invicta2012

Go play Co-op , then. Bots don't mind being struck. Players do. We don't sing a merry song whilst we turn broadside to a battleship, thinking of the warm glow of satisfaction we'll receive (along with multiple citadels) for making the other player happy. No-one wants to be a CVs XP pinata, either. CV game play needs to be slowed down a bit. Playing a BB in this game often involves floating around for five minutes before anything happens. Ten, if you're in a Colorado. You get in the right position for the devastating strike, avoid overextending, waiting for the moment to make a strong contribution. Cruisers and DDs are exciting because you have a fine margin between success and failure, but you spend most of your time lining up the enemy in anticipation of sudden bursts of frantic action. You can't shoehorn an all-action pew pew pew class into that meta. It's like giving a five year old a double espresso and letting them loose in an international chess master tournament. To be honest... Destroyers would be well advised to a) stay within range of a strong AA ship until the enemy CV has shown their hand and b) turn their AA off unless they absolutely have to. If you keep moving and use your stealth and smoke then a single CV is quite likely to miss you. More than one CV, however, is a pain in the rump and WG shouldn't allow it. I do recall saying that before 0.8.0 hit. Why you want nerf team play??? The Blob is a perfectly decent tactic and sense when combined with the new AA mechanics. It's the Static Blob which is the problem. It doesn't seem to be able to go forwards.

Nikolai has that 12 x centre line gun thing going on, which means that the traverse time isn't that problematic. The Kynaz Suvorov has the diamond type arrangement, so more difficult to get a substantial number of guns on target. Gangut at Tier IV looks the nearest candidate for the new Nikolai. 12 guns, better dispersion but weaker sigma.

Apparently the III and IV have the same guns as Okt. Revol. Hmm. Unless they nerf the traverse, that might be a bit OP.

I don't think it's fair that 80 odd players have a massive advantage over other players at the same Tier just because they were lucky enough to pick up a WG balancing error. The proposed solution to the GC issue is fair, although I'd like them to offer me an "original" T5 dreadnought build, too, as Creamgravy has proposed. I feel like I have had plenty of value for my money with GC, and I'll still have a playable ship in the future. A worrying precedent? Possibly, but I don't see them doing this to anything but the most egregious over performing ships.

Looking at this data set: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20190209/eu_week/average_ship.html GC is quite popular - 82 players, 1322 games. Nikolai much less so. Because she does so much damage and has such a high victory rate, Cesare generates credits and Free XP faster than any other Tier 5 BB, and faster than any other Tier V ship other than the broken DDs (Kami, Gremy). She averages more XP per game than most Tier VI and VII BBs, too.

It's almost certainly have an impact somewhere, not least on the game economy and the amount of resources being generated. Nikolai should get the same treatment, of course, as both are ludicrously OP. I took a look at the MapleSyrup site for recent stats and, based on damage per game, Cesare and Nikolai outperform all other BBs at Tiers IV, V, VI and VII. The only Tier VIII which gets in front is Massachusetts/Mass B. They perform better than FDG, Iowa and Izumo, which are flamin' Tier IX BBs.

It felt like you were doing something at the time you were being attacked, not setting something up in advance. The new AA definitely feels more passive to the defending player, and that needs to be resolved. WGs current approach to CV damage - nerfing it so that players can tank CV attacks - isn't ever going to balance properly and makes for an unsatisfactory game experience. Ditto their AA model.

Fuso at Tier IV????

Aim left. Aim right. Hit citadel, third salvo? We shall see. Let's hope they have their AP loaded.

What would make her acceptable at Tier V? Could they offer a sister ship from the same class with less OP features and allow existing GC players to pick either of the new 'uns or get doubloons instead? It must be possible to make this work, as the Russian BB tree will have Ganguts at IV/V and VI....

+1

At Tier VI, the Ranger's torpedo bombers do a maximum of 5.5k damage per hit. That's 1/3rd of the damage caused by a torp hit from an equivalent Tier VI DD. Fubuki does 15,600 per torp, Monaghan 16.5k, Icarus 15k. You are supposed to tank the damage. I know it's weird, but that's how they've designed it.

Sure, as long as we can have Viraat with Sea Harriers. And the Tillmans? Don't give them bad ideas. Did you see the Russian version? Gavrilov battleship - Russian projekt (1914 year, 16x406/45, 24x152/55, 30 knots)

Hmm. Looks too much like Normandie to be a keeper. With Dunkerque at Tier VI as well, it needs a trick of its own: AA buffs, maybe? I know Conte Di Cavour was meant to have a late-war AA suite, maybe they should just bite the bullet and make GC into CDC?

You've not looked at the list. Formidable, Indomitable, Indefatigable.... although none of them got as clobbered as HMAS Australia. That's a bad few days, right there:

Honestly? These ships have come up a lot. Good luck with working out where they go. The main problem is 15 inch guns - which would be a nightmare if let loose at Tier V - and armour/speed which makes the ships unsuitable for being uptiered. Personally I think you could get Renown, post 1930s refit, up to Tier VII, but Repulse doesn't really fit anywhere very well. As for the Royal Sovereign class.... they'd always be second fiddle to the QEs. The Queen Elizabeth class was the last time the RN had the money and the political support to build what it wanted without compromise. Fantastic ships. As a Brit and a fan of the RN, then, I want them to stop mucking around with CVs and give me Exeter, now, pls thank you v much. Then the County Class CAs, Dido and Arethusa CLs. And then... Battlecruisers. And especially HMS Tiger.

Indeed, you have several ships severely damaged thanks to Kamikaze or lost outright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_vessels_struck_by_Japanese_special_attack_weapons

How much damage did the torpedo hit do? Probably not so much, and flooding has also just been nerfed, so getting hit isn't so bad. The problem is that players aren't used to just taking torp damage, we've all been frantically dodging dev strikes for years, so just tanking the damage feels unnatural. However the CV rework is based around your having to do so.

Tier IV CVs are pretty tragic, though. I would play something else, save up your XP and just skip to the Tier VI, where you can have a fair(ish) game.

I know, but what does it mean? So many numbers, so little sense. Still, with all these BBs watching the sky and not the sea, it's the happy time for Monaghan. 4 games, 235k damage, 10 kills. More hotfixes, please!

Owch. A bot Nicholas, too. At this point I don't think anyone has any idea what is going on....

Hmm. Confused. Monaghan yesterday and today. What's happened here, then?

A CV has more resources available to it than any other game class. They don't get dev struck in the first five minutes or citadelled to death the second they open fire. So far all we've seen is people abusing the F key to be ultra aggressive, and now they're derping because AA is too strong. So what if you lose a squadron, though: you can just back off and play the vulture.... do some spotting, keep the DDs in hand, pick off the low-health DD or cruiser. You've still got stacks of planes, stacks of HP. And the longer you stay in the game, the more chances you have to be decisive. The RTS system was balanced by a low frequency of high-damage attacks which were mitigated mostly by dodging and partly by AA. Small, faster and more manoeuvrable ships held the advantage in evading attacks, cruisers specialised in AA defence, BBs had a good combination of health, protection/damage reduction and AA. The new system has a high-frequency of mid-damage attacks which are designed to be mostly repelled by AA. In fairness to CV players, AA itself has been changed so it doesn't often prevent the attack, but causes a loss of resource on the exit. That changes the game balance significantly. Destroyers suffer most as their physical size means they have less AA to repel/mitigate attacks and lower HP to absorb damage; their resource pool depletes much, much faster than that of the CV. That can't be balanced through changes in AA efficacy or attack damage - the range in values is just too big. The DD needs to be given back its stealth and dodging capabilities, not asked to be a soak tank, a role it physically cannot fulfil. After 1942, very few ships were asked to go to a particular place without air cover. The Royal Navy learned why the hard way. If we have realistic AA/CV mechanics we will get realistic outcomes, and to make the game enjoyable real-world solutions also need to be available.

I hate to suggest that WGs dev methodology is in any way faulty, but they could have just changed the F key system and seen it play out for ten minutes or so before doing anything else. Maybe Haku's torps could have been fixed to stop the torp soup, and that would have been enough for this week. Instead we get All The Changes.

I dont think they can make these AA mechanics work. They are realistic and would work if ships sailed in a fleet and didn't have the in game objectives of taking caps, etc. But we have those objectives, and the game should be developed towards an entertaining contest within those bounds. If CV resources are near infinite then shooting their planes down is pointless and the non CV will always lose. They can tweak shootdown AA values all they wish, they will not create a balanced contest or enjoyable experience relying on that alone. What they need to do is to give players the means to debuff CV attacks so that they miss and /or cause less damage. That means being able to summon fighter cover that scatters rocket planes/ panics torp bombers, and have semi auto AA boosts capable of doing the same. Every ship has to have access to this at some time during the game. It should be limited (fighters are supplied by the cv, so losing that is a major problem, boosts can run out) and fair, but it's not too difficult to balance. If the players have the tools to defend themselves then it's up to them to do it well : things like CV torp damage could be buffed so that the dozy and potato plays get punished... Just like in the rest of the game.