fumtu

First version was bit too much. Yas they could tweak her different but they nerfed where she was a too strong. Her concealment was ridiculously low. I agree that finial version looks quite bland but that doesn't mean that she is a bad ship. But not highly desirable either. It will meter for the ship that is radaring you. When radared by Mino or Chapa I'm more worried about ship that is radaring me then about ships that could shoot me in 6 sec. They alone are quite capable to make my life miserable. It still meters if some ship can stealth radar you. This radar change won't affect radar ship itself at all.

I guess this is because originally she could stealth radar and a lot of CCs complained about this. With 10km range now you will have a same situation. We don't need more ships which are capable of stealth radaring. This could do but then again her detection range would be the same as radar range which mean if DD spots her, Wichita could simply radar that DD. So none outplay there. But if they are giving USN CA cruiser and USN CL radar they could at least give her a Hydro on separate slot. So you have CA on CL hull (but with 27mm bow armour) and with CLs consumables.

Did you read all posts? This is not last minute nerf. These are the last changes implemented on Wichita, four months ago. There was no further nerfs on ship particularly. After that all changes that affected her are the same changes that affected all other cruisers like nerfed CE skill and general changes in AA.

Here's is another video of changed version, this time from Stuntman0369. Unfortunately all those AA values are now quite obsolete with CV rework

I know. As I said there is not a lot of videos with changed version. The most are first versions of the ship. What I wanted to say is that CCs did tested updated version as I watched Flamu test Wichita after the changes, but not many make any video about it. Why is this a case I don't know but it is not that WG nerfed a ship and never give it to CCs for testing. It is problem of missing reviews of the new version. While this could still be serious omission by WG it is a different kind of problem.

It is not. This one is updated version. Just check its concealment and radar range. It is 9.3km for concealment (before CE nerf) and 9k for radar

Again, CCs already tested this version of Wichita.

I know that CCs also tested Wichita after the changes. I watched Flamu with a new version with NO shells and 9km radar. Maybe there are not lot of videos of this testing. Here's one from Runner357 You can see that concealment is 9.3km because this is before CE skill was nerfed to 10%.

Problem is Admiralen class destroyer didn't have catapult plane but floatplane which would needs to be first put on water with crane and than take off from water. Not sure how WG would do this animation especially with a moving ship but if they do then I would like V25 destroyer with floatplane Till they make that animation I wouldn't mind getting USS Charles Ausburn, a Clemson class with catapult plane

All catapult planes on cruisers and BBs, IRL, were usually spotter planes. Fighter plane consumable is mostly WG balance thing then historical fact. So things like that are quite easy to change in game for balance reasons.

With four guns and only one torpedo launcher she could be T7 at best. But yes WG could make her interesting with proper torps and, maybe special, plane consumable. She could hardly be OP but she could be interesting ... if properly balanced.

Yea, I know ... maybe if she launch 3 or 4 fighters at the same time ... Pringles can on average has around 100 chips, I'm sure that USN could stash several flights of fighters somewhere on destroyer with "same" name. Or give option for spotter plane so that those with ultrawide display could shoot something at 14-15km. Maybe they would still need another monitor for proper lead.

Another Fletcher! Yes, WG give us USS Pringle(s) at T7 Sorry I meant this one A perfect ship for potatoes .

If I'm not wrong, long range AA guns are guns with caliber larger then 85mm. I guess that mean that every ship with more types of guns that fit this definition will have same amount of long range auras. That's why ships like Neptune and De Grasse have two long range auras, one for main DP guns and the other for secondaries/AA guns.

Wait if T8 ships fight most of their games in T8-T10 MM, how it is possible then that T6 ships fight most of their battles in T6-T8 MM? Wouldn't then T8 ships MM be good as they are mostly both top tier and bottom tier ships at the same time? I never had feeling that T6 MM is that bad. Sure it could be rough sometimes if you are bottom tier in match with lot of T8 ships but with just couple of T8 and rest T6 and T7 not so much.

Not all CCs considered GC broken ships. Flamu is probably the most vocal about it but some other just considered it strong and fun ships to play. Same for community. Just check forum threads about CG before it was released. First version was even more bluntly OP, yet one CG was "nerfed" into current state of OP many were really unsatisfied with this. Same for Belfast and you will probably have same things for other ships. Just compare Flamu and Notser videos about Indomitable. Flamu is considering her OP as hell while Notser things that it is good and interesting ship. I have watched Flamu playing her and I would agree with him but I guess some other players wouldn't mind to get her in the current state. Sure in the end WG released CG and they were to mostly blame but that blame is not just theirs but also on CCs and playerbase too.

Sorry but no. Are you saying that people from the start just play to save a star? Well I have a different experience. I personally always play for victory. You can't force people to play as you wish them to play. You can't expect that six random people with different skill play as good as clan team could play. Quite often they won't even understand what are you telling them. Just removing the star wouldn't change a thing and just make them waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer and more suffering. Save star was introduced in first place because good players continually complained how they were punished just because MM give them bad team. Ranked games needs rework, but just removing the "keep star" rule won't improve them but make them even more toxic and campy. If your team lose two or three ships why would you bother if you know that you will lose the star anywhy. Just suicide and start new one. Gameplay would only became worse not better. Ranked in first place needs improved MM which will take into account both all ship strengths and skill. You can't have skill based competitive mode were your success depends on random MM were you can get team of noobs vs team of uniqums or team with 4 radar ships vs team with none. WG need to find better system. For example increase number of stars to 100 or 200 or whatever, give the first in win team 3 stars, second one 2 stars, all other 1 star, the best in losing team 1 star and all the others 0. give people reason to fight more or better not just to waste hour and hours just in hope that MM will give them competent team. So I am for Ranked Battles rework but strongly against removing the "Keep the Star" rule in the current state.

Can I ask you what version you talking about and what makes you think that, for what I saw watching Flamu playing her original version at T4 she was ridiculously OP. Just putting numbers there doesn't complete picture. Yes she has less health then other T4 but her armour layout make her more resilient to HE span and make her survive longer then BBs with more health. Combine that with 12 305mm guns, great maneuverability, tho quite slow, great concealment and you have a nice seal clubber at T4. WG is just making uproar among community with just possible nerf to another OP ship but seems like we don't have anything against adding another one to the game. We are really fast to blame WG for releasing OP ship contrary to all "CCs and Community disagreement" but when overperforming ship is nerfed same community is quite ready to criticize WG for that.

Yuudachi is not even in the testing phase

I doubt WG is nerfing her just for fun. Even tho she belong to T4, she was really too strong for that tier. Even with 1.5 sigma. I don't see how they could balance her for T4 without making her unfun to play. Fact that WG is nerfing her in T5 is just showing how strong she still is. And considering all this s***show with GC I doubt WG is ready to sale another OP ship while they are talking about nerfing one that is already in game. On the other side, as VU basically don't have any AA I don't think that this is a good time to balance a ship without taking into account what impact will new CVs have on ships. I would like if she return to T4 but I doubt anybody would like her is she needs extensive nerfs to fit there.

Sorry but I disagree. Yesterday I got Kraken with 170k+ of damage, got 1.9k of Base XP and did everything in my power to win but unfortunately we lost. So now you are saying that I shouldn't keep my star if I played really good but couldn't carry alone my team to victory. I disagree. While I understand there there is a lot of people that are trying to abuse this saving star system, there is a lot of people too which did everything possible to win but their team was really bad. Look couple of Flambass videos on YT about ranked and say that he didn't give his maximum in some loss. IMO he and any other player who play for win deserve to keep his star. If WG wants to remove this "keep the star" rule then they have to rework ranked battles completely. Less stars for R1, better MM to make teams more balanced by both ships and skill. Only then I would agree that "keep the star" should be removed. But I do agree that WG need to step away from XP reward mostly based on damage output and award more some team oriented parameters.

Well you need to allow some CVs in T7 Scenarios, either T6 or T8 as now T7 CVs don't exists. As there is way more T8 CV, especially premium maybe allowing T8 CVs in T7 scenarios wouldn't be a bad idea. Just limit it to one.

This. I like 6v6 way more then 7v7. Even 5v5 is better then old system. Maybe 6v6 for T8-T10 because of larger maps and 5v5 for lower tiers would be nice. Also not having a CV in ranked is a great thing. Putting CV on small teams like this would be a big mistake. My greatest complain with current season is balancing. I had games were MM put two Yugumos vs two Kitakazes or, even worse, two Blacks vs two Fletchers. I think that ranked MM should take into account things like radar of nations with two ships option for a class. But even tho I'm not particularly happy with putting AR on Ranked, I don't think this season is any worse then all previous because of that. But generally ranked are still same s***show as usual. Still 6v6 is big improvement IMO.

Less content doesn't automatically mean quality or balance. Sure there is a lot of things that could be improved but in the end people play this game because of ships, and if there is no new ships than game would have less and less to offer to its players. Whit only real ships, only option would be introduction of sister ship of already existing ships. "Here have 120th Fletcher in the game and there is still another 55 to go!" No thanks.