Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Moggytwo

How to fix the poor high tier meta

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
629 posts
6,912 battles

The top tier meta in this game is quite poor.  The main issues are static play where all the battleships and cruisers hang back in a ball and lob shells at long range, and excessive torpedo spam. It simply isn't as fun, and isn't as rewarding of skillful play, in the high tiers as in the mid tiers.

 

This thread is just to give my opinion on how to fix it, and find out what other people think about solving the issues.

 

So, people hanging back is caused by one main problem - the cruisers aren't pushing up ahead of the battleships to the 10-12 km distance they often sit at in lower tiers.  Because of this, the battleships don't push up either, and this makes the game very static.  The reason cruisers don't push up is because they are excessively vulnerable to battleship AP, much more so than in the mid tiers.  I suggest increasing the survivability of cruisers against battleships.  The way I see it, if you turn broadside to a battleship and sail straight you should be very vulnerable, but if you are angling well in a cruiser you should never be citadeled by a battleship.  End of story.  That way poor play is punished but good play is rewarded.  This also mean that cruiser captains can have the confidence to push while knowing that if they play well they won't be instantly deleted.  This will go a significant way to solving the problem of high tier static battles, and encourage dynamic play such as flanking maneuvres and group pushes.

 

Next I think the Yamato is too good against other battleships.  This also promotes static play.  The fix to this is to change either the overmatch constant of 14.3 or the bow armour of high tier battleships so that Yamato never overmatches another high tier battleship.  No battleship should be overmatched by another, it creates massive imbalances in damage taken.  They should definitely overmatch some armour on other ship types, but not BB vs BB.  This will provide better battleship balance and enable battleships to be more confident pushing up while well angled.

 

The next issue is torpedoes.   High tier torpedoes are not just linearly better than low-mid teir torpedoes, they are exponentially better.  The reason for this is that they don't just increase in damage and speed, they also increase in range and most importantly the number you can launch at once.  This means that while torpedoes are quite well balance in up to around tier 8, they become dramatically unbalanced above that, particularly with the Shimakaze and Gearing.  The best way to fix this would be to nerf the number of torps a DD can launch at once (say go to 3x3 on the Shimakaze), but since this would mean basically making up configurations that didn't historically exist, I doubt they would do that. Instead of this, I propose a range nerf on high tier torpedoes. No ship in the game should have torps with more than 10 kms range. This would mean that Shimakazes and other long range torp boats would have to get within 10 kms to launch (still providing a large stealth torp window), which means that the DD hunters in the game would have a chance to find them, and would once again encourage cruisers to push up behind their DD's, because they know that they might be able to get some good volleys in on the enemy torp boats if they are spotted by friendly DD's.  This would greatly increase the amount of skill required to play torp boats well, but still enable good captains to do very well in their Shimakazes and the like.

 

This change increases the skill floor of torp boats, but doesn't decrease the skill cap.  This makes it an excellent change.

 

High tier CV's are actually pretty well balanced after the last patch, so I don't propose any changes there.

 

If WG was to implement these changes, high tiers would be a much more dynamic place, with a significantly improved meta, and a much better reward for skill.  This would mean that more people would want to play high tiers, which is great for the players and also great for WG (as they'd make more money, which is after all the whole point of being in business).  I'd love to hear the thoughts of other captains on the subject!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SB]
Member
116 posts
12,556 battles

You talk as if the long range sniping meta is unique to high tiers. In my experience, I'm more likely to see high tier battleships pushing than mid-tier ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,566 posts
13,006 battles

 

Yes the mid tiers are more balanced from tiers 5-7, as you do get players doing what they are spose to do.

DDs move forward because of the shorter torpedo ranges and spot, and spam torps, and the cruisers follow behind and help once they spot other DDs and cruisers and spam HE shells at BB. ( but players still run away all the time).

 

The BBs players at these tiers also will advance with other players if they are in a group of 4-6 ships, and a lot of the fighting does take place under 15kms because most players know that even if they do get hit they will still have enough HP left to be able to fight for a lot longer than they can at tiers 8 and above.

Once you get to tier 8 and above the game play and style totally changes and it becomes more stand offish, because of the high damage torps can do and the amount of torps that can be fired  and the AP damage BBs can do if they get citadels but also the fire chance  goes up  now and you will get set on fire a lot more at tier 8 and above because of the demo expert commander skill that all good DD and cruiser players will use.

One of the biggest problems is that cruisers and DDs don't have enough HP to survive long enough if u compare them to the lower tiers when they do get hit and get citadel .

I've said before that in one tier 3-4 battle I citadel a Kuma 8 times and he was still alive, at high tiers u get citadel 3 times and u are dead.

The fixes that WG have made hasn't solved the problem, they only made new problems, it would of been easier for them just to give DDs and cruisers more HP to make them last longer and the problem would of been a lot better than what they have done now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
55 posts
1,452 battles

Like whats previously been said, repair cost #1 reason. IMO

 

However,

 

When BB stay far back and snipe cruisers cant push or they will be slaughtered and also cruiser AA needs to protect the BB from CV's. 

 

And when DD are spamming spreads of torpedo's people will refuse to want to move any closer. This is especially understandable when there are no CV's in the match spotting torps and DD. And MM loves to place 3-4 shimakaze's on one team and give the other team 1 shimakaze and a fubuki because balance rite m8? :trollface:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
629 posts
6,912 battles

The point about repair costs is well made, however I disagree that it's the number one reason.  If players felt confident enough in their ships not being deleted with a salvo when they push up they would naturally push, repair costs or not.

 

I have suggested in the past that they need to change repair costs, specifically that they should be a flat fee for every battle, whether you don't take a point of damage, or you sink.  So regardless of what happens, if you take out a tier 10 ship, you know you'll be paying say 150k (random rough guess) in repairs.  That way they still have repairs serving the function they do now, which is to encourage high tier players to play mid tiers for the credits to keep the game alive, but people won't let repairs affect what they do while in battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Video Contributor
860 posts
10,965 battles

Swap the maps between low & high tier games.. So T1 will be getting Trap, LoF, Tears of the Enemy Desert while T10 gets Islands and Big Race

This way the T1 will be looking for each other while T10 will be shooting at each other..

Yeah, what can possibly go wrong /s

 


 

....if you are angling well in a cruiser you should never be citadeled by a battleship...

 

I disagree, this way a cruiser can simply point its bow to a BB and take little to no damage and makes IJN & KM CAs can do torp rushes without a risk of dying..

High tier cruisers are fine, you just need to maneuver often and dodge shells..

 

View PostMoggytwo, on 27 February 2016 - 06:10 PM, said:

....No battleship should be overmatched by another....

 

Overmatch mechanics are fine too, but what should be adjusted is citadel overmatch.. The game should remove the ability to do a frontal citadel (either making the front bulkhead armor thicker or more angled) but keep the overmatch mechanics in place so the larger caliber shells would still be able to do regular penetration..

 

View PostMoggytwo, on 27 February 2016 - 06:10 PM, said:

...No ship in the game should have torps with more than 10 kms range...

 

Inb4 DD players raising the ocean level after Radar got here :trollface: 

Edited by Eurobeat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
629 posts
6,912 battles

I disagree, this way a cruiser can simply point its bow to a BB and take little to no damage and makes IJN & KM CAs can do torp rushes without a risk of dying..

High tier cruisers are fine, you just need to maneuver often and dodge shells.

 

That's not how it works at all, if a cruiser goes bow on then the thin bow armour of the cruiser will be overmatched by the large battleship shells which will punch straight through and do reg pen damage, and very occasionally citadels.  This is not what I meant by angling well.  Angling well means actually having some angle on the ship, so BB shells that hit the bow or stern go out the other side for an overpen, the ones that hit the main armour of the cruiser either bounce (not overmatched because the armour is too thick) or go through for a regular pen depending on angle. The point is, currently high tier cruisers are being citadeled regularly while being angled well, which makes them very reluctant to move into the range they should be at.

 

Overmatch mechanics are fine too, but what should be adjusted is citadel overmatch.. The game should remove the ability to do a frontal citadel (either making the front bulkhead armor thicker or more angled) but keep the overmatch mechanics in place so the larger caliber shells would still be able to do regular penetration.

 

You're missing the point, which is illustrated by you saying the large caliber shells do a regular pen through the bow with current overmatch mechanics.  Currently some battleships overmatch the bow armour of other battleships of the same tier, while others are unable to do that.  The most obvious one (and most pertinent to this discussion) is Yamato vs Montana.  If both battleships are approaching bow on and they fire each other and hit each others bow armour, all the Yamato shells will go through for regular pen damage and do significant damage, and all the Montana shells will bounce.  This is massively unbalanced, and makes Montanas get punished for advancing. Not ideal.

 

 Inb4 DD players raising the ocean level after Radar got here :trollface: 

 

They wouldn't need to implement radar if they changed the max torp ranges.  This is a much better solution to the destroyer issue at high tiers, because radar doesn't actually effect Shimakazes to any real degree, because they just launch from beyond the radar range, which requires very little skill at all.  Look at the risk and the skill required to launch 6 Minekaze torps from under 7 kms with a 6 km detect range, vs the skill required to launch 15 Shimakaze torps from under 20kms with a detect range under 6 kms.

 

What radar does is punish destroyer hunters (ie US DD's), because they are the folks who are up screening the fleet from the enemy torp boats.  Radar will actually make the situation worse, because the US DD's will revert to being torp boats instead of destroyer hunters.  So more torps in the water, less DD on DD knife fights, and less destroyers dying.  I doubt the battleships and cruisers are going to like this much.  The high tier meta will actually get worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,566 posts
13,006 battles

The point about repair costs is well made, however I disagree that it's the number one reason.  If players felt confident enough in their ships not being deleted with a salvo when they push up they would naturally push, repair costs or not.

 

I have suggested in the past that they need to change repair costs, specifically that they should be a flat fee for every battle, whether you don't take a point of damage, or you sink.  So regardless of what happens, if you take out a tier 10 ship, you know you'll be paying say 150k (random rough guess) in repairs.  That way they still have repairs serving the function they do now, which is to encourage high tier players to play mid tiers for the credits to keep the game alive, but people won't let repairs affect what they do while in battle.

its not just about repair costs ok.

Its the fact that players don't want to take any damage to the ship, because they know if they take damage then they will lose 80% of HP with first hit taken.

if you look at lower tier battles (tier 7 and below) you know you can take a lot more shots and hits from other ships b4 you die, as ive said before, where else can you shoot 1 ship and get 8 citadels and still have the enemy ship live???

if you get 8 citadels at higher tiers 8 and above you would of killed at lest 3 ships by then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
629 posts
6,912 battles

its not just about repair costs ok.

Its the fact that players don't want to take any damage to the ship, because they know if they take damage then they will lose 80% of HP with first hit taken.

if you look at lower tier battles (tier 7 and below) you know you can take a lot more shots and hits from other ships b4 you die, as ive said before, where else can you shoot 1 ship and get 8 citadels and still have the enemy ship live???

if you get 8 citadels at higher tiers 8 and above you would of killed at lest 3 ships by then.

 

 

I know it's not just about repair costs, which is why in the OP I didn't mention repair costs at all, I only mentioned it in response to people blaming repair costs for the meta.

 

I disagree with the rest of your post.  It actually takes more citadels to kill a higher tier ship than a lower tier ship.  Take a look at a Kongo firing on an Omaha as an example. The Kongo will do 10200 with a citadel and the Omaha has 26800 health with it's top hull.  This means it takes 2.6 citadels to kill the Omaha.  Then take a Yamato firing on a Des Moines - the Yamato does 14800 with a citadel and the Des Moines has 50600 health.  This means it takes 3.4 citadels to kill the Des Moines.  So your point on number of shots to kill decreasing at higher tiers is simply not correct.

 

The Omaha however is a fantastic ship, and very survivable and effective well within range of same tier battleships - if you play it correctly.  The reason for this is because if you angle well you won't get citadeled.  Angling isn't as effective at higher tiers because it's easier for high tier battleships to pen angled cruisers.  This is where the issue lies.

 

What I think you mean to say (feel free to correct me on this) is that you take a lot more damage at high tiers in a cruiser - this is one of the points I raise in the OP, and the solution is to reduce damage taken by well angled cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,566 posts
13,006 battles

 

I know it's not just about repair costs, which is why in the OP I didn't mention repair costs at all, I only mentioned it in response to people blaming repair costs for the meta.

 

I disagree with the rest of your post.  It actually takes more citadels to kill a higher tier ship than a lower tier ship.  Take a look at a Kongo firing on an Omaha as an example. The Kongo will do 10200 with a citadel and the Omaha has 26800 health with it's top hull.  This means it takes 2.6 citadels to kill the Omaha.  Then take a Yamato firing on a Des Moines - the Yamato does 14800 with a citadel and the Des Moines has 50600 health.  This means it takes 3.4 citadels to kill the Des Moines.  So your point on number of shots to kill decreasing at higher tiers is simply not correct.

 

The Omaha however is a fantastic ship, and very survivable and effective well within range of same tier battleships - if you play it correctly.  The reason for this is because if you angle well you won't get citadeled.  Angling isn't as effective at higher tiers because it's easier for high tier battleships to pen angled cruisers.  This is where the issue lies.

 

What I think you mean to say (feel free to correct me on this) is that you take a lot more damage at high tiers in a cruiser - this is one of the points I raise in the OP, and the solution is to reduce damage taken by well angled cruisers.

sorry to say but you are wrong.

I've never seen a Des-Moines take 8 citadel hits and survive and I wasn't talking about tier 5 ships I said tier 3-4 where I did 8 citadel hits on the same ship (That's 1 ship 8 citadels) and still had hit points left.

so how can 3.4 citadels be more than 8 citadels ????? 8 is more than 3.4 by a long way is it not??

So as I said, higher tiers ships die a lot quicker if u get hit by a few shells from the Yamato most of your HP is gone and you just cant survive where at the lower tiers u can still survive a lot longer and take more hits than u can at higher tiers in a cruiser.

You are only looking at the numbers that you can see in port when you compare HE and AP MAX damage, you forget about the other damage shells can do as well as the ones that don't hit a citadel.

You also forget that dispersion that you read in port for a ships guns is at max range so the guns of the Yamato  dispersion at 15km will be a lot less compared to a tier 5-6 BB at the same range so you then get hit by a lot more shells as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Video Contributor
860 posts
10,965 battles

Moggytwo, on 28 February 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

That's not how it works at all, if a cruiser goes bow on then the thin bow armour of the cruiser will be overmatched by the large battleship shells which will punch straight through and do reg pen damage, and very occasionally citadels.  This is not what I meant by angling well.  Angling well means actually having some angle on the ship, the ones that hit the main armour of the cruiser either bounce (not overmatched because the armour is too thick) or go through for a regular pen depending on angle. The point is, currently high tier cruisers are being citadeled regularly while being angled well, which makes them very reluctant to move into the range they should be at.

 

Being angled means presenting a much bigger profile against the ship that were shooting.. A cruiser that receives heavy damage even when angled wasn't always caused by citadel hits, its the combination of regular and overpen hits that adds up the damage because more shell came into contact with the ship..

 

Let me point about something that is certain, cruisers are not meant to tank hits, they never was.. The problem of cruisers being reluctant to push on high tier games is because they don't trust their teammates to provide covering fire and they'll die from being focused fired from all sides, and it happens on mid tier too..

 

If i got gibbed while driving my cruiser, then it's my mistake from forgetting to enable my WASD hack..

 

Moggytwo, on 28 February 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

You're missing the point, which is illustrated by you saying the large caliber shells do a regular pen through the bow with current overmatch mechanics.  Currently some battleships overmatch the bow armour of other battleships of the same tier, while others are unable to do that.  The most obvious one (and most pertinent to this discussion) is Yamato vs Montana.  If both battleships are approaching bow on and they fire each other and hit each others bow armour, all the Yamato shells will go through for regular pen damage and do significant damage, and all the Montana shells will bounce.  This is massively unbalanced, and makes Montanas get punished for advancing. Not ideal.

 

Yet one of the constant you cannot change in this game is the larger the caliber = more penetration and you can't change the fact that Yamato have the biggest stick ever installed on a battleship (even though historically Iowa's 406mm are on par with Yamato's 460mm, but this is WG universe so it doesn't apply here) so the overmatch mechanics are here to stay..

 

Some solutions i can think of currently is A) Give Montana better front bulkhead armor so it cannot be frontally citadeled by Yamato (which is the most frequent complaint said by Montana owners including me) or B) Give Montana guns better penetration but lower damage and give Yamato guns lower penetration but higher damage (similar like how the game handles US CAs with their SHS 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,110 posts
7,850 battles

 

 

Let me point about something that is certain, cruisers are not meant to tank hits, they never was.. The problem of cruisers being reluctant to push on high tier games is because they don't trust their teammates to provide covering fire and they'll die from being focused fired from all sides, and it happens on mid tier too..

 

 

 

covering fire is not enough.

like you said, cruiser not meant for taking hits. Cruiser player were waiting BB to being the one leading the charge, while BB player expect cruiser to do the lead.

but since cruiser die quickly. everyone waiting what other gonna do

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Moderator
1,129 posts

 

covering fire is not enough.

like you said, cruiser not meant for taking hits. Cruiser player were waiting BB to being the one leading the charge, while BB player expect cruiser to do the lead.

but since cruiser die quickly. everyone waiting what other gonna do

 

 

Funny you say that because every time I move forward in my high-tier BBs everyone just sits back and lets me draw all the fire, nobody comes with me....only on one or two occasions did I have a cruiser join me for AA and general support but all the other team members were sitting back firing at max range. Then I die, and there goes about 30% of the teams NGS firepower, and we lose....I'm not going to lie, I sit back at first to judge the situation but if I think we have the upper hand ill move forward. It's almost useless to use chat to say my intentions because either a) nobody pays attention to the BB who is asking for support and probably just calls me a noob, b) they don't understand English or c) they don't want to scratch their paint job.

I don't expect CAs to run forward without covering fire from a BB but it would be nice to have a CA escort because of the DD threat. I usually end up trying to knock out DDs in my BB because nobody else seems to be able to do it. I'm not the best player, in fact I'm probably average at best, and I don't claim that everything I'm saying is correct for all situations but if a T9 or T10 BB is moving forward I'd say it's a safe assumption that he or she wants to push and that others should follow and support.

 

 

Yet one of the constant you cannot change in this game is the larger the caliber = more penetration and you can't change the fact that Yamato have the biggest stick ever installed on a battleship (even though historically Iowa's 406mm are on par with Yamato's 460mm, but this is WG universe so it doesn't apply here) so the overmatch mechanics are here to stay..

 

Just want to add my support to this statement

 

Edited by ADM_dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
205 posts
2,425 battles

Yamatos guns were the largest guns ever mounted on a BB with the best performance.  Only drawback was the rate of fire.  I tank often in my Tirpitz against a Yamato and have won by angling.  The problem is that i get discouraged by the fact that as soon as a CA that is with me takes some fire reguardless of caliber they turn away and unless i have my eyes glued to the minimap, i wind up alone, exposed and DEAD.  This gets annoying when i lead the charge, am taking hits from the head of the enemy line, call a target and am smashed because everyone else has turned and buggered off even though we have numbers.  US server, other players support and matches get down to sub 10km slugging fests in which Tirpitz excells, had some awesome fights.  On SEA server, my aggressive tactics get me killed because no one wants to risk their ships.  Its not the game guys.  Its the MENTALITY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
9 posts
922 battles

I've never thought about repair costs (other than them being exorbitant at higher tiers. It certainly doesn't effect the way I play though. The biggest thing effecting the playstyle is the lethality of higher tier torpedoes. Their spread, their number and that they can be launched without ever being revealed. 

 

It's just normal for someone to hold back. Who wants to die quickly and lose out on gold, xp, etc. Of course people will hold back .

 

It's just how it is until WG figure out something better.

 

That is if they want to.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,140 posts

the more people playing, the more data WG can working on.

 

however, since high tier ship is extremely high cost, only a few handful and hardcore player would go there

I'm sure that in server, data about tier 10 battle is 1:10 compare in mid tier battle

it's not like WG don't want to fix it, they just don't have enough data yet (i think)

 

and how to make people play high tier more???? is to reduce high tier ship cost which against their main purpose that high ship cost is intend to stack player in mid-tier.

 

to encourage player to play high tier more, to correct more data.

must have something that come between those two above.

 

e.g. give ship at tier 9-10 a special quota like... 1-2 cost-free batter per days, or 1-2 guarantee credit safe battle (minimum credit gain is 0, never go minus) something like that.

Edited by PGM991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[BOTES]
Member
94 posts
3,501 battles

WG will probably not reduce repair costs with t9/t10 because it's a selling point for premium. It's not a hard coded barrier that prevents you from playing at t10 unless you pay for premium, it is however a functional plateau for free players that they peak at t7/t8 because going higher becomes unsustainable. Nothing stops you from playing at t10... until you can't afford the repair bill any more.

 

So no don't expect WG to improve cash rates at higher tiers ever because it's there to milk the most committed players of their cash. And you know what? I'm totally fine with this. It still allows the game to be played for free but it acts a subscribers only area that rewards the people dropping money on the game. Call it mutually incentivised. At T8 you will also notice some absolutely ridiculous stuff coming out like $70 Atago, 3000 dubloon skins for 1 ship at a time, etc etc, because this is the level of the game that heavily implies that it's now time to fork over some coin if you've been enjoying yourself. Because playing free above tier 8 isn't enjoyable. It's designed to agitate you in to spending money and from all the atagos/tirpitz's etc I see it's clearly very effective at this.

 

As for me I'd drop cash on the game if they just treated me with some more respect. Upgrading to a new ship that performs almost exactly the same as the previous tier, gives worse rewards and has worse stats relative to the progression curve is not going to encourage me to buy something. Not that there's really anything worth buying seeing as half of the premium ships are marginally worse than equivalent tier free ships anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,110 posts
7,850 battles

 

Funny you say that because every time I move forward in my high-tier BBs everyone just sits back and lets me draw all the fire, nobody comes with me....only on one or two occasions did I have a cruiser join me for AA and general support but all the other team members were sitting back firing at max range. Then I die, and there goes about 30% of the teams NGS firepower, and we lose....I'm not going to lie, I sit back at first to judge the situation but if I think we have the upper hand ill move forward. It's almost useless to use chat to say my intentions because either a) nobody pays attention to the BB who is asking for support and probably just calls me a noob, b) they don't understand English or c) they don't want to scratch their paint job.

I don't expect CAs to run forward without covering fire from a BB but it would be nice to have a CA escort because of the DD threat. I usually end up trying to knock out DDs in my BB because nobody else seems to be able to do it. I'm not the best player, in fact I'm probably average at best, and I don't claim that everything I'm saying is correct for all situations but if a T9 or T10 BB is moving forward I'd say it's a safe assumption that he or she wants to push and that others should follow and support.

 

 

Just want to add my support to this statement

 

 

Nah, I mean its turn into snipping fest because everyone want other to take the initiative.

Idealy Destroyer will lead the way, with BB as first line and cruiser following behind

but Its a pub, no one cordinating these things.

 

unless the BB player chat he wanna go charging, or asking support. rarely one goes along with it by their own accord

no one unsure what the others gonna do. and its turn into a waiting game

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
629 posts
6,912 battles

Yet one of the constant you cannot change in this game is the larger the caliber = more penetration and you can't change the fact that Yamato have the biggest stick ever installed on a battleship (even though historically Iowa's 406mm are on par with Yamato's 460mm, but this is WG universe so it doesn't apply here) so the overmatch mechanics are here to stay..

 

Some solutions i can think of currently is A) Give Montana better front bulkhead armor so it cannot be frontally citadeled by Yamato (which is the most frequent complaint said by Montana owners including me) or B) Give Montana guns better penetration but lower damage and give Yamato guns lower penetration but higher damage (similar like how the game handles US CAs with their SHS 

 

The overmatch mechanics aren't the problem, it's the figures they have for some ships.  As I said earlier, they either need to change the bow armour or the overmatch constant. The fact that at a certain ratio of calibre to armour a shell will always penetrate is perfectly fine and reasonable as a mechanic.

 

So for Yamato and Montana, they both have 32mm of bow armour. The overmatch constant is 14.3 - this means that the any shell with a calibre over 457.6mm (equal to 14.3 x 32mm) will overmatch (ie always penetrate and not auto-bounce at high angle of impact) the bow armour of these two ships.  The Montana has 406mm guns while the Yamato has 460mm guns - see the problem? 

 

Your solution of better frontal citadel armour is misidentifying the problem - the shells shouldn't penetrate the bow armour when fired straight on at all, but Yamato shells do against other Yamatos and Montanas because they overmatch.  This means that you aren't being citadeled, you're actually taking massive damage from regular pens.

 

There are two ways to fix this, either change the overmatch constant very slightly, or increase the bow armour of high tier battleships by 1mm to 33mm.  14.3 x 33mm = 471.9 which means no more Yamato guns overmatching high tier battleship bow armour.  That extra 1mm of armour would make a huge difference to high tier battleship balance.  All battleships will still be able to overmatch cruiser and destroyer bow armour as they should - this is what the overmatch system is designed for, so that massive shells don't get auto-bounced by the very thin armour of much lighter ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
629 posts
6,912 battles

 

Nah, I mean its turn into snipping fest because everyone want other to take the initiative.

Idealy Destroyer will lead the way, with BB as first line and cruiser following behind

but Its a pub, no one cordinating these things.

 

unless the BB player chat he wanna go charging, or asking support. rarely one goes along with it by their own accord

no one unsure what the others gonna do. and its turn into a waiting game

 

The mid tiers are pubs as well, with the same or less levels of coordination, and the average experience of the players will obviously be less as well.  Yet the majority of people will naturally go to their ships most effective range and the game flows well because of this.  The whole point of this thread is to identify why that doesn't happen at high tiers and the best way to go about fixing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,110 posts
7,850 battles

 

The mid tiers are pubs as well, with the same or less levels of coordination, and the average experience of the players will obviously be less as well.  Yet the majority of people will naturally go to their ships most effective range and the game flows well because of this.  The whole point of this thread is to identify why that doesn't happen at high tiers and the best way to go about fixing it.

 

The ship perform better in almost all sector(handling better, better guns, longer range, more rapid firing, better layout, better burning chance, easier times to Citiadel people, the ship become bigger so it easier to hit overall etc)

The player at high tier have better accuracy and generaly with more experienced (both player and ships crew) - leading to missplay get punished lots more harshly

Torpedoes become longer, Faster. and Advanced module like Coancealment makes getting things dangerous

and ofc - the repair is expensive as hell

 

if I might say

Both sides in pub is basicly rable, undisciplined unregulated grunt

at low tier they all fight with fist and stone

at high tier it become veteran armed with swords and bow

ofc they all play more cautionus

 

since playing support is not rewarded much, its discourage more advanced team cordination.

even in game like dota which more rewarding for support player. no one wanna be play support

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Video Contributor
860 posts
10,965 battles

 

The overmatch mechanics aren't the problem, it's the figures they have for some ships.  As I said earlier, they either need to change the bow armour or the overmatch constant. The fact that at a certain ratio of calibre to armour a shell will always penetrate is perfectly fine and reasonable as a mechanic.

 

So for Yamato and Montana, they both have 32mm of bow armour. The overmatch constant is 14.3 - this means that the any shell with a calibre over 457.6mm (equal to 14.3 x 32mm) will overmatch (ie always penetrate and not auto-bounce at high angle of impact) the bow armour of these two ships.  The Montana has 406mm guns while the Yamato has 460mm guns - see the problem? 

 

Your solution of better frontal citadel armour is misidentifying the problem - the shells shouldn't penetrate the bow armour when fired straight on at all, but Yamato shells do against other Yamatos and Montanas because they overmatch.  This means that you aren't being citadeled, you're actually taking massive damage from regular pens.

 

There are two ways to fix this, either change the overmatch constant very slightly, or increase the bow armour of high tier battleships by 1mm to 33mm.  14.3 x 33mm = 471.9 which means no more Yamato guns overmatching high tier battleship bow armour.  That extra 1mm of armour would make a huge difference to high tier battleship balance.  All battleships will still be able to overmatch cruiser and destroyer bow armour as they should - this is what the overmatch system is designed for, so that massive shells don't get auto-bounced by the very thin armour of much lighter ships.

 

Then what's the point of driving the Yamato if the Montana can simply deflect its shell bow on?

 

The reason i prefer a thicker citadel armour for the Montana is to prevent it taking citadel hits when its bow on against a Yamato.. This way it gives Montana better survivability while retaining Yamato's pen-through-anything guns (Which is it's biggest selling point).. Montana feels so weak against Yamato because it gets citadeled often when bow on, reducing its healing potential and receive possible incapacitation debuff.. Taking regular pens are more forgiving because the Repair Party can heal more of it, and having an invulnerable citadel means less chance of magazine/guns gets incapacitated..

 

This small change to Montana armor gives it a chance tank some damage while retaining Yamato's uniqueness of having the best penetration in the game..

 

Look, i'm not biased on any of both ship, i just want them to have equal stance while maintaining their individual perk(s)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
406 posts
6,337 battles

 

Then what's the point of driving the Yamato if the Montana can simply deflect its shell bow on?

 

The reason i prefer a thicker citadel armour for the Montana is to prevent it taking citadel hits when its bow on against a Yamato.. This way it gives Montana better survivability while retaining Yamato's pen-through-anything guns (Which is it's biggest selling point).. Montana feels so weak against Yamato because it gets citadeled often when bow on, reducing its healing potential and receive possible incapacitation debuff.. Taking regular pens are more forgiving because the Repair Party can heal more of it, and having an invulnerable citadel means less chance of magazine/guns gets incapacitated..

 

This small change to Montana armor gives it a chance tank some damage while retaining Yamato's uniqueness of having the best penetration in the game..

 

Look, i'm not biased on any of both ship, i just want them to have equal stance while maintaining their individual perk(s)

 

 

The problem is that some individual perks are much more desirable in a battle - Case in point in Bf4 on release one of the Jets was more agile than the others, but had lower armour - to balance it - the problem was that the agility meant that it was impossible to shoot down with even an incompetent pilot.

Share this post


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

×