Gojuadorai

i just got the ship after i looked forward to it having the memory of the fun dresden in my head. after a few games i now wonder why they nerfed the ap so hardcore while the ship already has 2x guns less? 1700 dmg vs 2300 dmg you may now flame me for beeing a noob cause you shoot he all the time anyway which i think is dumb cause you get so many noobs exposing broadside have i overlooked somethig or do they just not want every player to have a premium dresden? (the 2x guns less are already something that i consider a ok nerf as tradeof for the premium status)

Hades_warrior, on 08 April 2017 - 06:59 PM, said: Dunk is the French ship. Graf is not, so it cant be the same reason. its not the french flag! afaik its an inter war treaty sign (british ships had it also) but i cant remember exactly so we need someone else explain it. (german ships werent a part of it, but are maybe in the storyline of the anime) Hades_warrior, on 08 April 2017 - 06:59 PM, said: Yea, 1 ship that have crappy set citadel questioning my gameplay. well i and other players i know have no trouble with it but well as you said i have only goor RNG in it

its because of the same reason why the dunquerque has it which is its not the french flag (although its the same pattern). as for the iowa do you have ever considered youre palying it wrong or poorly?

if youre intrested in such things read up on the history of sailing yachts of the americas cup in the early 1900 boats got bigger in displacement to make em faster, this is due the increase in sail m² but also to make em longer most famously the J-class it was really huge with large overhang in bow and aft to get the the longest "lengh in water" possible when sailing. (see wiki link in previous post) this illustrated that a bigger displacment does not mean slower by default.

no thats not the point. its about physics and physics dont care what you want. if you impose restrictions on what you want to float on water, to sink other tings that float on water, thats not the problem of underlying basic physics. youre thinking a certain way and therefore mass has certain atributes for you that it in fact does not have let me give you an example: if you increase displacement of a ship you need more engine power to make it go the same speed !? it loks easy cause well you increas the size and you see you its true. but is it? no! you increase the volume therefore the surface and therefore the drag, it is independant of the mass. but the you have still a relation due to the fact hat you need to increase the volume to float a higher mass? yes and no theres a phenomenon in fluid dynamics afaik that connects length of a ship with its max speed so increasing the ships size and therefore the lenght can have a positive effect on its max speed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_speed its not that easy and physics is clear about it mass itself does not matter

well sad but not that important. on the 2nd one i agree its a horrible change and a lazy fix (if its a fix at all) also its kinda stupid to buff the module that used in 90% of the ships

na i understood this perfectly well the problem is you cant objectively discuss that let me give you an example by refering to yours. you said shells were carried to your ship thus if he had smaller dispersion, he wouldnt have hit. so bigger dispersion makes people that aim bad hit you sometimes. (or they aim good but you doge better in the end its the same situation) but this all relies on arbitrary assumptions because i can then say: ok he shoots that bad that his shells (sometimes) land there where you doge then again smaller dispersion os sometimes better again. see where im going? you need to find a case thats the same every time and thats only doable by asuming an good hit or an good miss or an weighted average of both. your arguemnt describes an event that does happen (not disputing that) but in the end it should cancel out

i have no argument lets blame RNG

sry i disagree while ime no elite player i am doing really well with those two (iowa WR tanked a bit cause i wanted to finish the grind and stoped giving a F so i can sell it) imho the other aspects of both ships are so strong that i think its a well desereved weakness of both to have the squishy sides. (and its historically correct tho have the citadel there cuse of 11" powder mags) Name Tier Type Nation Battles WR Dmg XP K/D Sh☠ Pl☠ Srv MBH TH WTR Iowa 9 BB USA 114 59.65% 80,360 1,376 2.0 1.3 1.5 36% 31% 0% 1,377 Missouri 9 BB USA 14 71.43% 94,291 1,399 2.2 1.4 1.8 36% 32% 0% 1,389

lets debate that. sadly (luckily) im not a super tester so this is theory. WG concept of tier progressions is well illustrated at the gun progression (hence the mogami issue but thats to gr off topic) a line is supposed to have a charactheristic (in this example guns) that "just gets better" but the main aspects do not change (e.g. jap Ca slow turret rotation , german AP , russian railguns). same is true for the non gun aspects of the ships e.g. RN get better heal on higher tiers and dont ever loose smoke. so in theory the HIV can surely be buffed in a way it does not need the 40knt but it will break the line progression WG seem to insist upon. (to be cleare i dont see the line progression as a bad thing but it is sadly restrictive) so from what information i can gather i think if the ship will get slower ith then would need buffs else where, which would break the line concept so it "needs" to keep the speed. (i still think it would not be unfair to give the thing 27-31mm deck armor though....)

but thats not a matter of mass, but of hull size form and material. mass does not matter for speed neither on land nor sea nor air or any other medium. you need energy to accelerate mass, up to speed you need only to compensate for friction losses which are not connected to mass. (only through shape material etc. so its kinda limited but not due to the mass itself) [edit] so basically what youre doing if you only increase the mass but not the shape (volume) you increase the density so youre not keeping the rest of the variables constant. not many posters here are willing to admit such a thing nice to see some are still open minded

as i wrote: also friction is unrelated to mass. any more arguments for displacement to matter for speed?

Wrong! (you are thinking about acceleration which is independant of max speed!) you could speed up every ship to its max speed as long you have 1HP more than needed to compensate for drag it doesnt matter whats the mass of the object it may weigh 1g or 10^9 t

i hate to break it to you but displacement is irrelevant for speed (and thats true for mass in general) its only matters for acceleration. the only limiting facror is the drag which depens in bow and hull shape (mainly length)

with just 35 knots shed be probably a worse donskoi (which does ~35knt) im no ship expert but 40 knts probably is doable although i guess its probably close to the physical limit (without using foils).

yes i understood that but thats not a propper point you can make, because you cant just choose a random shooter skill lvl thats just fitting your argument. you need to assume your opponents aim is spot on and then compare the situations else you cant objectively compare because youre just choosing the situation that works for your argument. (a medium acc would also work but is hard to determine and discuss with it because it cant be clearly defined in a written argument, you would need a model and simulations) also it would require you to play like you know your enemy is gonna miss else your decisionmaking in game is irrational (assumeing hes a good shoter and a bad shooter at the same time), and tell me whats your experiance in game if you behave like your enemy is gonna miss anyway?

its just a number that has nothing to do with real life since the nirm is chosen arbitrarily by WG. maps are copressed if they had real measurments ships would go probably 100+ real knots in this game. thing is this game needs balance more than it needs historicaly corectness. theres a reason why simulators have a small fan base.

well it complicated and i would say its a verry small effect. and assuming a total miss isnt exactly waht you should assume when getting shot at.

as an owner and player of said ships (well havnt played montana yet) i can say it worries me, i really do not think iowa/missouri need that buff, but i seem to be verry alone with that opinion.

Capra76, on 06 April 2017 - 06:18 PM, said: Is that a nerf of a buff? It's written as a nerf but I thought a lower sigma was better. nerf, the smaller the "sigma value" the wider the distribution of the shots (its not the sigma from a normal distribution!) well it might not be a bad ship but i loved it because it was a damn german siper rifle in boat form that is now gone and probably i will now sell the ship

Takru, on 06 April 2017 - 05:49 PM, said: König: the accuracy of the shot will be reduced. The parameter "sigma", responsible for the accuracy of the shot, will be reduced from 2 to 1.8. why god why .???? sad day :-( 36s is still fk slow for a ca

SF-Nerf was debated heavily in advance, and is now on the server for a couple of days and i could experiance it for some days now (mostly in CA/CL's) heres my verdict: TLDR; Please WG take it back! I urge you revert that change i love WOWS and this change seriously hurt the gameplay by dumbing down decissionmaking, devaluing good positions, and hurting every cruiser without smoke and every dd! [EDIT] since nobody seems to get it, i need to clarify im NOT talking about open water stealthfiring!!! while i was sceptical about the planned change i wasnt totally opposed to it (hell it would buff german dd's), and i suspected it might not change much, so i dont wanted to make a fuzz about it like did with RPF and then be a fool afterwars ( i know some still debate weather it is good or not but thats not the point the point is it had no large impackt on the game overall) BUT things are diffrent with SF-nerf, it has a huge impact on the game makes a lot of ships uncomfortable to play (im not talking ZAO here) like most if not all cruisers without smoke. the biggest difference is the nearf to concealment value in general and good positioning. One ship on the other side of the map is enough to denie you a lot of positional advantage even if that ship is not intending to, planes pose an even bigger problem.*clarification of this poit 3 posts below This forces cruisers to be played even more cautiously which hurts ther DPS output and ability to deal with DD's (which in the first place was not as good as it should be). i really hope we can get WG to reconsider their horrible solution, and restore the game to the previous state, and find another solution for the omnious stealthfire "problem" they see.

well maybe it got scraped because would make the ships OP or just was not implemented into the test realm because its coming anyway. also its not a "correction" but would be a "misscorrection" because the raised citadel contained 11" powder magazines, it was nicely explained by a youtuber (think it was ichase but not sure, to lazy to look it up)

thats because the emerald is like the worst ship in the line how about comparing the fiji and the yorck?

nope i meant clone a premium into another premium not a siver ship into a premium Verdius, on 05 April 2017 - 11:52 PM, said: Marblehead also qualifies. yes and not murmansk and marble are both clones of an omaha a silver ship the only premium clone is the flint and thats not availible through the shop thats why it is intresting they plan a second alabama