Admiral_noodle

MM and quality of team are not linked. So this statement makes no sense. MM balanced ships and is oblivious to players. One sided games = no fun for anyone. Therefore there is an incentive to actually balance skill not "rig games". But skill MM isn't worth the effort for the result. I.e. No profit motive. Might as well not bother. Which is how it is. Please put tin foil hats away.

Tested at various speeds. - At full speed (no slowing) two puffs are correctly deployed - overlapping (and then I end up well beyond smoke) - 28kts *REPRODUCED BUG* One puff deployed - 27kts two puffs are deployed - 25kts two puffs are deployed

I +1 this, maybe not because I agree with the Russian bit. After all RU has a lot of players who would likely *also* not want their nation to be the "high skill cap" line. However from the perspective of a Brit, of course there are a lot of people eagerly awaiting a RN line and when it turns out to be "hard to play" its bound to be disappointing. To Dropsiq: I agree there is nothing wrong with the tier 7+... But you're a 65% 1500 WTR player... My tier 7s and 8s don't have anywhere near the damage stats yours do (although when testing Fiji and Edinburgh I outperformed myself, so that was nice). Yes people can learn to play better, but its quite hard, especially with the tier 4/5 (although perhaps its deliberate. If you can grind through those as an average player and come out alive you *will* be better (!)) This is what I meant when I said "yes I can make the tier 4/5 work but its too much like hard work". Above that tier I don't find it "hard work" and its fun, but I can see that the more casual player who doesn't have the time to spend learning about the game will still find the higher tiers frustrating. Sure said player could go play a forgiving line (hmmm why so many DEBBs I wonder (!)) but a there are a lot of RN fanboys (like me). Why not pick on the French or Italians When it comes down to it... - Its not a history sim its an arcade, I can live with no HE or any other *gimmick* if it works. - People "missing HE" should remember my USCAs "miss" torpedoes - Having a line where ~1/3 of it is flat out bad, all in one "place" in the line is frustrating - "high skilled only" lines are fine but why "pick on" the RN? (Could ask, why not?) - WoT does have a history of the above so when it comes to other RN lines do you think we could get an easy one please TLR - lots of people want to play RN. Its hard to be as skilled as you need to be to find success in the line. This is disappointing for many.

So... I think the game is better with RNCL tier 7+ inclusive. I do agree the pop guns at tier 4-5 are bad and the ships aren't good. Personally I'd hard cap bbs to 4 per game. The problem with bbs is at 4 or less they are balanced in game. More than that the bb meta overpowers and the other ships become food. I play tabletop Wargames. There's a reason why we have force organisation charts. Unbalanced armies (in this case fleets) ding lead to good games. But I digress. The RN are the first niche. I suspect there will be others. The problem now is the other niches aren't there... RNCL fun as they are? Again I'm split. Tier 7+ yes. Tier 6 probably ok. And FUN is important. Tier 1-3 are passable or ok but (and I keep repeating it) having bad tier 4 and 5,which in my opinion simply don't have enough dpm to offset their fragility, is not a good situation. And no,I did not find either ship fun to play, even in games where I did well. It felt like too much effort (risk/reward wrong) to get decent results. Why would I play Danae and not Svietlana? Why play Fiji? Edinburgh? I can answer that. They are fun and useful. Why play Emerald and not Murmansk/Omaha even Furty Taco? No answers. Look at the YouTube replays. Fiji, Edinburgh, Neptune, Minotaur and even Leander feature. There are no (not seen anyway) "having a laff in Danae" replays. Possibly because there are few laffs to be had. However. The balance in general is warped by the over abundance of bbs. CVs are already hard capped. Why can't we: - hard cap BBs to 4. They are capped in ranked and teams... - incentivise cruiser play. Maybe in the economics. Maybe make cruisers make your money? - when I have games with 2-3 BBs a side it's more fun for everyone and suddenly the RNCLs can actually fulfil their niche. (But Danae and emerald still aren't good enough and need better guns to be fun) And finally I have faith WG are 1) aware and 2) taking on board feedback. It's happened before. Terrible ships buffed. CV mirroring. Better MM for more balanced games. Fail divisions removed. So I expect more change in future. The game evolves. We feedback. The course isn't always straight and there are setbacks (fix one thing break another!) but usually things get better. Maybe I'm just an eternal optimist

I think BBs need a nerf and I play bbs. Not all of them but some are too easy. I actually do like and enjoy the ships and the gameplay t6 and up. I do think Danae and emerald could be buffed to make them less painful and I'm not convinced the others need a buff. However it remains to be seen if any buffs to the tier 4 and 5 will be forthcoming. In terms of game meta I'm not sure the design of RNCL is actually at fault, rather it's too easy for bbs to just sit there and nuke things. Would I have designed RNCL like this? No. I'd have given them "half citadels" and "flee smoke" to make them plucky ninjas. But I don't get to do the design Do I think the whole game is broken and RNCL are completely useless? Also no. It's not perfect but I think the game is 80% there and just needs some tweaks - and new game mechanics to encourage dynamic play. If half citadels and special smoke you can't camp in but can cover a retreat every get implemented I would like a cheque My big issue is with the mid tiers. You mentioned poor guns and I agree. But I think the dispersion RoF and arcs are the handicap. Floating citadels - yeah, but if he tier 4/5 could wiggle like the higher tiers I think it would be different.

:o Small sample size but well done sir! Danae and emerald are frustrating. The rest are workable. Someone said utility. A good word for RNCL. Especially tier6+. They can always help and do something. Edinburgh makes New Orleans sad. Though ironically NO actually counters Edinburgh pretty hard.

So. I think WG want entry level and hard to play lines. Which is great. I don't even mind RN being the hard to play line. And at high tier the rewards are good. But at low tier they aren't. Which is why I think the 4/5 are UP and need buffing. Regarding the AP only / smoke discussion. Well I actually like the AP more than the way smoke works at present. And personally I'd have countered RNCL fragility with a special "only takes half citadel damage" kind of thing. I'd also rework smoke so it works differently. WG do listen to feedback. They know about the passive play issues etc. So I don't think they "don't care". I don't think they get it right all the time (and as an ST I can tell them in feedback). But sometimes they do... RNCL I am still ambivalent. I don't think they are bad tier 6+. I still think 4/5 do need buffs. I like the idea of easy/hard lines. In fact I find the mid tier German bbs hateful because they are so easy. At the cost of skill having any effect... Would like to see more concentration in "game mechanics we don't like and how to fix it" and less "RN are crap WG hate the British". If you see my point. If I believed WG "didn't listen"/"don't care"/"are trolling the british" I wouldn't be doing ST.

I don't actually mind the AP only. I don't actually mind the fragility. In the context of how the cruisers are now and how they play, I think the tier 4 and 5 are too weak and need more danage output. I do think he spamming smoke cruisers would have been worse than what we have. I also think the idea that WG don't respect the Royal Navy is silly. They want to make RNCLs unique. And what if instead of a poor tier 4/5 we'd had an OP 4/5? I suspect the "OMG RN fanboys win again" would have been said. But anyway And RNCLs did historically have weak armour. Mostly because the focus was on escort duty and protecting shipping not fleet battles. What I don't like is the way smoke works in the game. It promotes static gameplay and camping. What I'd like to see is a smoke rework which more accurately models what smoke actually did, i.e. Make you be able to sail away under cover of smoke. So ships can ambush, then disengage behind a smokescreen. Smoke just doesn't work like that right now. But that is an entirely different gameplay issue. What I would have personally liked is a class of aggressive cruisers, maybe with the guns they have now but maybe with half or no citadels. So they can charge the enemy then retreat under "my idea" of a smokescreen. Plenty of pen damage sure but not being nuked. That's my personal opinion though. What we have is what we have. Maybe it will change. Most of the line is ok to good. That flat spot low-mid tiers is for me a pain though and ought to be improved.

True actually. You could lower the fire chance to "very low" if you don't want smoke spammers. I believe this suggestion has been made before. Although with the AP changes for RN and the general weakening of HE (armour etc) I'm not sure adding HE would fix much on the tier 4/5, while it's probably not needed in the 7+ Anyway I doubt HE will be added to any. Personally.

Yeah. It makes little sense that you have slot "hydro" slot "heal" and slot "everything else". Makes radar and planes redundant! I took a plane once testing. By mistake. Didn't go well.

I don't think many will struggle with 2 or even 3. But you are bang on about the 4/5 and most casual players don't have silly amounts to free xp to the tier 6. Having two (in my opinion woeful) ships in a row is painful and frustrating. Once you get to 6 and up the shipsdo become good. But it's the mid/low mid tiers which are (as I've said) no fun zones.

I think the general view is that "high skill" line of ships is fine. But can we not have it with the RN. Like how about the Italian navy. No one will mind.

Who are you and what have you done with Marvin (!)

Well there is no point in DE for RNCL. I'm sure WG will revisit skills in future like they have before. However it's speculation. I doubt there is a master plan. And that's a good thing actually

that or make the AP more special! Basically. Issuing HE for tiers 1-5 wouldn't make them broken... or issue AP (normal AP) to them, because that will pen BB superstructure... SOmething anyway, for the 4/5

At the risk of advertising Aerroon's video, these were the three ships he mentioned as "problematic" for RNCL. Fuso you can damage but you have to hit the tower thingy. Bayern - aim at the funnels, you may as well. Fortunately "all or nothing" armour schemes can get peppered by low caliber AP.

I don't quite agree with the reasoning, but I can understand the logic (just don't agree). High Skill cap: Unicums should be able to achieve *roughly the same* as they do in other ships, not *better*, otherwise the ships are "OP but difficult". Average players struggle. E.G unicum 50k dmg vs. 25k average. Bad player gets 10k Low skill cap: Unicums should be able to achieve *roughly the same* as they do in other ships, not *better*, otherwise the ships are "OP but difficult". Average players do better than in other ships. E.G unicum 50k dmg vs. 30k average. Bad player gets 20k If unicums are wrecking face in a set of "High Skill Cap" then the ships are OP. COnversley if unicums can't do well in a set of ships that are "low skill cap" then the ships are a bit weak, but forgiving... Another way of looking at it is the amount of skill required to unlock a certain maximum amount of potential. Hard to unlock - high skill. Easy to unlock - low skill... However the maximum potential should be balanced by tier and class. Not scientific to achieve mind From testing my stats were in line or ABOVE my other cruisers (after a while) for tier 7+. 6 pretty much the same... 4 and 5 - worse, but not by much. I am not a unicum by any stretch, but I know I'm not average. I would say most of the RNCL fulfil the "high skill cap" - play them well and be rewarded with good results. The tier 4 and 5 are in my view. UP - People are uninstalling WoWs because they don't like the new content. Interesting strategy (!). Forgetting that the worse ships may well be buffed (please please improve the damage output of Danae and Emerald ) uninstalling is... odd. Its not like everything else has gone... or were you waiting for the RN only? In which case what were you playing up till now?? Also mr Yaffle, you appear to have: Bought Belfast and uninstalled WoT... Which is not WoWs?

Yep. Flamu OP, pls nerf.

You could always get the hang in coop...

OK so I don't entirely agree but I partially agree... Tier 1 is fine. Tier 2 is more than workable. I can provide 40-50k damage screenies if you want Tier 3 is actually capable especially if you're lucky enough to be top tier. Its capable vs. DDs and cruisers of the same tier. It is vulnerable to BBs. Avoid, dodge, keep turning, move unpredictably, ambush fro cover. You have to learn to play this ship - which can make you feel its terrible if you experience unfortunate deletion... ... Tier 6 is decent but is a bit frustrating in tier 8 games. Is definitely workable. Isn't a bad ship. Tier 7+ are all good if played to their strengths. Now to the ... Tier 4 and 5 in my view are BAD. he tier 4 is very vulnerable but has poor DPM with guns and short range torpedoes. Its a real struggle to do well in and for me not a lot of fun. Tier 5 gets smoke (yay) but is still very fragil, has short ranged torps and the guns have pretty poor dispersion and arcs, meaning you need to get too close to do damage. The tier 4 and 5 also face Kaiser and Konig which are particularly invulnerable to low caliber AP. The bad ships at 4/5 leave a bad taste in the mouth which isn't truly rectified until tier 7. By then you are used to being paper and the ship even feels tanky, and suddenly you get 4 more guns so feel like a god. Plus it is agile... This leads to the perception that the whole line up to tier 7 is awful - the "flat spot" at tiers 4 and 5. 4 I could forgive, but 4 AND 5 being weak is sad. E.g. German cruisers... Karl is awful, but Konigsberg is fun. Nurnberg is considered awful by some because it explodes, but you can at least pewpewpew with the guns until you die... I think the biggest problem with the RNCL is the weakness of two ships, which tarnish the whole line... Of course this is my opinion, but I think the tier 4 and 5 need more damage output in the way of better guns, be that slightly faster RoF, better dispersion and/or slightly better arcs and I'd like Danae to get smoke to be fair). If those parameters were tweaked, I think people would be a lot more satisfied with the ships without removing the skill requirement when playing them...

As I've said elsewhere I wish we could all stop arguing and generalising about the entire line and focus on the fact (I think it's a fact) that the tier 4 and 5 RNCL are awful and need some love.

Disagree. German bbs I think have a low skill threshold. And I think that's unbalanced. We are arguing the wrong point anyway in my opinion. Personally I think the line overall is ok. I don't hate the AP only and the intent of the line with a high skill requirement I rather like. There are many different lines. I like that WG have tried to come up with something new. And I think it almost works. Almost. And I say almost because I feel tier 7, even tier 6 and up work well. However from my viewpoint saying the whole line is rubbish is deflecting focus on my personal area of concern. Namely that the tier 4 and 5 are weak borderline unplayable no fun zones and that those two ships need addressing. Personally.

WG have tried to censor negative feedback? That's actually quite funny since WG staff are actively engaged in responding to criticism in another thread. And of course they expected a negative response to RN release. Whatever had been released would have got a fair whack of negativity! From one side or another

I'm looking at very early stats from warships.today... Here is my interpretation of the early stats. WHich could be wrong. Its just MY OPINION. Fiji - 2nd highest avg damage in a tier 7 cruiser below Flint -> why isn't that a surprise? Unicum effect. Good players skipping to tier 7 are making use of her. 51k average damage. I think Fiji is solid. Her numbers will come down but I forsee her staying "in the pack". Leander - top damage cruiser at tier 6 above Molotov off 6k games. Actually surprising even with the "unicum effect" because I sucked in her obviously. I don't think she's as bad as I thought. I think that coming from the tier 4/5 where I had much pain, I was hoping for a miracle ship, got an "OK" one, sulked... she may actually be quite a balanced tier 6 cruiser. Emerald, just above Krasny Krim (and why is Furry Taco bottom??). Not doing stellar and experienced players have been playing her. Suggest she will turn out statistically UP. Danae - in line with other silver tier 4 cruisers, probably skewed by over abundance of RNCL, so nothing I can really use to say anything. However given stats tend to come down over time (we've seen it before) I will suggest that Danae will also end up "weak". Maybe not Karlsruhe weak, but she is Caledon same problem with games skewed because of so many RNCL. Sample size is bigger but with everyone playing RN its not a real test. Weymouth "OP" because Weymouths everywhere Black Swan so far bottom its not true, skewed by shell damage changes so unuseful and to be honest unimportant Early interpretation: My suggestion that the ships at tier 3 and 6 are "OK" and the tier 7 is "good", but that the tier 4 and 5 are underpowered, is not refuted by the current statistics (but nor is it definitively proven )

To be brutally honest tier 1 is tier 1. If you're any good you'll be through it fast. Plus it's pretty dangerous if fragile. Weymouth is decent. Different but decent. 40k damage. Through it in one game. I don't generally play tier 2 so i just played through it. Caledon at tier 3 while fragile isn't a bad ship. She has guns torpedoes and agility. She doesn't meet a tonne of bbs and she can avoid them or torp ambush them when she does. Her guns do fine against Wyoming. The "hard to play" ships are 4 and 5. 6 can be frustrating but with patience and thought you can have cracking games in Leander. Everything from then up can be good or very good. If you want my advice free xp 4. Danae meets tier 5s and has no survivability and no smoke. She can be pure frustration. Emerald at tier 5 is playable because of smoke and torpedoes. Although if I had enough free xp I would avoid. Especially with the MM which is punishing in her. Or wait. I can't see Danae and emerald not getting buffed, unless they somehow do well statistically, which I doubt.