Jump to content
Forum Shutdown 28/7/2023 Read more... ×


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About BraveExpress

  • Rank
    Leading Rate
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. BraveExpress

    Submarines: your questions answered (DB 377)

    Even if this is the case, the constructed graph STILL shows clear sampling bias, so we can't know to what extent this statement holds true. To demonstrate this bias, lets name a couple of assumptions, which I think hold true for reality. Players who already want submarines to be in the game, are more likely to play submarines. Players who already don't want submarines to be in the game, are less likely to play submarines. Therefore: the people who play submarines the most, are more likely to want submarines to be in the game. Its a very easy conclusion to reach. Additionally, the public has no idea of the the number of players involved. There could be 10,000 people who didn't play subs and 100 who played 6-25 battles, making that 11% disapproval for sub players very small compared to the 43%.
  2. BraveExpress

    Submarines: your questions answered (DB 377)

    This text yes? It says "survey", not surveys. There's only one main survey per update yes? Are the players submitting multiple times at different battle counts in the one update? What on earth would the sample size for players specifically doing that be? I guess quite low, and therefor not statistically relevant. Even then, the post is talking about the number of players that dislike subs vs battles in subs, it says absolutely nothing about those players being the same ones in each category. And if they ARE all the same players, that means the graph is discarding every player that did not play at least 6-25 games in subs, where are THEIR answers? I maintain that many players who are against subs won't be playing them much, if at all, in the first place, and that people who already want subs continue to want subs. And what about all the other categories that were surveyed on that question? If WG really has confidence in subs, why not release the full data from the survey, not just this heavily curated and cherry picked slice and properly prove us wrong?
  3. BraveExpress

    Submarines: your questions answered (DB 377)

    Here's some other questions for WG to dance around: How much was spent on Subs development and how long will it take for you to break even? Any projected losses from annoying a large portion of the playerbase? How do these numbers compare?
  4. BraveExpress

    Submarines: your questions answered (DB 377)

    Breaking news everyone! People who like subs are more likely to play subs. -_-
  5. BraveExpress

    Anyone take a chance on the Iwami?

    Just a mix of secondary, main gun and survivability. I have this setup atm with 17 points, skills I've circled in blue I consider good alternate choices: For the last 4 points I'm planning on concealment. This is mostly a secondary build TBH, but you make concessions for main armaments mod 1 to hopefully keep the torps up, and main gun reload.
  6. BraveExpress

    Anyone take a chance on the Iwami?

    FYI, Iwami isn't a dedicated sniper or brawler, it's a hybrid. By it's nature, it won't stack up to the top dogs of either playstyle, but it's certainly capable of sniping brawlers and brawling snipers. That's what Iwami's power is, the versatility to do either depending on situation. You can't expect a ship with torps and accurate secondaries with good pen to be as good a sniper as an Izumo, it wouldn't be balanced.
  7. BraveExpress

    Iwami in shop

    Pretty decent T9 BB imo, more of a hybrid than a dedicated sniper/brawler. It's real strength is it's versatility, play it according to situation and you can do very well.
  8. BraveExpress

    New ships - Closed testing 0.11.6 (DB 331)

    With 6 torp tubes, 6 loaders and a 35 second reload, using the 12.5km torps, the I56 has more torpedo damage output per minute than a base Shima. Well done!
  9. BraveExpress

    Update 0.11.4 - Azur Lane

    Harakaze is HSF, not AL, so it will not be coming back in this collab. As for the other details, just wait for the full article to appear.
  10. BraveExpress

    New ships — Closed testing 0.11.5 (DB 325)

    Hi, Thank you for looking into this, I really do appreciate it. I don't expect that I can change WGs mind on this, and I'm very glad that WG is looking into releasing the form of Renown that everyone actually wants to have (43'-44' period), but I would still like to address the points raised. Regarding branch progression, from the stats in the dev blogs, Tiger at T5 has 12 1x152mm guns, and Rooke at T7 has 8x2 152.0 mm and 6x2 113.0 mm. This makes the choice for Renown having only 4 2x113.0mm stand out as completely out of line with branch progression, the secondary battery being severely underpowered compared to all other ships in the line, not just those in adjacent tiers. For balance, I've previously proposed adding DefAA at a later stage in the line, or adjusting various numbers downwards to keep the AA in check. For surface targets, since they have the standard 5km range and there is no mention of the secondaries having increased accuracy, it is very hard to see how 5x2 113 per side could be too strong. As stated many times before, QE has the exact same layout with the exact same stats and no-one complains about her secondaries being too strong. 113mm is among the smallest secondary calibre at the tier affecting the dpm and penetration, and 5km is the shortest range for the tier. If there is concern that the brawling playstyle would be too strong with the full secondaries, I think that is more due to the 4 torps per side, which stands out as being quite a lot compared to the rest of the line. I don't suggest that they be removed, but the damage could be lowered to sit in-between Tiger and Rooke's, Tiger having 20K for a full salvo on each side, and Rooke having 32.735K. Renown's 40K per side could be toned down by having each torp do 7500 damage instead of 10K, giving a salvo of 30K. Surely then there would be room to increase the power of the secondaries from their absolutely abysmal, rock bottom status right now. I don't think I even need to check numbers properly to say that with 4x2 113mms they are possibly the weakest BB secondaries in the game at all tiers (disregarding range). That would be an exceptionally poor show for a ship intended to have a "brawler" playstyle. All that said, I would actually prefer to have a more powerful premium version of Renown at T7 (though it reeks of creating a problem to sell a solution). There is actually enough battlecruisers classes from the RN to add another low tier, bump a few of the existing lower tiers up one tier, ending with Tiger at T6 and Renown at T7, then we could have had a Hood retro at T8, and keep the T9 and 10. Slotting in Renown '44 at T7 initially would likely have make balancing her much easier. Additionally, I find it very odd that the blurb on the devblog mentions the AA defences added from the late 1930s refit, but the proposed ship has most of those same AA defences removed! Much of the 20mm and some 40mm guns that make up the vast majority of the proposed ships AA strength were added in the 1943 refit. This makes the blurb feel misleading, as the "strengthened...AA defences" from the 1930s refit mentioned are mostly not present.
  11. BraveExpress

    New ships — Closed testing 0.11.5 (DB 325)

    @YabbaCoe Is there no response on Renown's missing secondaries then? Haven't seen anything from WG on the subject. The form of Renown that people will expect is the 43-44 version, why would anyone exclusively want the 45-48 form? If balance is a concern with the full 10 secondary turrets, for AA, either damage numbers can be adjusted or the defAA can just be removed from the T6 and start appearing on one of the higher tiers instead. For surface targets, there are many ships with far more potent secondary armaments at the same tier, increasing the turret count from 4 to 10 would still leave the ship with an underpowered battery surface wise, taking the rest of the T6 BBs into account. QE has the same armament as Renown 44, and that ship seems to be just fine balance-wise. I know that WG take some license with the representation of ships, like the in-game Kongo actually being Hiei, but that is primarily visuals only. With the missing guns this version of Renown is markedly different from what people think of when they think of "HMS Renown". Oddly enough, thanks to this decision and also the soft stats, the ingame Repulse is in many aspects better than the proposed Renown, which underwent a substantial refit. That doesn't make any sense. Repulse has better: HP pool, Firing range, Turret Traverse speed, Sigma, Speed, Access to Spotter plane and Speed boost for even more range and speed Renown has better: Close range AA(2km), concealment, Access to DefAA and 6km Torps With the short range torps and proposed brawler playstyle (1 of 2 styles in testing iirc), wouldn't it be better to play into that more and have the full secondaries? Why not make the ship the best it can be in terms of representation and balance from there? This feels like the WV stuff happening again, when many people wanted the post retro and refloat version, but instead we were given an early form of the ship, and the version people actually wanted was been requested again and again, and finally being slated for 2023 (is that even still happening with the dev shakeup and Sub-O leaving?) Eagerly awaiting a WG response, thanks for your time if you read this.
  12. BraveExpress

    New ships — Closed testing 0.11.5 (DB 325)

    I highly doubt having the secondary layout that most people want will make her op, low tier secondaries are mostly pretty bad due to the low range and the increased AA would only be properly strong with the defAA active, and they can just adjust numbers to make it balanced. As I said, QE has the exact same layout, so there is precedent for it being allowed. There are are many other levers that they can push and pull at to properly balance her, whereas this version is not representative of what the vast majority of people think of as HMS Renown. Incredibly dissapointing. Perhaps we can have Renown with the full secondary battery as a T7 premium if WG is not willing to give us her proper wartime form that saw combat in the line.
  13. BraveExpress

    New ships — Closed testing 0.11.5 (DB 325)

    @YabbaCoe Is there any particular reason why Renown is missing more than half of her DP secondary battery? From the image and the stats in the blog it has: "Secondary Armament: 4x2 113.0 mm, range - 5.0 km." When it should have 10x2 113mm guns. Also those 4 twin guns only produce 1 flak? Seems a bit low. Anyway, since actual Renown had the same number and size of secondaries as QE had, Renown *should* have 4 flaks when the missing guns are added. Why give us an inferior version of the ship that didn't see combat in this configuration? The Renown that people want is the 44' version.
  14. FYI the notes don't actually mention Atlantico right now. It's nice that Iwami is getting some changes that will make it a bit more survivable, that should help in getting it into brawls.
  15. Thanks for listening and acting on the feedback, I feel that stun bombs would have been a very toxic mechanic. As for different mechanics they can use, why not rename them to "Tactical Carriers", which I think is more a compelling title than "Support Carriers" and implement some squadrons similarly to the superships and hornets ones, powerful but with a appropriate CD. Tactical as a title also encompasses the use of smoke and chaff as more advanced "tactics" with naval aircraft. Actual tactical squadrons can be used for getting some real damage, and then normal functioning squadrons can be used for the smokes and chaffs. This means the "support" abilities are always available, but damage is more limited to set times and opportunities compared to normal CVs. It also makes clear what the intentions of the carrier player is by which squadrons they are using, tactical or normal, and helps the opposing team work around it. In case of being worried about crossing over mechanics with super CVs, we already have hornet currently with tactical squadrons, and only super CVs have jets at the moment. Potentially an additional super CV could be an Essex class with jets.