World of Warships- The Hybrid Problem Is Getting Worse

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (810 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Hello guys, today we discuss the hybrids ships that we currently have, and discuss the issues that they present, and what the future holds. Enjoy!

Ross Rowley:

Music by Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio

Outro Music: Stranger Think- C418

Have a replay?

Music: Stranger Think- C418
Ross Rowley:

Music: Stranger Think- C418

Music: GET AWAY by tubebackr is licensed under a Creative Commons License.…

Music by Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio


  1. Remember when they nerfed spotter planes because they didn’t want BBs spotting for themselves. So they nerfed the active time and how the torpedo spotting worked. Now we have this crap, spotting AND attack capabilities. Edit: I meant fighter. My bad.

    • nobody has ever accused WG of deing consistent…scratch that, they have always been consistent in making bad decisions…

    • @Eric Favre
      Wargaming: honestly I’m dishonest, and there’s nothing harder to predict than someone who’s consistently inconsistent!

    • KaiserWilhelmShatner

      @Eric Favre Like subs have their surface speed while submerged for “balance” while keeping US BBs at 21knots because “historical”
      It’s what ever the wheel of wargame stops on.

  2. A blow out win is not fun. But there is nothing as frustrating as you working very hard in a game to play your best, only to find that your team is down 6 ships in the first 5 min.

  3. Unfortunately, these hybrids are going to be the end of the line for me and WoWS. We’re simply straying too far from the original concept that made this game great once upon a time. The joy just simply isn’t there any more.

    • @Jammo It’s not just the hybrids. More just a culmination of things ending up with these strange hybrids nobody asked for.

    • Game was doomed from beginning when they adopted absurd mechanics from WOT with invisible ships in order to keep ol’ good reliable scissor-rock-paper gameplay. Adding CV’s and SS’s with ultimate spotting capabilities showed how this mechanic is not suitable for naval wargame. In my opinion they should rework spotting mechanic along with gunnery.

  4. USS Hull, a Forest Sherman class DD, had its forward 5″ gun mount replaced with a 8″ gun mount in the early 70s. It was a rapid fire light weight mount. Could this be another hybrid?

    • Some light cruisers like USS Little Rock had their rear turrets removed and converted to Talos launchers in the *1950’s*. Since we have jets on CVs, we should get SAMs.

  5. drake consumer of souls and cheese strings

    3:30 I worked it out before, the entire flight does damage equal to a single upgraded vasteras torpedo

  6. The Atlanta Fisherman

    The blow out matches ARE WGs fix to MM. We had this same shift in tanks when the player base started declining like it is now. It’s all a ploy to trick investors. They switch from players gained to battles played, the faster the game ends, the more battles get played, the more “growth” you get. It’s a money scheme, it’s not going to getter better. In fact, this will continue to get worse and worse until 5 minute games become the new normal. It’s blatant team stacking is all it is. We’re noticing it more now because they aren’t making an effort to hide it anymore.

    • Yeah I’ve suspected that for a while, especially after I watched Claus Kellerman’s WG Please Come Clean video. If new player numbers are down then it’s in WG’s interest to reduce the length of time each match takes. There’s been a lot of speculation in WoWs about rigged mm where one team is stacked with high win rate players. I never really bought into that as it’s too obvious and it would be much easier for WG simply to limit one teams ability damage the other. Possibly why they have never shown any interest in fixing the shells falling short bug or why suddenly you overpen everything.

  7. i love how they nerfed spotting planes so bbs couldn’t spot and instead just made a BBs with actual attack aircraft.

  8. I dont know about the i-400 but god would I love to see the surcouf in game.

  9. The French/Free French had a cruiser sub that carried a spotter plane, as well as two 8″guns and 10 torp, launchers.
    And a huge mystery of what actually, happened to it, and where it lies with it’s 130 crew.
    (look up, “Surcouf”)

  10. I already have the best hybrid ship WGing ever released. It’s a combination between a CA and a super- torpedo that goes 35 knots, is fully guided and does 40K plus dmg. Go Tiger 59!!!!

  11. Hybrid ships are not a big deal for me. Cv are still the worst, followed by subs. I can only play a few games at a time now. Getting spotted, shot, torpedoed and set on fire in the first fee mins of the match without any counter provided is infuriating. Wows is failing hard, as the server numbers keep going down and it is not going to get better.

  12. I don’t know what the future will bring, but have noticed one saving grace: The Hybrids are probably the most misplayed ships in the game, the Kearsarge in particular. My ingame experience has been than 1 in 100 player know how to take advantage of the Kearsarge’s strength. The other 99 try to play it like a CV, and they suck. The vast majority of the time, I see a Kearsarge on my team, I just think, “Ok, we lose” and 9 out of 10 times, I’m right.

  13. @Rene Garcia I’ve been mentioning Surcouf ever since subs were announced as she is the only sub I’m interested in playing lol, I would like to see I400 in game tho

  14. I am actually looking forward to the hybrid BBs because I stopped caring long ago. These days I just observe my team and accept that we’ll just get pummeled and stealth-torpedoed to death as soon as our DDs either all smoke up at the same time (thus leaving the rest of our team blind while shadowed by the enemy counterparts) or start trolling.

  15. Unless AA gets a monster of a buff, this will create a situation exactly like during Dutch cruisers early tests – air alpha strikes that are simply impossible to avoid.

  16. I-400 (hopefully) wouldn’t be filed under the superships/Tier 11/Tier 12 expansion. That will probably go to some “what if” successive design.
    I hope I-400 will be a dockyard ship (we haven’t yet seen a carrier dockyard or sub dockyard, so why not do both), but either way she’ll likely be a Tier 10 premium.

  17. Wait, did you say that the Netherlands’ cruisers are “doing quite well?” Aren’t they pretty much by consensus considered to be the worst tech tree line in the entire game?

  18. I’d be rather curious to hear what your solution to this “problem” would be. Because completely symmetrical matchmaking would be incredibly boring, and would take a bit of strategy out of the game. Yes the matchmaker can stack certain types of ship on one side, but that doesn’t make it so that that side is automatically going to win. It’s like the idiots in DDs that look at the start of the match “oh, they have all the radar cruisers, guess we lose” and then kill themselves because they can’t be bothered to play around a single consumable.

    The only problem with one team getting Battlecarriers on their team and not the other is the increased spotting those planes provide for the limited amount of time they’re in the air. Which (not that WG will bother to implement these) there are some easy solutions to this. The planes don’t have to provide team spotting as a first quick fix. Or if WG wants to preserve the idea of “if you’re spotting for your team with planes, you’re not firing your guns” that’s fine, but give BCV planes a fuel timer like squadrons get when the CV is sunk. If you could only keep the planes in the air for a minute or two it would cut down on people abusing them for spotting (which admittedly, I don’t see people ever doing that, they almost always just go straight for a strike, so while the spotting is a problem it’s not like you have a UAV in the air 24/7)

    As for other “hybrids” I don’t see how they’re a problem at all. Battlecruisers are just fine, no different than any other ship. Destroyer Leaders aren’t really a problem either, nobody is saying Elbing is OP unless they’re an idiot. Hell even Ise and Tone aren’t all that problematic, their planes are pretty mediocre and they suffer firepower losses to get those planes. Kearsarge is the only Battlecarrier we have so far, and it’s only broken because it’s just a downtier’d Montana with Tiny Tims. It’d be strong as an Iowa with planes, or just as a Montana at tier 9, but it’s broken because it has both, since the planes can actually do damage unlike Ise and Tone. However, it’s also a high skill floor ship, because if you linger in the back like a CV you’re not putting your firepower to use, and if you push too far up you’ll get farmed to death because of your giant flight deck being an HE shell magnet. So while the ship itself is considered OP in a vacuum, it lives and dies by the player sailing it.

    So aside from changes to plane spotting, which WG is not likely to do, this is sort of a non issue. There’s much bigger fish to fry with this game than Battlecarriers or other “hybrids”. CVs and Subs being the classic issue for a while now, but how about WG purposefully nerfing the new IJN CL line nearly in its entirety, save for the tier 10 getting buffed, in the most blatantly obvious “pay to skip to the tier 10” way?

    • I have no idea why to this day WG refuses to just have CVs give minimap spotting to the rest of the team and instead put forth such brilliant ideas as the VISION CONE and 360 vision consumable.

  19. Good points about MM, but one minor correction. At no point has MM ever tried to match identical ships. What you’re referring to is mirror MM that does the following:

    1. Nation balancing. If there are 2 Shimakazes and 2 Gearings, each team should receive one. If it was 1 Shimakaze, 1 Hayate, 1 Gearing and 1 Somers, MM isn’t supposed to put Gearing and Somers on the same team, nor Shimakaze and Hayate.
    2. ACES system/Mirror MM. If MM creates a T8-10 match with 1 T8, 1 T9 and 1 T10 BB, the other team should also have 1 T9 and 1 T10 BB. There is some room for variation, but never at the top tiers. The other team could receive a T8 CA, but they’ll always have 1 T9 and 1 T10 BB. No exceptions are made for top tiers. MM mirrors the highest tiers by tier and ship class.
    3. Rationing of top/bottom/mid tier matches. If you get too many of one type, MM will force you into different games.

    The problem you’re noticing is that nation balancing is woefully inadequate in 2022. In 2015, when MM only had to pick between 3 different destroyers, one from each nation, nation balancing was a placeholder for role balancing. National flavor meant something and you wouldn’t find a ship of every role within a single nation. Now, it is incredibly common for each nation to have 3-4 T10s per class. How do you balance for roles when an American “cruiser” could be Des Moines, Salem, Worcester, Austin or Puerto Rico? DM and Salem are CAs, Worcester and Austin are CLs with Austin being more more of a CL than Worcester, and PR is a CB.

    The reality is that WG has outgrown nation balancing. It doesn’t work anymore. WG will have to start balancing by ship class. This means breaking up the following classes:

    1. DD sorted into DD and DDL (Tromp arguably a frankenclass of its own as Aviation Destroyers were not a thing)
    2. CA sorted into CA, CL, CB and CAV
    3. BB sorted into BB, BC and BBV
    4. SS sorted into SS and SSV

    I first noticed this problem when Kronshtadt and Alaska were released. At the time, there were no tech tree CBs and the in-game impact of them was noticeable. I thought it was highly irresponsible and P2W of WG to put an entirely new class behind a paywall and then refuse to acknowledge the effect it had/continues to have on MM.

    WG is very afraid to do this because more rules may hurt queue times, but you’re seeing the consequences of their denial. In the timeless words of WG, it’s time for them to adapt or move on.

  20. I have played a lot of games over the years. My general experience with hybrids is they don’t do anything as well as the main lines they stem from. From what I have seen so far that same holds true for WoW’s. These are just a marketing gimmick and I’ll take a solid main line over these hybrids any day.

  21. All the ships have numerical characteristics in game (Artillery, Survivability, torpedoes, aircraft, etc.) Perhaps the matchmaker needs to sum up each of those characteristics on a team and make sure each category is within, say, 20% of the other team (number pulled out of my ass, tweaking will obviously be necessary) and the total sum of all the categories is within, say 5%. This way, assuming the categories are balanced and weighted correctly, there can still be varied teams that play to different strengths in a battle while still letting things be balanced.

  22. Still waiting for ARP I-401

  23. I think the answer is to fit these ships into the tech tree as one-off ships. Like if a hybrid BB is a planned or actual modification of a BB, have it as a single offshoot of research from the BBs rather than a whole line. I’d rather that or have them as coal ships than a full line of theoretical ships. I’d like every line to be made up of more real ships (completed or not) than filling the tech tree with paper ships. I’m still not sure why the US BB split exists. Are they good ships even? I’m still tier 6 for my BBs, so I have no idea. I’m biased towards historical impact of the ships, but I think the reliance on paper ships when there are real ships to fill those slots bothers me. I’m still bothered the Rodney or Nelson aren’t part of the Battlecruiser tree.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *