Jump to content

Really feels BR decompression is needed.


 Share

Arizona = Dreadnought = Marlborough = Kommuna = Bayern = Hood

 

Is this right? I don't think Marlborough, Kommuna and Hyuga is same level with Dreadnought, Arizona and Kongo and now there are even Bayern and Hood in same BR. Marlborough, Kommuna and Hyuga must go up to 7.0 and Bayern and Hood needs to go to 7.3 in my opinion.

 

How you guys think?

  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compression has always been part of Naval..... You start with Destroyers at 3.3 and end with Battleships at 6.7......New vehicles outperforming the older top tiers get added at the same BR..... We need a clear decompression and maybe even a limit the BR range you can encounter (like +-0,7 instead of +-1). In planes and tanks 1.0 BR difference dosnt really affect too much (as you still are able to take enemies out) but the powerdifference in Naval is to huge for just a difference of 1.0 BR wise...... Maybe gaijin could raise the BR cap, decompress it all and add a limit to Planes BR that can be used in naval. 

Edited by WTMarc
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, glown2307 said:

Arizona = Dreadnought = Marlborough = Kommuna = Bayern = Hood

 

Is this right? I don't think Marlborough, Kommuna and Hyuga is same level with Dreadnought, Arizona and Kongo and now there are even Bayern and Hood in same BR. Marlborough, Kommuna and Hyuga must go up to 7.0 and Bayern and Hood needs to go to 7.3 in my opinion.

 

How you guys think?

 

Not only battleships, but destroyers and cruisers are quite compressed as well.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 23/06/2022 at 08:09, glown2307 said:

Arizona = Dreadnought = Marlborough = Kommuna = Bayern = Hood

 

Is this right? I don't think Marlborough, Kommuna and Hyuga is same level with Dreadnought, Arizona and Kongo and now there are even Bayern and Hood in same BR. Marlborough, Kommuna and Hyuga must go up to 7.0 and Bayern and Hood needs to go to 7.3 in my opinion.

 

How you guys think?

 

The only thing wrong is that the Dreadnought should have obviously been 6.3 like, you know, every other Dreadnought? It's in the freaking name, you'd think they would know about that.

About some specifics:

The Kongo and Hyuga being in the same tier is somewhat fair, the Hyuga has more firepower but it's a glass cannon, easily damaged and quick to detonate. The Kongo has fewer guns, but much more survivability and AA. In fact, I think the ship is a bit of an exception, since those factors often don't get taken into account for most ship's BRs (*cough* premiums *cough*)

 

On 23/06/2022 at 16:58, kkang2828 said:

 

Not only battleships, but destroyers and cruisers are quite compressed as well.

 

Disagree about destroyers and cruisers, in fact, I think they're too discompressed, at least within their own hull class. Why does the Prinz Eugen gets to be 5.7 while a Tone is 6.0? Is the Köln that much different from a Leipzig that one of them deserves to be 5.3 and the other 5.7? And what about the Northampton, at 5.0 with an armament similar to 6.0 cruisers?

Edited by Brenok
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Brenok said:

 

The only thing wrong is that the Dreadnought should have obviously been 6.3 like, you know, every other Dreadnought? It's in the freaking name, you'd think they would know about that.

About some specifics:

The Kongo and Hyuga being in the same tier is somewhat fair, the Hyuga has more firepower but it's a glass cannon, easily damaged and quick to detonate. The Kongo has fewer guns, but much more survivability and AA. In fact, I think the ship is a bit of an exception, since those factors often don't get taken into account for most ship's BRs (*cough* premiums *cough*)

 

 

Disagree about destroyers and cruisers, in fact, I think they're too discompressed, at least within their own hull class. Why does the Prinz Eugen gets to be 5.7 while a Tone is 6.0? Is the Köln that much different from a Leipzig that one of them deserves to be 5.3 and the other 5.7? And what about the Northampton, at 5.0 with an armament similar to 6.0 cruisers?

 

For my opinion, Kongo is worse although it is survivable than Hyuga. It lost two guns, and it's survivability is not high enough to compensate thouse loss of firepower. Thin 200 mm vertical armor and lack of turtleback in engine room, weak turret armor is quite big disadvantage. And for HMS Dreadnought, it is definitely not 6.3. Think of german battleships, IJN Settsu and USS North Dakota in BR 6.3 which seriously lack of fire power against 6.7, Dreadnought is not one of them. When Marlborough, Kommuna, Hyuga, Bayern, Hood goes up to higher BR, Dreadnought's 6.7 would become adequate BR for it.

Edited by glown2307
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, on the contrary, think that the BR and rank of battleships and cruisers should be lowered.
However, this requires implementing submarines and reducing the threat level of battleships.

The benefits of doing this would be.
1. Eliminate the unrealistic situation of jet fighters flying over the battlefield during the war.
2. By allowing beginners to board battleships, beginners who can only board destroyers will not be subjected to one-sided attacks by advanced players on cruisers and battleships.
3. The implementation of submarines will make anti-submarine equipment on submarine boats and destroyers more useful than it should be.


Simply put, the WOWS tree structure would be close to ideal on the ship battlefield.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 23/06/2022 at 13:09, glown2307 said:

Arizona = Dreadnought = Marlborough = Kommuna = Bayern = Hood

 

Is this right? I don't think Marlborough, Kommuna and Hyuga is same level with Dreadnought, Arizona and Kongo and now there are even Bayern and Hood in same BR. Marlborough, Kommuna and Hyuga must go up to 7.0 and Bayern and Hood needs to go to 7.3 in my opinion.

 

How you guys think?


I'm ranting about naval forces inequalities for years now.

Nothing has changed and in terms of communications, GJ is not expected to ever change anything.

One even has the feeling that certain vessels are intentionally poorly modeled.

The whole thing can degenerate into extreme frustration at some point. Personally, I won't buy any more premium ships as long as the entire game mode is revised.

Most of the comments on this are not maliciousness, but people who just want to have a nicer game and game experience.

 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yakrider said:


I'm ranting about naval forces inequalities for years now.

Nothing has changed and in terms of communications, GJ is not expected to ever change anything.

One even has the feeling that certain vessels are intentionally poorly modeled.

The whole thing can degenerate into extreme frustration at some point. Personally, I won't buy any more premium ships as long as the entire game mode is revised.

Most of the comments on this are not maliciousness, but people who just want to have a nicer game and game experience.

 

Let's say that's how they also do with air and ground battles to make cash. Give a TT a strong vehicle and people will rush for it, and thus they can sell some premium vehicles to people who want to get RP faster, or directly get GE by someone buying RP points. Or simply make a strong premium vehicle. Then later they make other TT strong and make that in rounds. Now they have people constantly buying premium vehicles, GE, RP and other stuff. That's how GJ make money and exactly why they don't even try to equalize, simple as.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Hisui_Soseki1218@psn said:

I, on the contrary, think that the BR and rank of battleships and cruisers should be lowered.
However, this requires implementing submarines and reducing the threat level of battleships.

The benefits of doing this would be.
1. Eliminate the unrealistic situation of jet fighters flying over the battlefield during the war.
2. By allowing beginners to board battleships, beginners who can only board destroyers will not be subjected to one-sided attacks by advanced players on cruisers and battleships.
3. The implementation of submarines will make anti-submarine equipment on submarine boats and destroyers more useful than it should be.


Simply put, the WOWS tree structure would be close to ideal on the ship battlefield.

 

In what dimension would submarines ever be viable in WT.

 

Yes WOWS it works but they have vehicle models that actually allow it to work in the game. Subs are 5x faster than RL, they reload torps underwater and they also travel at 250kph not 70kph, can dive/surface in 1/5th the time and they have sonar ping that scouts for their allies. All artificial constructs that do not exist in reality (Not saying it's bad, I like it) but in WT they will do none of this and you will have a submarine that travels at 15kph with 4 torpedoes that will miss 99% off the time even if you are best player in WT naval.

 

A destroyer would get killed across the map by a cruiser before even getting within 10km of a submarine you can't even see anyway, and even if you got there, the depth charge does not reload so it's a waste of time. In WOWS it works because DD are literally invisible to CL/BB and again, 5x faster than RL so can actually sail around doing ASW etc.

Edited by Daffan
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, glown2307 said:

 

And for HMS Dreadnought, it is definitely not 6.3. Think of german battleships, IJN Settsu and USS North Dakota in BR 6.3 which seriously lack of fire power against 6.7, Dreadnought is not one of them. When Marlborough, Kommuna, Hyuga, Bayern, Hood goes up to higher BR, Dreadnought's 6.7 would become adequate BR for it.

 

I don't see an issue? The Settsu has the same number, caliber and reload of guns (per broadside) as the Dreadnought, and the North Dakota has one more turret per side than the other ships, but that's a really minor difference compared to the dozen 14" guns most 6.7 battleships have

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Brenok said:

Disagree about destroyers and cruisers, in fact, I think they're too discompressed, at least within their own hull class. Why does the Prinz Eugen gets to be 5.7 while a Tone is 6.0? Is the Köln that much different from a Leipzig that one of them deserves to be 5.3 and the other 5.7? And what about the Northampton, at 5.0 with an armament similar to 6.0 cruisers?


Most of those are just wrong BRs that should have been fixed long ago. And Northampton is nowhere near as powerful as a 6.0 cruiser. The armor, crew count, number of guns, and RoF are all vastly inferior. 
 

The difference between a 4.0 destroyer and a 5.0 destroyer/cruiser, or a 5.0 cruiser and a 6.0 cruiser, are still much larger compared to similar situations in air or ground. But I agree that it is near impossible to decompress destroyers and cruisers further, because the naval tech trees are so small. Maybe the most powerful cruisers could go to 6.3 with corresponding capital ship decompression, but that’s about it. 
 

19 hours ago, glown2307 said:

 

For my opinion, Kongo is worse although it is survivable than Hyuga. It lost two guns, and it's survivability is not high enough to compensate thouse loss of firepower. Thin 200 mm vertical armor and lack of turtleback in engine room, weak turret armor is quite big disadvantage. And for HMS Dreadnought, it is definitely not 6.3. Think of german battleships, IJN Settsu and USS North Dakota in BR 6.3 which seriously lack of fire power against 6.7, Dreadnought is not one of them. When Marlborough, Kommuna, Hyuga, Bayern, Hood goes up to higher BR, Dreadnought's 6.7 would become adequate BR for it.

 

But have you looked at Dreadnought and Colossus’s crew count though?

 

15 hours ago, Hisui_Soseki1218@psn said:

I, on the contrary, think that the BR and rank of battleships and cruisers should be lowered.
However, this requires implementing submarines and reducing the threat level of battleships.

The benefits of doing this would be.
1. Eliminate the unrealistic situation of jet fighters flying over the battlefield during the war.
2. By allowing beginners to board battleships, beginners who can only board destroyers will not be subjected to one-sided attacks by advanced players on cruisers and battleships.
3. The implementation of submarines will make anti-submarine equipment on submarine boats and destroyers more useful than it should be.


Simply put, the WOWS tree structure would be close to ideal on the ship battlefield.

 

Nope. All the issues you mentioned are either not significant, or can be solved through other methods. Submarines would be nearly completely useless in WT’s environment.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BleedingUranium@live said:

 

Yes, we're all aware you're terrible as using torpedoes.

 

Looks like you gave up on Naval according to ur stats.

 

 

3 hours ago, Brenok said:

 

I don't see an issue? The Settsu has the same number, caliber and reload of guns (per broadside) as the Dreadnought, and the North Dakota has one more turret per side than the other ships, but that's a really minor difference compared to the dozen 14" guns most 6.7 battleships have

 

Funny guns do weak damage to real enemies, that's wazzup

 

 

Edited by Daffan
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Brenok said:

 

I don't see an issue? The Settsu has the same number, caliber and reload of guns (per broadside) as the Dreadnought, and the North Dakota has one more turret per side than the other ships, but that's a really minor difference compared to the dozen 14" guns most 6.7 battleships have

 

Don't count firepower only with number of guns. Really matters is complex of number, reload and gun's damage. Setssu and NOrth Dakota doesn't have any SAP, thus having serious firepower problem now. For battleships those have 13.5 or 14 inch, I said Marlborough and Hyuga has to 7.0, and for Arizona, its 14 inch guns are just piece of sxxt. No SAP, reload speed of at least 14 seconds.

 

9 hours ago, kkang2828 said:

But have you looked at Dreadnought and Colossus’s crew count though?

 

Yeah, I know those two ships have low crew count, common and historical characteristic of British battleship. But I consider high probability of ammo explosion of 6.3 battleships.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BR system doesn't make much sense for ships. 6.7 BBs aren't a better version of a 6.0 light cruiser, they're different type of ship meant to fulfill different roles. It would probably be better if ships were split into classes and the BR ratings reset at the start of each new ship class. I would make it so spawns change based on the ship class relative to the biggest class in the match. For example in a BC/BB as the top class in a match any BB or BC would get it's usual 3 total spawn 1 per individual ship limit, the next class down cruisers would get unlimited spawns  but with a timer or SP costs and upfront repair cost like EC. The next class down would have even lower spawn timers or SP and then coastal would have zero SP or timers.

 

BRs would still exist but they would more reflect the era and capabilities of the ships rather than ship class. Something like the SMS Helgoland might be BR 3.0 - 3.7, if you want to play around that BR you have to take the helgoland you need to take smaller ships and planes in that BR range as well so you would have to take pre ww2 planes, some of the more basic destroyers or the emden in the cruiser class. You could not take coldwar frigates with radar guided proxy fused guns else you would be liable to face things like the HMS Hood, scharnhorst or jets.

 

There would be a few things needed to be fixed, at the moment SL and RP rewards actually encourage the BBs to ignore other BBs and focus on the smallest weakest ships they can bully since income mostly seems to be based on what % of the crew your shots do, smaller squishy boats pay out lots because you can usually inflict high crew % losses without killing the ships, while BBs fighting other BBs often earn very little as they tend to fire at a slow rate and their round often either do nothing or instantly kill due to ammo explosions or sinking which for some reason pay drastically less than spamming HE shells and destroyers or cruisers. You would have to make it so BBs gain practically nothing for killing vessels further down the class chain to force them to do objectives or hunt enemy BBs to earn anything. It would be good to give smaller vessels some sort of reward if they escort and protect protect larger ones against aircraft and fast attack craft. There's also almost no reward for sinking large BBs with a destroyer at the moment as well, spamming HE into another DD is generally more profitable than sinking an entire BB with torps.

 

If they actually fixed ship damage models you would probably need to add some sort of class based match making so you don't get 16 BB vs 16 destroyers, at the moment BBs with limited spawns vs players with endless DD respawns would probably barely even matter.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Best would be something like in WoW. They have game mechanics where you can play Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships in the same match and everyone is more or less competitive and has a niche to play. Their tech tree / tier system equals that. Modern Destroyers play along with modern cruisers and modern fast battleships. While on lower ranks old Great War DDs play along with old WW1 cruisers and old WW1 Dreadnoughts. Every rank has a DD, CL/CA, BB, (CV), (Sub) to play, which are all from a similar time frame.

 

Compared to that WT has a very stange system where very obsolete pre-WW1 Dreadnoughts have higher battleratings than a modern cold war / late WW2 DD. Same with Cruisers. Finally, if you add in planes, it messes up entirely. My 6.7 WW1 Superdreadnought  might be bombed by Arado jets from 1945 and even post WW2 navy fighters/bombers. Pe-8's drop 5000kg nukes from 5000m and you have no AA guns. The whole game mode makes not alot sense.

 

Gajin is great at programming 3D models and very well looking maps. But sometimes it fails to merge everything together to get a nice and interesting gamemode.

Edited by Thodin
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thodin said:

Nope. Best would be something like in WoW. They have game mechanics where you can play Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships in the same match and everyone is more or less competitive and has a niche to play. Their tech tree / tier system equals that. Modern Destroyers play along with modern cruisers and modern fast battleships. While on lower ranks old Great War DDs play along with old WW1 cruisers and old WW1 Dreadnoughts. Every rank has a DD, CL/CA, BB, (CV), (Sub) to play, which are all from a similar time frame.

 

Compared to that WT has a very stange system where very obsolete pre-WW1 Dreadnoughts have higher battleratings than a modern cold war / late WW2 DD. Same with Cruisers. Finally, if you add in planes, it messes up entirely. My 6.7 WW1 Superdreadnought  might be bombed by Arado jets from 1945 and even post WW2 navy fighters/bombers. Pe-8's drop 5000kg nukes from 5000m and you have no AA guns. The whole game mode makes not alot sense.

 

Gajin is great at programming 3D models and very well looking maps. But sometimes it fails to merge everything together to get a nice and interesting gamemode.

 

Real life years are irrelevant to WT, as they should be.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 25/06/2022 at 13:30, LeeZhang said:

Let's say that's how they also do with air and ground battles to make cash. Give a TT a strong vehicle and people will rush for it, and thus they can sell some premium vehicles to people who want to get RP faster, or directly get GE by someone buying RP points. Or simply make a strong premium vehicle. Then later they make other TT strong and make that in rounds. Now they have people constantly buying premium vehicles, GE, RP and other stuff. That's how GJ make money and exactly why they don't even try to equalize, simple as.


You did not understand my statement.
There are ships in Naval Forces that dominate entire turns and "eat" other ships like cookies. These are not the premium ships.

I am aware of the principle of marketing premium ships/aircraft and I don't mind if they have some goodies.

 

 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just lost my Bayern superdreadnought two times in a row to the russian PK, which just has 30.5 cm guns.... Just one salvo...fire on board.... ammo rack detonation within 10 seconds. The loss before was a direct ammo rack detonation after 2 salvos. This russian thing should be nerfed, something is fishy there.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Thodin said:

I've just lost my Bayern superdreadnought two times in a row to the russian PK, which just has 30.5 cm guns.... Just one salvo...fire on board.... ammo rack detonation within 10 seconds. The loss before was a direct ammo rack detonation after 2 salvos. This russian thing should be nerfed, something is fishy there.

 

PK has reverted to being the destroyer of worlds again. It's something to do with how SAP interacts with the water I think. It was mentioned in one of these threads. SAP travels too far in the water, detonates and its fragments go straight through the hull and hit the magazines. Something like that. Such a shame, because honestly Naval didn't seem to be in too bad a position last patch. 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Pte_Maylam said:

 

PK has reverted to being the destroyer of worlds again. It's something to do with how SAP interacts with the water I think. It was mentioned in one of these threads. SAP travels too far in the water, detonates and its fragments go straight through the hull and hit the magazines. Something like that. Such a shame, because honestly Naval didn't seem to be in too bad a position last patch. 

 

PK precision is incredible. All shots seem to impact in a circle of like 5m or something like that. Can't really compare this top any other ship.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pte_Maylam said:

 

PK has reverted to being the destroyer of worlds again. It's something to do with how SAP interacts with the water I think. It was mentioned in one of these threads. SAP travels too far in the water, detonates and its fragments go straight through the hull and hit the magazines. Something like that. Such a shame, because honestly Naval didn't seem to be in too bad a position last patch. 

It is actually HE now. HE ignores water now.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish intact battleships would stop to explode. HE damage should be limited, one HE salvo and the whole ship is in deep trouble with literally all secondaries, everything down and burning, usually exploding before you put out the fire.

 

PS: Can please someone ask Devs whats this HE habbit is about? Whats the point of heavily armored battleships if HE or SAP bypass everything. (And whats the role of armor piercing shells in this game, what are they actually good for?)

Edited by Thodin
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...