Who cares who has the BR if all the player’s decision points are cut off. It won’t be interesting to play at all
1 Like
If this new system means some of my open-gun ships move down in BR, I’m all for that.
Cause right now I don’t play open-gun ships much because I don’t want to do the exploits players are doing.
At the same time, I can live with the repair system staying manual, but the consequences of that means higher BR’d open-gun ships.
What is an open-gun ship? Something like german AA boats?
At the cost of destroying the player’s control over the unit’s status? Are you willing to pay even that price?
5 Likes
These people will agree to turn a mode into an actual cookie clicker if it means that rewards are slightly better.
1 Like
Some dreadnaughts, a lot of destroyers, etc.
Vessels where there are guns in open air instead of enclosed turrets.
This does include AA systems.
This would impact the survivability of these vessels. Soyuz could increase in BR faster due to having less open guns than say Yamato. I’d mention Bismark but that’s already a lower BR.
Also you only ever speak for yourself.
I’m sure the tankist woud like …
That’s a very bad way to look at the problem. In this case something like an Iowa should go down in battle raiting due to an insane amount of AA guns but something like a WW1 dreadnaught with literally no AA guns should go up to Bismarck and Soyuz. Sounds incredibly fair.
Also literally every destroyer will die in 2 shots from somewhat powerful guns because engine rooms will be always refilled with crew. YEE CAN’T WAIT FOR MY 1 MINUTE DESTROYER LIFESPAN SO FUN.
Cruisers will suck even more in uptiers from BBs because again, every internal module will be refilled with crew instantly.
And if we adjust brs according to this we’ll just end up with a clump of cruisers/destroyers at relatively the same battle raiting because they all live like 1 minute when actively fighting each other and a clump of every single dreadnaught/superdreadnaught/fast battleship because some of them don’t die to HE but die to ammo explosions and others basically melt under heavy HE fire but don’t die to explosions.
Absolutely incredible idea mate. I now understand who WT hires to be naval game designers.
1 Like
@Rumatta_trgm
No one said anything close to the strawman your post argues against.
There are 3 BRs between 5.7 and 8.7.
I oppose the idea of clumping destroyers and cruisers together that can’t effectively deal with each other, and these changes won’t cause that either. There are far too many BRs in the game for that to happen. Back when BRs were far more compressed… there was a chance, but that’s not the case anymore.
Did it maby auto repair etc because you didnt assigne keys to them yet (according to the video they dont have been assigned)?
Also i thought we still have ouer normal Repair, Pump etc keys and these ones are just extras that we can assigne if we want to automate stuff.
Like when i got a Barbet fire and flooding that i can press the button for Fire->Pump->Repair instead pressing them all individual.
I havent tryed them yet on DEV server so i dont know if iam wrong now.
Doesn’t it bother you that, from the point of view of mechanics, the ships you mentioned don’t differ from low/high BR? There is no progression of mechanics as in other modes. And this new addition exacerbates the situation at the point where this progression could have been. And with a sensible approach, the development of mechanics for controlling the struggle for survivability in accordance with the increase in BR would have helped the ships that you say are suffering.
It is also quite possible that this would have pushed them back in terms of BR from ships with more advanced systems.
3 Likes
As I said, I can work with the current system, but it does mean facing players increasing the survivability of their ships intentionally by not repairing, something that would not happen in an authentic context.
I do see the arguments for this system and can work with those too.
People demanded realistic aiming in the arcade game mode.
People demand gaming features in the naval repair system that artificially strengthens my Ikoma more than it maybe should; which fine, isn’t a realism argument but is authenticity.
When Des Moines and Ikoma were closer together in BR, Ikoma was genuinely just bad.
I’m going to make repairs the final priority in my damage control program regardless. Water control, fires, repairs. That’s my preference.
If it means my Ikoma becomes slightly less powerful, I’m all for that. It’s not like an Atlanta will gain more advantage over Ikoma when Atlanta can already deal with one.
Maybe Atlanta moves up in BR, maybe it doesn’t.
So either we get a more balanced game mode with less people gaming the repair system, or we keep the gaming of the repair system and the current balance remains about the same.
Either direction is adaptable to me.
As I said my understanding is its intended to be optional. It’s a Dev server so wait and see what’s implemented. It’s not as world ending as your making it.
It’s a Dev server, shock it’s not perfect. Wait till another couple version of Dev are released and then do a report. Crying about it on first Dev server is pointless.
Naval is still compressed as hell due to just how naval games are played. In no world should 6.7 Derfflinger meet 7.7 Gneisenau, or 7.0 Yamashiro meet 8.0 Amagi, or 6.0 Eugen meet 7.0 Yamashiro, or any 5.7 cruiser any 6.7 battleship. Even in destroyer brs, 4.0 early destroyers should not meet something like an american 127 mm gun armed 5.0 destroyers. A lot of battle raitings my stern.
And sure, something so egregious wouldn’t happen, but something the same in principle absolutely will.
After Iowas start dying way more, gaijin will actually lower their battle raiting to 8.3 or 8.0 if things go too poorly. And then 7.0 Yamashiro will be able to meet an Iowa. Literally nothing Yamashiro can do to the thing, but here we are.
Early dreadnaughts will be more effective because they are the least affected by constant repair. he result? They go up in br and so welcome early dreadnaughts fighting Sharnhorst, Alaska and, again, if things go too poorly, HMS Dreadnaught from 1905 will fight the Gneisenau from 1943. Such balance mate, I can’t believe how great your idea is.
Any advantages of big guns will essentially disappear. These stupid real life naval designers, didn’t they know you can just stick a ton of HE slingers on the ship and it will destroy everything in its path. But oh well, welcome back Helena/Sharnhorst domination.
Generally, you basically remove any reason to grind to the top because any advantages that big ships have are nullified by “Ha Ha Ha I can shoot more HE shells than you, you die now”. Also funnily bigger ships have more external modules and AA mounts through which they can be killed without ever penetrating the armor. It’s just incredibly stupid.
Reworking battle raitings will not change the fact that this change is incredibly bad and breaks a core game mechanic. Like trying to fix someone’s broken arm when their head is missing.
3 Likes
Mate, what would not happen in authentic context?
In an authentic context if main gun turret is knocked out by a direct hit from a BB shell (a bonus if there was fire as well), it’s knocked out until ship is dry-docked. Destroyed engine rooms also can’t be fixed up to full working conditions in 30 seconds irl.
An anti air mount hit by a 100 - 152 mm HE shell is VERY FAR GONE past being fixed in 5 seconds by crewmen under heavy HE fire.
In authentic context, a lot of destroyed modules just stay destroyed. Which is pretty much the same thing that happens now when under heavy fire. You wait until you are in the clear and then crew starts salvaging what could be salvaged and fixing what can be fixed.
BB/BC have no crew in AA/small caliber guns in game, only in Secondary armament, so from BB/BC perspective those will die faster who have most secondaries.
This change will lead to players play even more passive and hide even more which will not lead to entertaining gameplay. Naval gameplay should reward for the risk not for the survival. Immediate RP gains from the damage is one the keys to engage players to risk, including fire and ammo racks damage credited to the player caused them.
Generally speaking, when GAIJIN decides to add a stupid naval battle change to the DEV server, they usually do not refer to players’ feedback but directly continue with the stupid change.
5 Likes
Reading all of that as a longtime coastal main (and very occasional bluewater player)…
While this mainly affects bluewater, coastal might also come under a similar death knell.
Since last update or the one before that, I’ve noticed the bots have become even more of an MANTIS air defence system than they ever were before, despite already being such, thus making the gamemode much more of a no-CAS zone (good but also bad). In coastal fighting bots has noticeably become a bit more of a challenge.
But especially in bluewater it is just hell, especially if you’re trying to use a 6.0 cruiser. If you spawn at even a slightly inconvenient time, you just get dogpiled by every enemy bot, and there is nothing you can do.
As for the removal of towing, slow boats like the SF40 heavy/light and Zippo were especially hit hard by this, considering by the time they get to a capture point the match will already be halfway done.
Now these damage reworks I fear will also affect coastal negatively, as like in bluewater repairing is but a non-essential requirement (unless you only have one gun like the Peacock). Say if you’re in a Gabbiano, and you are under heavy fire from other boats and your Breda mounts get disabled, you would obviously not want to repair them until after the engagement is done but instead continue fighting, but these reworks will force you to do so, despite affecting your combat capabilities.
1 Like
It’s a Dev server and it’s unfinished. Stop complaining and wait. What part of Dev server is a work in progress prone to change is hard to understand?