protect the team from the enemy. I didn't scout in order to maximize my cycle time and I didn't communicate with the allied team whatsoever. When writing this, I couldn't help but think back to what I did back then and how much it reminded me of the things I wrote here. Battleships reaped the benefits of cruisers, destroyers, and carriers. I reaped the benefit of my team staying in between the enemy and myself and used them as an expendable shield to farm damage. The game is ultimately selfish and comes down to how much players can personally get from the game and changing a few values on a few ships will not change that.

  • Cool 15
  • Boring 5
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
1,388 posts
9,577 battles
26 minutes ago, aboomination said:

31b3202bf7cffcb8bdf445bcf388c716.png

 

 

Lemme try tl dr...

 

Bbs are most retarded class in the game.. esp brtish ones.

 

 

Do I understand problem?

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,558 posts
9,082 battles

Part of the problem is the extreme min-max nature of dealing damage with shells, combined with the hyper inflation of alpha damage.

Aim poorly, or have bad luck? You deal poor damage and you don't see BBs as being problematic.
Aim well and survive long enough to mitigate the bad luck rolls, and you just super murder anything that isn't out of your range. 

 

Then you tack on increasing survivablity, more and more concealment, min-max AA values where you go from having pratically no AA to being AA doom bastions from one ship to another, sometimes within the same damn branch (Bretagne having the AA of a T6 ship, and Normandie of a T4, wut?), and basically everything else, you realize that there isn't a single thing wrong with BBs.
No.

 

It's everything that's wrong. And not with just BBs, but as a whole.

Every mechanic has turned into a tangled, min-max Gordian knot of a situation where you can't touch a single thing without ****ing over one class harder than the intended receiving class of said change.

Perfect example: IFHE. I loathe that skill. At mid tiers, CLs are simply superior to CAs when dealing with anything that isn't an unangled target at just the right range for 203mm guns to citpen, but not 152mm.

I've seen quite a few BBs prefering to fire at my Atlanta unspotted behind an island rather than a very spotted CA closer to them. 

 

 

So just like the Gordian knot, there is no way to disentangle it. WG just needs to grab that proverbial sword and cut the bad boy in half in order to be the master of Asia complete rebalance the game from the ground up.

Anything else is just building on a half finished Jenga game-type fondation.

But since it's taken them years to even get started on a CV rework (#2016YearOfTheCV), I'm not holding my breath.

 

After all, it's WG, and we all know who their patch sponsors are...

Spoiler

61c1g+Huo7L._SL1000_.jpg

 

31Z8GQR+vXL._SX466_.jpg

 

"DDs still too strong at stealth torp'ing and receiving top kek double regular pens from a single shell? Time to whip out Stanley and Johnson&Johnson" -WG balance team 

 

 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,448 posts
7,226 battles
51 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

Battleships naturally have low DPM

I see this claim repeated from time to time, lets compare a few to see how true it is:

 

IJN (AP)

 

Tier Ship (BB) DPM DPM Ship (CA)
7 Nagato 191,520 202,100 Myoko
8 Amagi 252,000 188,000 Mogami (203)
9 Izumo 232,200 188,000 Ibuki
10 Yamato 266,400 285,120 Zao

 

USN (AP)

 

Tier Ship (BB) DPM DPM Ship (CA)
7 Colorado 198,400 184,000 Pensacola
8 Nor. Car. 235,800 207,000 New Orleans
9 Iowa 243,000 270,000 Baltimore
10 Montana 324,000 490,500 Des Moines

 

And WoWs numbers has just gone down so that's your lot.

 

No clear advantage either way for the IJN, for the USN Baltimore gets a small lead with the top guns (Iowa gets her DPM as stock), only DM has a noticable DPM lead.

 

All of the above of couse ignores the substantial advantage BB have in deploying their DPM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRKEN]
Beta Tester
3,552 posts
8,863 battles
25 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

Every mechanic has turned into a tangled, min-max Gordian knot of a situation where you can't touch a single thing without ****ing over one class harder than the intended receiving class of said change.

Perfect example: IFHE. I loathe that skill. At mid tiers, CLs are simply superior to CAs when dealing with anything that isn't an unangled target at just the right range for 203mm guns to citpen, but not 152mm.

 

 

 

After all, it's WG, and we all know who their patch sponsors are...

  Hide contents

61c1g+Huo7L._SL1000_.jpg

 

31Z8GQR+vXL._SX466_.jpg

"DDs still too strong at stealth torp'ing and receiving top kek double regular pens from a single shell? Time to whip out Stanley and Johnson&Johnson" -WG balance team 

 

Yeah, IFHE really f*cks all over so many heavy cruisers, whose penetration is balanced by slower rate of fire, by giving CLs same penetration.

Including some smoke campers, who can even do their own spotting from smoke.

And then attempts to control smoke firing basically affected the least the ships which are the strongest in it.

 

Another example is attempts to make counters for rear camping BBs doing least to counter those rear hiding BBs, but hitting even heavier all ships actually trying to get into battle.

 

 

 

But wasn't this how game's balancing is done?

Spoiler

 

There are even those "We gotta gather more data/statistics" observers in there...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CPC]
[CPC]
Quality Poster
2,078 posts
3,751 battles

I still cant understand why WG didn't nerf the concealment of high tier BBs ...

 

In a class-based game, the tank class can't be allowed to be as stealthy as other classes ...

 

WG should forbid stealth builds for BBs (by making CE less good on BB than on other ships, and maybe removing stealth upgrade to this class), and nerf the rrange of some BBs.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RNG4]
Beta Tester
1,568 posts
1 hour ago, aboomination said:

31b3202bf7cffcb8bdf445bcf388c716.png

To be fair, I enjoy reading his threads much more than other wall of texts' by other people... And it is much better than the occasional "Meh, [insert ship class] is OP and everyone who thinks otherwise can go f* himself." rants.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester
1,110 posts
11,251 battles

One reason why class balance does not work? Because Rock-Paper-Scissors does not work as soon as order of battle comes into play!

 

While a lone Kamikaze *is* a perfect counter to any lone battleship this is a scenario that does not happen overly often, especially at higher tiers.

  • BB's hard counter CA/CL's up to 15km, and are somewhat able to counter CA/CL's up to maximum shooting range (20km+). Also BB's are able to counter DD's at ranges in between 6km and 15km, depending on spotting (the greater the distance the less reliable of course).
  • CA/CL's hard counter DD's at distances of 10km or less (if spotted), and are somewhat able to counter DD's at ranges up to 15km. Also CA/CL's are somewhat able to counter BB's at ranges of 15km+ (i.e. ranges that many CA/CL's simply do not have).
  • DD's hard counter BB's in between 4km and 8km (effective torpedo range), and are somewhat able to counter BB's at ranges up to 16km (max torpedo range). Also DD's are somewhat able to counter CA/CL's at ranges in between 6km and 12km (depending on hydro vs radar).

Now keeping in mind the above distances (even if they do not account for every single ship and/or might not be 100% accurate) and given the natural order of battle (BB>CA>DD) this means that a DD is only a hard counter to a BB if there is absolutely *no* enemy DD or CA in between the DD and the BB and there is no CV in play.

 

And even if there are no DD or CA in between the DD and its prey, and also no CV planes around, any decent BB player that has an idea that an enemy DD may be approaching (hello free Situational Awareness skill) can simply turn tail and run, greatly mitigating the chances of devastating damage. Often enough we see the side that loses their DD(s) in the initial clash retreat from cap (and rightly so), rendering the "winning" DD's useless as a damage dealer.

 

Regarding DD vs BB balance there are simply too much restrictions for a class that is meant as a direct counter to another class.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
765 posts
4,326 battles

Edit 1: Lemme read it again textwall bit long, would help if key sentences were bold. +1 for effort.

Edit 2: Need to make notes while reading because text so long-winded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,448 posts
7,226 battles

Thought I'd share this with you:

 

image.thumb.png.474901aaf5f4d442d54a5ac4beb0d66d.png

 

Source is MapleSyrup, I've copied all data since the end of 2015 into a spreadsheet then used a pivot table to analyze.

 

T8 is the biggest problem tier for BB in my opinion and has been for a very long time, consistently above 40% since the end of 2015, the exception in early 2016 presumably being linked to the dual release of the KM/VMF cruisers.  The launch of the KM BB actually had minimal impact on overall BB numbers, players simply switched from IJN/USN into KM

  • Cool 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
765 posts
4,326 battles

TL:DR

yes your are not dreaming I am actually writing a tl;dr

 

- BBs have universal ammo.

- BBs too easy to play.

- BBs reward selfish behaviour, they have a lower learning curve than other ship classes and take on less responsibilities in-game.

- BBs have no hard counters in other ship customization or equipment, unlike other ship clssses.

- BBs become a self-reinforcing problem as more and more people rush to play them and more and more people have to play them to counter them.

- Other ships are more universally appealing targets than BBs, and -

- Anti-BB counters are too effective in general against other ship classes as well.

- “Tactics” is a mute argument as it is observed game will degrade to simplest and most cost-efficient, “secure” playstyles.

 

End. The illustrations were appreaciated but I was sort of looking for the regular fix of humour in them ;< Though from an artistic standpoint they do sort of represent the mood and outlook of authors’ perception to the BB problem.

 

Anyways. Some ideas to help fix the issue of BBs and things, some of which I may have posted on forums before: (overarching changes of balance to the game may be required in some cases)

 

1. Tierpoint system. Balance via MM and scoring. BBs cost more.

2. Map zones design. Shallows only crossable by DDs and some cruisers. Adjust spawn points so some are only available to non-BB.

3. Larger teams, and larger maps. More players offset and magnify the inherent tactical disadvantage of BBs, and lesser ships can hide in wolfpacks to preserve self. This lessens BB appeal.

4. “Fleet compositions”. Semi-historical, semi-realistic, semi-authentic team composition, which if paired with tierpoint system, allows better control of game balance.

5. More game modes. Example: seperation of scouting phase and reinforcement phase. Cater to other ship types more. Some roles only playable if other ship types. More game modes less beneficial to BBs.

 

Thats quite a bit already for now so I’ll stop.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


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

- Anti-BB counters are too effective in general against other ship classes as well.

Really more like that anti-BB counters are even more effective against other classes.

Deep water torps unable to hit DDs are only exception...

And even those those punish mostly cruisers and battleships actually taking part into battle and not those hiding at max range.

So we're back to those BBs using others as meatshield faring better...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
1,650 posts
14,463 battles

Hi Guys and what then happens to us 'not so selfish' BB players who get left hung out to dry as soon as we push up to support Cruisers/DD's who 'miraculously' melt away to the rear as soon as the BB gets into a position to help them out?

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester, Players
628 posts
11,971 battles

WG said that the RN was suppose to be a BB counter..... with all the HE and shite ... but the problem is that HE is good Vs. all.... 

Im thinking:  If you have a counter like the RN why not make its HE/AP give less damage to Cruisers, DD and CVs .... since counter to BBs ... (I only care about balance) and then balance ships/classes this way ?

 

 

mang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-DSA-]
Players
2,657 posts
7,832 battles

Interaction between BBs and the other classes does not work because BBs are not tanky enough. The best BB-counter is another BB; if the majority of BB drivers would push forward right from the start, they would kill each other in epic fights. However, as most inexperienced players once got killed quickly while playing too aggressively, they start camping. And because it is quite hard to deliver damage to other BBs at high range, they start shooting at more "juicy" targets, cruisers for example. This is why Wargaming introduced BBs with good HE: to give them a reliable source of damage even at large distances. What feeds the BB-camping meta even more.

 

BBs are still quite ok at low tiers. Look how these ships are different to higher tier ships, and you can see how you would have to change BBs in general to restore the class balance. Problem is that these lowtier BBs are mostly unliked by the playerbase because they are "inconvenient" to play.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester, Players
628 posts
11,971 battles
22 minutes ago, cherry2blost said:

Hi Guys and what then happens to us 'not so selfish' BB players who get left hung out to dry as soon as we push up to support Cruisers/DD's who 'miraculously' melt away to the rear as soon as the BB gets into a position to help them out?

Youll get a big Dragon Dildo up your arse and a massive bill when back in port. (I play BBs mostly like you)

 

mang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,558 posts
9,082 battles
3 minutes ago, Oely001 said:

Interaction between BBs and the other classes does not work because BBs are not tanky enough. The best BB-counter is another BB; if the majority of BB drivers would push forward right from the start, they would kill each other in epic fights. However, as most inexperienced Players once got killed quickly while playing too aggressively, they start camping. And because it is quite hard to deliver damage to other BBs at high range, they start shooting more "juicy" targets, cruisers for example. This is why Wargaming introduced BBs with good HE: to give them a reliable source of damage even at large distances. What feeds the BB-Camping meta even more.

 

BBs are still quite ok at low tiers. look how these ships are different to higher tier ships, and you can see how you would have to change BBs in general to restore the class balance. Problem is that These lowtier BBs are mostly unliked by the playerbase because they are "inconvenient" to play.

 

 

If all BBs turned into German style bull**** "OM NOM NOM HE SHELLS LOL" damage tanks, I would leave the game instantly.

So to turn them into even bigger tanks?

Nope.
Non.
Niet.
Nej.


 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-DSA-]
Players
2,657 posts
7,832 battles
7 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

So to turn them into even bigger tanks?

Nope.
Non.
Niet.
Nej.

 

 

Give BBs better hull plating but nerf their concealment. That bad deal for cruisers?

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,558 posts
9,082 battles
1 minute ago, Oely001 said:

 

Give BBs better hull plating but nerf their concealment. That bad deal for cruisers?

 

Congratulations, you've just turned BBs into machines that are basically invulnerable to CAs and gunboat DDs.

This is good for the game how?
This is a prime example of min-max bull**** that is ruining the game.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-FC-]
Weekend Tester
109 posts
6,528 battles
14 minutes ago, Oely001 said:

Interaction between BBs and the other classes does not work because BBs are not tanky enough. The best BB-counter is another BB; if the majority of BB drivers would push forward right from the start, they would kill each other in epic fights. However, as most inexperienced players once got killed quickly while playing too aggressively, they start camping. And because it is quite hard to deliver damage to other BBs at high range, they start shooting at more "juicy" targets, cruisers for example. This is why Wargaming introduced BBs with good HE: to give them a reliable source of damage even at large distances. What feeds the BB-Camping meta even more.

 

BBs are still quite ok at low tiers. Look how these ships are different to higher tier ships, and you can see how you would have to change BBs in general to restore the class balance. Problem is that these lowtier BBs are mostly unliked by the playerbase because they are "inconvenient" to play.


You are making the same error that most players make. The best counter to a battleship is a destroyer. The best counter to a destroyer is a cruiser. The best counter to a cruiser is a battleships. This is how the game is designed, and it is how roles should be divided in battles. (There are a few exceptions due to ship limitations, but those are very limited in numbers). Cruisers shooting battleships instead of hunting destroyers, often don't contribute positively to the match, as it takes them too long to kill one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,662 posts
13,098 battles
1 hour ago, cherry2blost said:

Hi Guys and what then happens to us 'not so selfish' BB players who get left hung out to dry as soon as we push up to support Cruisers/DD's who 'miraculously' melt away to the rear as soon as the BB gets into a position to help them out?

 

Tanking for your team doesn't work on a fundamental level as is written in the opening post, thus you should always have an exit strategy. Being focus fired by your enemy in a BB is usually precisely because your cruisers and DDs have chosen to retreat.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
765 posts
4,326 battles
39 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Tanking for your team doesn't work on a fundamental level as is written in the opening post, thus you should always have an exit strategy. Being focus fired by your enemy in a BB is usually precisely because your cruisers and DDs have chosen to retreat.

That’s why every game in my Yamato I pretend I’m a mega-Des Moines and seek out the most juicy mountain-corner where I can peek out from and rain prejudice against lesser ships with my frontal guns while my fat body is protected in cover. 

 

The actual Des Moines who would have loved that corner can’t use it because I’m squatting on it and yet another BB decided it’s a good idea and squatted behind me as well, so if the Des Moines joined in it’ll be the 3rd ship stacked behind the low cover which is a bit low to cover 3 ships.

 

When I do this I feel I am really contributing to my team and playing my ship to its strengths! :D

 

Now who retreats who? :cap_book:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-DSA-]
Players
2,657 posts
7,832 battles
2 hours ago, Exocet6951 said:

Congratulations, you've just turned BBs into machines that are basically invulnerable to CAs and gunboat DDs.

 

This is because somebody said this game would be designed like rock/paper/scissors...!?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×