Jump to content
Sparcie

Battleships not playing well on test server

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
460 posts
8,295 battles

Hi Guys,

 

Can't say I'm real impressed with the BB gameplay on the test server. Can't even citadel a cruiser at less than 5km in a Colorado, can't seem to kill cruisers at all. Could partly be the absolutely lousy teamwork on the test server, but what's been happening does not bode well for BB players. I got nuked by three cruisers within the period of one reload (no torpedo hits) it's absolutely ridiculous.

 

Lag to the test server could be a factor (desync a possibility) so perhaps that's why, but if this is a reflection of the future, well BBs will go the way of higher tier CVs. I certainly won't play them. I hope this isn't the end result.

 

On the up side the test version of the game does have less crashing issues. and Destroyers and cruisers do last longer in a fight, but sometimes when they really shouldn't.

 

Anyone else played much on the test server? What do you think?

 

 

Thread locked on OP's request.

 

~amade

Edited by amade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,725 posts

Can't say I'm real impressed with the BB gameplay on the test server. Can't even citadel a cruiser at less than 5km in a Colorado, can't seem to kill cruisers at all. Could partly be the absolutely lousy teamwork on the test server, but what's been happening does not bode well for BB players. I got nuked by three cruisers within the period of one reload (no torpedo hits) it's absolutely ridiculous.

 

There's a re-work on penetration mechanics. Using AP shell of Battleship against Cruiser at 5 kilometers will may or not result to over-penetration, just like how you over-penetrate a destroyer. HE shell at that range will result to citadel hit now, depending on armor though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
460 posts
8,295 battles

They may have overpenned but the cruiser in question would have had decent armour as it was a t7 or t8 (i forget exactly which one it was, I think it was a german cruiser) but certainly not one of your thin skinned CLs. I hit the belt armour bellow the funnel roughly with maybe a little angle. you'd think even an overpen should do critical amounts of damage in that situation. If they did overpen I'd have hit with 6 or 7 of the 8 shells. (about 6-8k damage).

 

It was quite a striking situation, the cruiser sailed straight at me (knowing you have little chance of hitting that profile a target due to RNG) turned at very close range to fire torpedoes, which of course I had held fire waiting for knowing there'd be a broadside to shoot at. Shells did about 6-8k damage at a guess and well of course I got a face full of torpedoes and died. Normally I'd have sunk him, possibly before they launched fish. Think about it, if you can't sink them whilst they're charging at you (cause of dispersion), and you can't sink em when they turn broadside on (cause of overpen or having to use HE) at close range what chance do you have in a BB against a random cruiser?

 

I don't want to judge too much yet because the test server is so far away the ping isn't great (~200-300ms) and desync is quite likely but that doesn't explain the following paragraph. Also you don't have enough people there so you get alot of unfair MM and not many players per battle. Add to that bad teamwork (yes even worse than normal) and it's not so clear.

 

A gearing and the new T8 russian cruiser melted a north carolina with HE in the time it took to fire two salvoes. I haven't played that ship on the current meta, is that reasonable? To be fair I almost sank the cruiser on the second salvo (two citadels and some hits for most of his HP) but didn't quite do enough damage. I was angled and retreating (a montana was coming) no torpedo hits and the enemies had 6 inch guns at the most, how is it fair that they should win that gunnery duel. Other battle ships do significantly less damage (provided you stay angled) than a cruiser and DD firing HE!

 

Funnily I had a go in the south carolina and found it was ok in the few battles I did (managed a top gun :-) ) I played it ages ago so I suspect that the improvement there isn't due to the current patch in testing, but rather a previous change.  The T4 wyoming and Ishizuchi seem ok as does the new york. I couldn't really get a decent test on the new mexico as it always ended up bottom tier. I didn't feel the rudder shift had been nerfed that much up to the new mex, and I could still manage to dodge torpedoes so there's some good news.

 

Again I'm asking have any of you had a go on the test server? please relate your experiences, after all I could just be having stupidly bad luck/RNG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

They may have overpenned but the cruiser in question would have had decent armour as it was a t7 or t8 (i forget exactly which one it was, I think it was a german cruiser)

 

I know right? German cruisers are like Maus tanks in WoT, inpenetrable fortresses, am I right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36
[SMOKE]
Super Tester
274 posts

How the hell do people discuss anything here when the only thing 2 out of 3 supertesters say is dripping with sarcasm and condescending words?

 

Is there any part of what the OP is saying a complaint? Flaming? Whining? He's asking for the experience of others because he isn't sure and thinks its worth discussing. He has merely presented what he thinks, in a congenial manner. What is it with you people? Do you see wolves after the developers or peons who aren't at your level everywhere that you must act like this?

 

Pass it off your posts as jokes if you like, but that's my definition of toxicity.

 

 

On my own part, this motivates me to try the test build out. If AP is ineffective versus certain thickness of armor at closer ranges and requires a switch to HE, it would have a definite impact on BB player habits. I'm concerned how much more complexity it would bring or what the rules are, since there are already many permutations of caliber to armor interactions, and armor protection for different Cruisers vary quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

How the hell do people discuss anything here when the only thing 2 out of 3 supertesters say is dripping with sarcasm and condescending words?

 

Is there any part of what the OP is saying a complaint? Flaming? Whining? He's asking for the experience of others because he isn't sure and thinks its worth discussing. He has merely presented what he thinks, in a congenial manner. What is it with you people? Do you see wolves after the developers or peons who aren't at your level everywhere that you must act like this?

 

Let's see.

Sparcie has the Königsberg, so he should know that german cruisers are pretty much CLs at tier IV and V from playing them.

At the same time his highest ship is tier VII, in which he has a decent number of games and should've atleast met a Yorck (perhaps even a Hipper) once in his playtime,

which isn't difficult to penetrate and sink either.

His own tier VII is also a CA, thus he should be aware that high tier CAs don't have much armor either, especially when taking a look at the readily available

in-game stats.

 

With a battle count three times as high as mine I also expect him not to be bad at WoWS.

Yet....

 

I got nuked by three cruisers within the period of one reload (no torpedo hits) it's absolutely ridiculous.

 

Yeah, because getting butchered in a 1 vs. 3 situation isn't normal...

I guess if it was a Wyoming fighting 3 Karlsruhes the Wyoming would still obliterate all three ships,

but I'm pretty sure that's a very specific situation...

 

It was quite a striking situation, the cruiser sailed straight at me (knowing you have little chance of hitting that profile a target due to RNG)[1] turned at very close range to fire torpedoes, which of course I had held fire waiting for knowing there'd be a broadside to shoot at. Shells did about 6-8k damage at a guess and well of course I got a face full of torpedoes and died.[2] Normally I'd have sunk him, possibly before they launched fish. Think about it, if you can't sink them whilst they're charging at you (cause of dispersion)[3], and you can't sink em when they turn broadside on (cause of overpen or having to use HE)[4] at close range what chance do you have in a BB against a random cruiser?

 

1.) Literally what? All one has to do is compensate by shooting slightly to the left/right and enjoy the hits.

Although I assume RnG is a better reason, because of course it is...

 

2.) Feel free to look up.... Link

 

3.) It's the evil dispersion that makes me hit and miss, it's not my fault for aiming a bit too high/low or too far ahead/behind.

 

4.) It's the game mechanics that make me miss or deal no damage, it's not my fault for aiming at parts of the ship that won't do anything.

 

All of that without providing any useful additional data in form of a replay or actually choosing the best option

of also playing the german cruiser line to see both sides.

 


 

@Supertesters

It may come to your surprise that testers are just regular players.

You may be confusing them with Community Contributors and forum mods.

 

We have a saying over here:

"Wie man in den Wald hineinruft so schallt es heraus."

("The way you yell into the woods, the same way it echoes back.")

And I'll gladly stick to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
802 posts
2,945 battles

I'm REALLY disappointed with the AP on the Tirpitz on the current live server...

 

IT STINKS. A BB does NOT have the luxury of quickly switching ammo types (even with silly 30% time reduction captains skill).

A DD does NOT stay lit long enough for a BB to say, "uhoh a dd, switching to HE, loading, loading loading loadinggggggggggggggggggg, loadinggggggggggggggggg (15 more seconds of this), AND FIRE!".

 

AND BB Captains WERE told in a previous patch that our AP was useless at ranges OVER 20kms, and that we should only use HE. 

 

All I ever get in Tirpitz vs cruiser HE spammer from Hell, or DD invisible torp spammer from Hell, is 1k dmg pens. UGH.

 

And now?. Well next patch, torps spotted in the water range will be closer to your ships, torp spread will be narrower giving more hits to BB hulls, and BB's will turn slower.

 

As if it wasn't bad enough in the current meta. It is a dark time for BB's.

Yesterday my Tirpitz was dive bombed by 2 USN squadrons, despite having all the Captains skills and mods, upgrading my AA ship  skills up to around 45.....AND launching a grade 2 fighter, I got smashed, and 3 fires, loss of modules ensued. From a tier 7 CV....dive bombers are very very powerful. Tier 7-10 garanteed to hit, garanteed fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
802 posts
2,945 battles

How the hell do people discuss anything here when the only thing 2 out of 3 supertesters say is dripping with sarcasm and condescending words?

 

Is there any part of what the OP is saying a complaint? Flaming? Whining? He's asking for the experience of others because he isn't sure and thinks its worth discussing. He has merely presented what he thinks, in a congenial manner. What is it with you people? Do you see wolves after the developers or peons who aren't at your level everywhere that you must act like this?

 

Pass it off your posts as jokes if you like, but that's my definition of toxicity.

 

 

On my own part, this motivates me to try the test build out. If AP is ineffective versus certain thickness of armor at closer ranges and requires a switch to HE, it would have a definite impact on BB player habits. I'm concerned how much more complexity it would bring or what the rules are, since there are already many permutations of caliber to armor interactions, and armor protection for different Cruisers vary quite a bit.

How the hell do people discuss anything here when the only thing 2 out of 3 supertesters say is dripping with sarcasm and condescending words?

 

Is there any part of what the OP is saying a complaint? Flaming? Whining? He's asking for the experience of others because he isn't sure and thinks its worth discussing. He has merely presented what he thinks, in a congenial manner. What is it with you people? Do you see wolves after the developers or peons who aren't at your level everywhere that you must act like this?

 

Pass it off your posts as jokes if you like, but that's my definition of toxicity.

 

 

On my own part, this motivates me to try the test build out. If AP is ineffective versus certain thickness of armor at closer ranges and requires a switch to HE, it would have a definite impact on BB player habits. I'm concerned how much more complexity it would bring or what the rules are, since there are already many permutations of caliber to armor interactions, and armor protection for different Cruisers vary quite a bit.

 

It already ruins the gameplay in current meta for BB's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
460 posts
8,295 battles

I don't have replays enabled on the test client as it's temporary and stuff is subject to change. Why don't you guys just go and try it out for yourselves before commenting. First hand experience is worth more than a replay anyway, especially with replay bugs.

 

Retia, I am well aware the konigsberg is fragile, but it mostly is because it's easy to citadel, with the changes will it be able to pull off a similar tactic? Also it's not even really relevant as it was not a konigsberg (or the close cousin the nurnberg). It was one of the better armoured ships (T7 or up) that would have had about 30-40mm more armour at the point of impact.

 

I got hits that would have normally been citadels, in the belt armour below the funnel near the waterline, now a desync could be the reason for it as it would appear to hit the belt below the funnel when it actually hit further astern/forward. I'm no stranger to shooting cruisers in the citadel, I don't think it's fair to just blame me as if I don't know what I'm doing. This seems to be the go-to statement for people round here... "get gud" is that it?

 

For the cruiser coming straight toward me @ full speed, well I hit him roughly around the funnel with plunging fire for an overpen, the rest of the shells landed on both sides of the ship indicating that my aim was roughly correct. So what do you do, shoot again and pray? Knowing how RNG will affect your shots is part of it, so instead of taking the same shot again and expecting different results I waited for a better shot, I knew he was doing. Had I continued shooting I wouldn't have been loaded when he showed his broadside to launch fish, and I wouldn't have been any more likely to sink the guy had I not held fire for the broadside. I've actually used this tactic before, once in a Fuso against an Aoba pulling the same stunt, except that time the Aobo got sunk (luckily before he could launch fish). You often can sink cruisers trying to make torpedo runs this way. I suspect this issue could be simply lag and desync issues, but it could well be the new meta as well, wouldn't it be nice if someone else could get on there and see if they have the same experience. Just putting it out there.

 

My issue with the HE burning the BB down isn't so much about more than one CA sinking a BB but rather the speed with which they manage to do it. less than 60 seconds is all it took for a gearing and the new russian T8 CA to burn down an North Carolina (from about 90% health), now that's just plain absurd, it's not just unrealistic. lol...the poor montana came all that way and had no BB to shoot at in the end (islands were blocking their shots), the other team members in the area weren't interested in helping (typical). A BB should be able to last longer, the 6 inch shells shouldn't be able to do that much that fast. In reality 6 inch shells barely scratched most BBs, I get that can't be the mechanic in game, but absurdity is not the answer.

 

I don't see why the DD can't be expected to use his torpedoes against a BB, and the CA is supposed to be countered by BBs. I'll ask you this question, why should ships with small calibre guns be able to sink the ship with the heaviest armour so quick and without using torpedoes? What navy or captain in their right mind would want a BB if the armour doesn't really protect them from even 6 inch shells? In fact armour as it stands now seems to protect them against larger calibre guns better than it does the small. This is not just unrealistic, it's absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

I don't have replays enabled on the test client as it's temporary and stuff is subject to change.

Why don't you guys just go and try it out for yourselves before commenting. First hand experience is worth more than a replay anyway, especially with replay bugs.

 

Implying that I'm not on the public test server...

 

It was one of the better armoured ships (T7 or up) that would have had about 30-40mm more armour at the point of impact.

 

"Better armored"

 

I don't think it's fair to just blame me as if I don't know what I'm doing. This seems to be the go-to statement for people round here... "get gud" is that it?

 

Pretty sure that I wrote that I assume you're not bad at the game, lemme check.

With a battle count three times as high as mine I also expect him not to be bad at WoWS.

 

Yeap, it's right there.

There's a different between making bad life choices and generally being bad.

Sailing into a 1v3 is usually a very bad life choice...

 

For the cruiser coming straight toward me @ full speed, well I hit him roughly around the funnel with plunging fire for an overpen, the rest of the shells landed on both sides of the ship indicating that my aim was roughly correct. So what do you do, shoot again and pray? Knowing how RNG will affect your shots is part of it, so instead of taking the same shot again and expecting different results I waited for a better shot, I knew he was doing. Had I continued shooting I wouldn't have been loaded when he showed his broadside to launch fish, and I wouldn't have been any more likely to sink the guy had I not held fire for the broadside. I've actually used this tactic before, once in a Fuso against an Aoba pulling the same stunt, except that time the Aobo got sunk (luckily before he could launch fish). You often can sink cruisers trying to make torpedo runs this way. I suspect this issue could be simply lag and desync issues, but it could well be the new meta as well, wouldn't it be nice if someone else could get on there and see if they have the same experience. Just putting it out there.

 

Why in bacon's name would you ever show your broadside to a cruiser that's not only managed to get close, but also hasn't launched torpedoes yet?

It's suggesting that you had plenty of time to turn to prepare for evasive maneuvers and if the CA caught you off guard, then hurr durr it caught you off guard.

Hence why replays are useful.

 

In reality

 

Welcome to videogames, I prefer balance over realism unless I'm sitting in my pixel Sherman playing Panzer Elite.

 

And what a surprise that a Gearing and a tier VIII CA, both with fast firing guns could easily obliterate a single BB that prolly was too busy aiming

rather than thinking.

Heck, it's the reason the Sims is such a fun vessel, just watch all the tier VIII-IX BBs focus on easy to dodge salvos instead of maybe getting

the bacon out of there and back to their teams.

 

It should be something any BB players learns asap, but for some reason getting constantly perforated and sunk

by St. Louis, Dresden, Phoenix, Omaha and Farragut (and other ships) at lower tiers isn't education enough.

 

I don't see why the DD can't be expected to use his torpedoes against a BB.

 

Might that be because some DDs have great guns, but crappy torpedoes?

Variety and such...

 

What navy or captain in their right mind would want a BB if the armour doesn't really protect them from even 6 inch shells?

 

The same captain that has a battleship with regenerative armor, I guess.

Edited by Retia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
168 posts
5,670 battles

It's pretty tragic imho to have a naval wargame, where 'crossing the T' becomes a disadvantage instead of an advantage.

 

All this pointing bow on to the enemy would quickly end in tears if the game had halfway convincing gunnery accuracy.

And yes, a 6" cruiser (or three) burning down a BB is of course insane.

 

Look at the accounts of the River Plate, the 3 British cruisers couldn't even dispose of an 11" pocket BB. In fact the Brits mostly fared worse and only avoided a complete disaster because of Langsdorff's caution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
460 posts
8,295 battles

You misread... i was waiting for his broadside... not mine.

 

I was thinking, I had plenty of time to think between reloads. Hence why I was retreating, angling and trying to get behind cover, but just didn't have enough time. Again it's not about being beaten, it's the dang speed in which they did it. _Less_ than 60 seconds. You just have no recourse, nothing you can do to survive, if you're lucky you might sink one of the pursuers.

 

Despite you saying you "assume I must be not bad" you come out with a bunch of sarcasm implying that I am, how am I meant to take that? The old get gud argument just stinks.

 

All the high tier DDs have workable torpedoes, even those that don't compare as well to other DDs. The excellent guns are supposed to enable them to shoot other DDs and maybe the odd cruiser rather than being able to burn a BB to the water so fast.

 

The problem here is not only lack of realism but also of balance. Destroyers already have a decent weapon against BBs (torpedoes) and cruisers are supposed to be countered by BBs but clearly aren't.

 

Having your T crossed should be a disaster (like Thingol just stated) but it is an outright advantage in game. Especially as it had such devastating effect when used properly.  My theory is the dispersion oval (it's an oval, watch shell fall from a CV perspective) is in the wrong direction. The azimuth aim of ships was actually pretty decent, it was rather the range which was harder to get right. So when a ship was end on there was more ship to shoot at in the sense that it was easier to pick a range that would hit. Of course as they did more shooting at a ship they'd get more accurate as they adjusted their aim. As it is in game now, well the advantage is shooting at the broadside, as it's the azimuth aim of the turrets that has most of the dispersion, in many cases shots from the same turret veer of in wildly different directions, but they land at largely the same distance from the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

You misread... i was waiting for his broadside... not mine.

 

Again replay, I would assume you're also broadsiding to fire with as many guns as possible... mind you I'm not sure how you managed to get hit by torpedoes from the rear/front...

 

I was thinking, I had plenty of time to think between reloads. Hence why I was retreating, angling and trying to get behind cover, but just didn't have enough time. Again it's not about being beaten, it's the dang speed in which they did it. _Less_ than 60 seconds. You just have no recourse, nothing you can do to survive, if you're lucky you might sink one of the pursuers.

 

Again, without a replay that's literally just: "I did everything I could've done. No really, I promise."

 

Despite you saying you "assume I must be not bad" you come out with a bunch of sarcasm implying that I am, how am I meant to take that? The old get gud argument just stinks.

 

Pro tip for discussions:

Insulting a person is different from insulting a statement, mainly because a statement can't be insulted... just like an action it's not a person.

 

Hence when someone says "You're stupid." it's an insult while when someone says "You did something stupid." isn't.

 

All the high tier DDs have workable torpedoes, even those that don't compare as well to other DDs.

The excellent guns are supposed to enable them to shoot other DDs and maybe the odd cruiser rather than being able to burn a BB to the water so fast.

 

That's also why in WoT all heavy tanks have great armor and are slow, all mediums are fast but lack penetration and armor and all tank destroyers have great guns and either lack mobility or armor, or both.

There's absolutely no in-betweens or oddballs out there.

 

The problem here is not only lack of realism but also of balance.

Destroyers already have a decent weapon against BBs (torpedoes) and cruisers are supposed to be countered by BBs but clearly aren't.

 

I agree that balancing at tier IX and X is aweful... for entirely different reasons mind you.

At the same time trying to come up with hard counters just returns to what I posted above already.

 

Having your T crossed should be a disaster (like Thingol just stated) but it is an outright advantage in game. Especially as it had such devastating effect when used properly.  My theory is the dispersion oval (it's an oval, watch shell fall from a CV perspective) is in the wrong direction. The azimuth aim of ships was actually pretty decent, it was rather the range which was harder to get right. So when a ship was end on there was more ship to shoot at in the sense that it was easier to pick a range that would hit. Of course as they did more shooting at a ship they'd get more accurate as they adjusted their aim. As it is in game now, well the advantage is shooting at the broadside, as it's the azimuth aim of the turrets that has most of the dispersion, in many cases shots from the same turret veer of in wildly different directions, but they land at largely the same distance from the ship.

 

As mentioned before, trying to use real life as part of an argument in a Wargaming title is like arguing that the rocket jump in Quake shouldn't be possible.

WoWS isn't Silent Hunter - Ship Edition -.

It'll never be, because that'll kill the game faster than you can say: "Bacon is tasty!"

 

Meanwhile hitting targets with a BB usually ends up being less RnG and more "Well, that was 500m to far to the left/righ/top/bottom."

Atleast for me... but what do I know, after all I am a banana.

And the only influence I have is over one's potassium intake.

 

HY8jszf.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
460 posts
8,295 battles

Comparing anything WoT to WoWs is frankly silly... two very different types of armoured fighting, not even close. I hate to state the obvious, but warships shouldn't play like tanks. I get that you played lots of WoT, but that isn't relevant when talking about warships, the roles do not match up.

 

asking for a replay now after the fact I didn't have it turned on (in case you wanted some kind of proof?!) is not helpful. I'm sure if I had a replay all you'd be saying is get gud anyway, so why should I bother? I was calling for some experiences from people who have played on the test server. If you're on the test server why don't you play some and tell us about it? I already know what happened in my battle, I wanna know what others are experiencing.

 

Of course I offered an explanation of lag/desync so the lack of sinking that particular cruiser is possibly down to that, hence why I asked others for experience regarding this. When you have some experience to relate instead of sarcasm and insulting behaviour I'll listen. My main beef otherwise is the HE spam being way OP, which many other BB players complain about. Personally I think it harms cruisers to a degree as well, just they have more options for avoiding the spam, so it's not so bad.

 

Every mechanic/situation I've questioned or mentioned you've attempted to blame on me, why the hell wouldn't I think you were insulting me? I tell you a little more, you just come up with more blame. What a crock of passive aggressive BS. Can't I just relate a story without the Spanish inquisition? Perhaps you could play on the test server and relate a story of your own to the contrary.

 

Do some real world tank tactics work in world of tanks? I dunno, never played it much. But crossing the T is a fundamental Naval strategy, so much so that when it happened it was a big deal, it only happened under very specific circumstances. They wouldn't have to compromise the arcadey-ness or make it a sim, just make it function in a fashion that someone acquainted with warships would expect as reasonable. We're not talking about making it a sim, just an arcade like approximation would be great. It'll also kill the game if absurdity like small calibre guns destroying large armoured vessels quickly continues. Would you like it to just be cruisers and destroyers at the higher tiers? cause the same thing that happened to CVs could happen to BBs.

 

RNG makes it harder to hit targets. Fact. It doesn't mean you can't make hits as I'm sure we both manage to do a fair bit of damage, it's something we all have to deal with. Because of the RNG and the way it's implemented it does mean some instances of misses aren't the fault of the person aiming, and due to the shape and design of the RNG having your ship end on to the enemy is an advantage that it shouldn't be. I'm not proposing the removal of RNG but reshaping it so that a known naval strategy works somewhat. They probably should also slightly reduce RNG with each progressive shot (provided the shell splashes can be seen relative to the target) at a ship moving in roughly the same direction and speed, to represent the crew adjusting their aim, but that's not going to happen cause it would probably be too OP or noob friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
575 posts
5,354 battles

it sounds to me that WG is trying to slip in a hidden nerf on the capabilities of BBs to see if it compensates for how effective they've been compared to torpedo spammers missing the mark. I wouldn't put it past them...this is their standard modus operandi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

Comparing anything WoT to WoWs is frankly silly... two very different types of armoured fighting, not even close. I hate to state the obvious, but warships shouldn't play like tanks. I get that you played lots of WoT, but that isn't relevant when talking about warships, the roles do not match up.

 

*Sigh*

This is the point where I usually tell people to take a break from a discussion and come back later.

You're losing sight of what I'm writing and instead interpret what you want to read.

 

That's also why in WoT all heavy tanks have great armor and are slow, all mediums are fast but lack penetration and armor and all tank destroyers have great guns and either lack mobility or armor, or both.

There's absolutely no in-betweens or oddballs out there.

 

Read it again, think about it, then think about it some more...

 

asking for a replay now after the fact I didn't have it turned on (in case you wanted some kind of proof?!) is not helpful.

I'm sure if I had a replay all you'd be saying is get gud anyway, so why should I bother?

 

If you'd post a replay that shows what you did wrong (if you did anything wrong) then surprisingly people would tell you what

you did wrong and how to improve upon it.

As mentioned above, I'd like to tell you that you've hit a point where you read what you want into other people's post instead of reading

them in the context they're written in.

 

If you're on the test server why don't you play some and tell us about it?

 

Probably because it's 0600 and I'm about to arrive at work.

 

My main beef otherwise is the HE spam being way OP, which many other BB players complain about.

Personally I think it harms cruisers to a degree as well, just they have more options for avoiding the spam, so it's not so bad.

 

That must be why I over-commit with my BBs and still manage to get out of the heat again most of the times, damaged, yes, sunk? No.

 

Can't I just relate a story without the Spanish inquisition?

 

Nobody expects the spanish inquisition, our chief weapons are fear, surprise and _______.

 

RNG makes it harder to hit targets. Fact. It doesn't mean you can't make hits as I'm sure we both manage to do a fair bit of damage, it's something we all have to deal with. Because of the RNG and the way it's implemented it does mean some instances of misses aren't the fault of the person aiming,...

 

Missing a couple shots isn't the player's fault, that's RnG being RnG, missing entire salvos is the player miscalculating his shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
460 posts
8,295 battles

Perhaps it's a failure of you to communicate because of the shower of sarcasm in every post.

 

There's no point making comparisons between WoT and WoWs as I'm not really a tanks player, that and you haven't really made any convincing argument that they should be alike in any way.

 

Sure I could post a replay if I played another 100 battles trying to replicate that exact circumstance just for you, but I'd rather hear a bit of others experiences. Maybe its dumb bad luck, maybe the lag/desync is the issue, could even just be me, but we won't find out without hearing others experiences. It seems you have plenty of time to post sarcastic comments, put some of that time into trying it out. I've noted you don't play much BBs normally, it would be interesting to see what a player of other ships thinks. It seems no-one wants to share their stories, could it be because of the torrent of sarcasm when you share something that wasn't anything less than a victory?

 

Just because you can escape the HE spam sometimes doesn't make it a valid mechanic. To put it in tanks terms for you, it would be like a a 50 cal machine gun or light tank 20mm gun destroying a heavy tank, easily, not that I have much experience of WoT to back that up, maybe that happens. Small calibre guns should do little damage to BBs as they aren't the primary weapon that should be used to sink one. Three weapons should counter BBs, large guns (using AP if they can pentrate), torpedoes (both ship and air launched), bombs (dive bombers). Medium sized guns in the 8 inch size should be able to do some damage, but not enough to sink a BB really fast.  As it is now the BB durability against AP works when you angle and aren't being shot by large guns, but with HE it doesn't. The fires HE start are outside of the citadel and should have minimal effect on the ships survivabilty, but instead a fire right at the tip of the bow/stern where nothing critical is at all is capable of sinking your ship. This fire and HE mechanic isn't just broken for the BBs sake, it's wrong for cruisers as well. Couldn't they reduce the damage done depending on location and add some other effects like the loss of launching planes on the CV. Maybe it should affect fire control where smoke affects visibility or reduce AA in that section as the crew fights the fire. Plenty of other options for fire to be relevant. There are plenty of suggestions floating around all with more merit than HE spam as it is now.

 

Missing an entire salvo is not your fault if the shells straddle the target ship. (land on both sides clustered around the target area)  It's perfectly reasonable for this to happen at longer ranges, and is a part of naval warfare of the period. But it shouldn't happen at closer ranges, and largely doesn't except for the poor mikasa. RNG in the close quarters combat doesn't typically cause an outright miss, but will often cause lower damage in the form of shells not hiting the relevant section they were aimed at. Also some elements like speed of the target ship should factor in, stationary ships should be vulnerable


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36
[SMOKE]
Super Tester
274 posts

 

Let's see.

Sparcie has the Königsberg, so he should know that german cruisers are pretty much CLs at tier IV and V from playing them.

At the same time his highest ship is tier VII, in which he has a decent number of games and should've atleast met a Yorck (perhaps even a Hipper) once in his playtime,

which isn't difficult to penetrate and sink either.

His own tier VII is also a CA, thus he should be aware that high tier CAs don't have much armor either, especially when taking a look at the readily available

in-game stats.

 

With a battle count three times as high as mine I also expect him not to be bad at WoWS.

Yet....

 

 

Yeah, because getting butchered in a 1 vs. 3 situation isn't normal...

I guess if it was a Wyoming fighting 3 Karlsruhes the Wyoming would still obliterate all three ships,

but I'm pretty sure that's a very specific situation...

 

 

1.) Literally what? All one has to do is compensate by shooting slightly to the left/right and enjoy the hits.

Although I assume RnG is a better reason, because of course it is...

 

2.) Feel free to look up.... Link

 

3.) It's the evil dispersion that makes me hit and miss, it's not my fault for aiming a bit too high/low or too far ahead/behind.

 

4.) It's the game mechanics that make me miss or deal no damage, it's not my fault for aiming at parts of the ship that won't do anything.

 

All of that without providing any useful additional data in form of a replay or actually choosing the best option

of also playing the german cruiser line to see both sides.

 


 

@Supertesters

It may come to your surprise that testers are just regular players.

You may be confusing them with Community Contributors and forum mods.

 

We have a saying over here:

"Wie man in den Wald hineinruft so schallt es heraus."

("The way you yell into the woods, the same way it echoes back.")

And I'll gladly stick to it.

 

This is amazingly arrogant, but you don't really see it, which is part of the problem. I am aware a supertester is not a WG representative. Does that excuse you from acting with decency? In fact since you have some status, however unrelated to forum activity or unofficial, shouldn't you act more circumspectly? On one hand I read Supertesters hinting and meting out information like a privileged class, while at others times "I'm just a normal member". Depends on what suits the situation.

 

Who cares if you're right. I never disputed that your point was wrong. There's a big difference between "I know right? German cruisers are like Maus tanks in WoT, inpenetrable fortresses, am I right?" and "Actually, just to correct you, German Cruisers don't have very high armor protection. Maybe you could present a replay from your next game?" First is sarcasm and dismissal. Second is common decency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ST Coordinator
2,325 posts
2,196 battles

I think the problem is that with the not so recent "AP fix" where overpen/bounces off citadel counts as citadel hits BB shells against much lighter armored (cruisers) ships have a very high chance to overpen.

 

I guess BB players needs to learn to adjust their shots at closer ranges where their shots are leveled shots (straight) to just below the waterline to ensure you score a citadel hit and not over pen. If you keep aiming above the waterline against a cruiser in your battleship you will almost always overpen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36
[SMOKE]
Super Tester
274 posts

 

Most of the supertesters belong to one or two 'dominant' of the clans from WoT's Clan Wars.

A large number of them have also been given their posts because they were 'friends' with WG's local working staff. These are all long-term customers for WG.net.

It's best to keep these factors in mind whenever you are in contact with one.

 

Forget who or what is a supertester. This has less to do with that than these are long time normal posters, since they are, after all, supertesters. Whatever, some things don't change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
460 posts
8,295 battles

Personally I think it's irrelevant what your status or stats are, everyone deserves to be treated with a bit of respect, yes even the dreaded and maligned noob who has poor stats (not referencing anyone, in general).

 

Advice and points of interest can be offered respectfully, often it isn't, sarcasm doesn't count as being respectful.

 

It certainly seems an issue here, perhaps deserving it's own thread, but I'd like to discuss any actual experience of BBs on the test server if you have any. I wasn't really looking to pick appart any one particular game, (though that was thrust upon me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

There's no point making comparisons between WoT and WoWs

 

*Sigh*

The comparison I made was not:

Medium tank = Destroyer

It was:

Medium tanks are not always just tanks with high mobility and average guns/armor, there's medium tanks with high armor, there's slow ones, and just like that there are heavy tanks

that are as fast as medium tanks, etc. etc.

 

What I wanted to suggest with that, is that ships of the same class can be different, too.

I.e. why Myogi's playstyle is more centered around utilising her gun layout to sail towards and away from enemies while constantly re-aligning her

and Fusou's playstyle revolves mostly around hard hitting full broadside salvos whenever possible.

 

Hence why Mutsuki has great concealment and is a 100% torpedo platform, while Pantsuharu is more of a gun/torp hybrid that can use both to

perform well.

 

I've noted you don't play much BBs normally

 

You mean aside from having played BBs throughout alpha, closed beta, and now with 85/500 battles going up to tier V on the US and VI on the JP tech tree,

not mentioning PT and ST?

I guess if you leave all of that out, then yes, I don't usually play BBs...

 

Edit: Unless you're refering to my BB playstyle, i.e. knife fighting DDs and usually winning that fight.

Then yes, I'd say you're right, I don't play BBs in a normal way.

 

To put it in tanks terms for you, it would be like a a 50 cal machine gun or light tank 20mm gun destroying a heavy tank, easily, not that I have much experience of WoT to back that up, maybe that happens.

 

Worst case scenario a light tank has to utilise APCR, but usually the rear and weakspots of heavy tanks can be easily penetrated.

Because... you know... game balance.

 

Missing an entire salvo is not your fault if the shells straddle the target ship. (land on both sides clustered around the target area)

 

Missing an entire salvo like that means you shot too far/close and a couple shells flew around randomly.

It's easy to watch this happening when you're firing on a target that is moving in a straight line.

First salvo misses completely with shells falling short/long.

You slightly adjust your aim and all consecutive salvos hit.

On long range RnG can screw you over completely, too, but that's on long range, nobody expects to deal breathtaking damage at 24km range...

 

This is amazingly arrogant, but you don't really see it, which is part of the problem. I am aware a supertester is not a WG representative. Does that excuse you from acting with decency? In fact since you have some status, however unrelated to forum activity or unofficial, shouldn't you act more circumspectly? On one hand I read Supertesters hinting and meting out information like a privileged class, while at others times "I'm just a normal member". Depends on what suits the situation.

 

Who cares if you're right. I never disputed that your point was wrong. There's a big difference between "I know right? German cruisers are like Maus tanks in WoT, inpenetrable fortresses, am I right?" and "Actually, just to correct you, German Cruisers don't have very high armor protection. Maybe you could present a replay from your next game?" First is sarcasm and dismissal. Second is common decency.

 

This reminds me of people over on the WoT forums expecting me to be some kind of half-god saint.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm just me, I've always been me and with some luck will always be me.

If you can't handle an ounce of sarcasm then I'd like to wish you luck in your future, because what you conceive as

the pinnacle of indecency in my posts is just a slight change in tone in real life.

Edited by Retia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
460 posts
8,295 battles

At least this time it wasn't dripping in sarcasm and insults.

 

Your first paragraph is a complete waste, you conveneiently left of the part of the quote where I said I don't really play tanks. So it's useless to make that comparison for me. As for what you're saying, I already get that the ships are different from each other in the same class, like how pensacola is quite different to the cleveland. It's nice that this time it is at least clear what you're trying to say. However whilst they are different to each other in class, there are limitations on what each class as a whole can (and should be) able to do.

 

I simply noted from what stats I can access that you don't normally play BB's. On the currrent server you play BBs 17% of your battles, and on the closed beta you did a little more (~20%). Now this wasn't a comment on your skill, as you seem to have quite the good WR with BBs. With stats being stats it's fairly likely (not guaranteed) you do the same on any test server. Also I can see that on the closed beta and current server you didn't play the USN line past T4, and you played up to fuso (you must have recently aquired her) currently but up to Nagato and new york in the closed beta. I can only go off what is publicly accessable.

 

You mentioned experience from closed alpha and beta and other older incarnations. Well they count, but only so much. The meta changes with each patch so not everything you experienced carries over. For instance I played myogi during open beta, but haven't since. At the time she had terrible dispersion and it was difficult landing shots, still do-able, just frustrating. Since then she and the other BBs have had thier dispersion and other stats tinkered with, so whilst it may still be difficult to land shots (I dunno haven't gone back to her yet) it could be quite the different situation now, or on the test server. Similar thing happened with the South Carolina, except I did play her again recently and was pleasantly surprised. So again, if you are so much more experienced that's great too, please play the test server and let us know what you think of the new meta.

 

From what I've seen of other players in light tanks killing heavies it seems to requires that the heavy gets caught out and that the light manages to out-manuever it whilst shooting at relatively short range. The analog in WoWs would be a DD and BB in a knife fight, and sure the DD should be able to win that, that's a part of the BBs weak point if you will. Would a light tank be able to do this from range - not even concealed - using HE? I think that answer is probably no. Game balance works both ways right, armour should be effective against small calibre fire, and it appears to be in WoT without compromising balance. Only weak parts are vulnerable to the light tanks right? So why do small guns get to burn armoured ships into the water so _fast_. Again the issue of how fast it happened, _60 seconds_ was all it took to nuke a BB with guns that should barely affect it. It's not like the smaller ships don't have other tactical options for sinking the BB (torpedoes). In essence if these ships decide to shoot at you in a BB you have to hide, which is an unusual tactic in naval warfare for a BB. They aren't even often shooting vital parts of the ship, like the very bow or stern, where nothing critcal to the survivability of the ship is.

 

The history behind why BBs were designed the way they were is relevant and interesting. Look at the mikasa, she has essentially 4 big guns and a whole mess of 6 inch and smaller guns. The battle of Tsushima was an important moment in BB design because it showed that smaller calibre weapons didn't typically harm the heavily armoured ships much at all. This is why dreadnought and her contemporaries were made the way they were. Mikasa doesn't have that impressive armour compared to later BBs yet her, and ships like her shrugged off smaller gunfire, sure taking a little damage but the deciding factor was the 12 inch guns. Now if a ship with smaller guns could do significant damage to heavy armour the BB simply wouldn't have existed. It's not a matter of one ship being out-classed with this mechanic, any ship that can HE-spam can outclass any BB, like you said it can happen at any tier. St Louis, Dresden and Aurora can do it, cleveland can still kinda but got nerfed because of it, it seems that higher tier russian and USN DDs can do it.

 

You seem to be the only one I've ever heard that seems to be defending HE-spam as balance.

 

no - you think people are aiming gods and can change the RNG by will? If you make a shot and the shells land around the ship on all sides (not hitting) roughly equally distributed around the target area then your aim was roughly right and RNG did cause a miss. But like I said that's just a part of naval warfare at long range (did you ignore that part). The problem is that RNG is still a major factor at point blank for a BB. For BB's this is anything less than 5km. Like I said before at this range it won't generally cause an outright miss, but can affect the total damage done quite severly. I wasn't so much complaining as pointing out a fact of what happens. Everyone has to live with it. My suggestion was more akin to aiming time on tanks, except modified to fit how warship gunnery typically worked. Their aim would improve as they continue shelling a target.

 

Finally, the written form is not the same as spoken, so you cannot make assumptions about how people will read your text as it lacks any tonal qualities you might have in person. In person it might not have been offensive (it might have as well), but it was here. Chances are you wouldn't have behaved that way in person. What you call an ounce others will call a ton. You wouldn't write stuff like that to your boss or colleagues would you? If you do, one day it might bight you in the butt. It seems you read whinging everywhere when it wasn't really intended. I related a bad experience and my feeling about it, then asked for others experiences. Then as far as I'm concerned you proceeded to insult me, and throw sarcasm around as if I wasn't intelligent. Others managed to disagree without doing this. It seems from other comments that some other people agree. Perhaps you should reconsider your writing style (nothing else) when addressing people who only have text to go from.

 

Edited by Sparcie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×