Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'patch 0.3.1'.
Found 2 results
As you all know we got 0.3.1 two days ago and with it there were major changes introduced together with two new trees, one for each nation. It didn't take too long before a good amount of the forum population started crying about some of them. I agree with you that due to those major changes not everything is perfect atthe moment but we are in a beta here and a beta requires constructive criticism and feedback, but no whine about everything. In the following I will try to give you a personal opinion as a player, not as a Supertester, about the changes introduced two days ago. I. Armour changes The most obvious change ingame for me is the rework of the armour system and also it is one of the changes I see as most positive. Low damage scrapping shells were removed and we now don't need to be annoyed of the 300dmg hits with a perfectly aimed salvo that got RNG'd. At the same time the damage got more consistent. With the removal of low damage hits it feels like there are much more normal damage hits with AP penetrations. It's now between 1k and 10k depending on the number of shells hitting and the calibre for most of my salvos that hit the enemy. Overall I really like those changes and I don't feel much of a negative impact except for the part that needs a bit tweaking and leds us to point number 2. II. HE-Shells The buff to HE was a long awaited buff and one that was needed but together with the changes in the armour system it went over the top. Consistend damage plus the chance of fire that is going up to 37% for the bigger guns and an incredible amount of fire damage even with one fire burning you down. This change brought Zao back to life, making her much more fun to play, but at the same time you don't want to play BBs anymore at t10 with all those Cruisers spamming you with HE salvos setting you on fire all the time and making your decks to a big BBQ grill. There are different possibilities to ballance this change in the future. The most promising would imo to do some of the following things. 1. Reduce the chance of fire with a hard cap of ~28%. 2. Reduce the burning time to a maximum of ~35 seconds. 3. Half the damage dealt by fires each second. 4.Increase the reduced chance of fire of the Fire Prevention skills and the Damage Control System mod. 1. 5. Give the Damage Control System mod. 2 a reduced damage by fire and flooding (e.g. ~5%). III. IJN and USN Carrier I have read much whine about them in the last two days and imo most of that whine is just plain stupid. First the general changes. IJN Carrier with 4 planes a squadron and a higher number of squadrons were introduced. Those Carriers can go with either an universal setup including fighters or with an all out attack setup. At the same time the USN Carrier got redesigned squadron layouts. Here we also have an universal setup and an attack setup. While the fighters of the IJN Carrier in the universal setup are no more than a diversion against fighters of the same tier USN Carrier they are ok-ish to good against fighters starting a tier below. As you can get by that the fighters of the USN CVs are better at the same tier because of the higher number of planes in the air. Let's look at the pure stats of the fighters of each nation. The stats are: Speed(in knots)/Average dmg per second/Loadout/Survivability The planes are both at t4 for the USN and after that the top fighter. Tier\Nation Japan USA t4 / 126/30/57/780 109/30/77/560 115/30/57/760 t5 134/30/46/970 127/30/43/940 t6 146/30/53/1150 125/36/37/1140 t7 143/90/26/1360 147/84/27/1400 t8 157/96/23/1620 146/126/20/1670 t9 / 160/120/20/1830 As we can see here the ballancing at t6 and t7 on the USN side is odd with an incredible increase ins strength from Ranger to Lexington that imo needs future reballancing. Except for that the single planes of the IJN side are slightly superior most of the time. They lose by numbers and are thus inferior while in the air. Nonetheless the IJN Carriers are quite useful. You have more squadrons in the air which is a big advantage if you can do the micromanagement. Use some as diversions, attack on different sides and make the enemy Carrier split his squadrons (now attacking his fighters with superior numbers at higher tiers) or just deal damage on the side the enemy Carrier can't cover. Also don't forget to use fire and flooding to deal extra damage and to use friendly AA as cover. The t6 -> t7 improvement at the USN side is odd, but except for that you have the individual plane advantage for IJNs and the advantage of numbers for USN. One last thing here: The MM is subject to change before release including a far better Carrier matchmaking, that was already confirmed by WG. For now we have to deal with the unequal matches we sometimes get and try to make the best of the situation at hand. IV. USN Battleships I haven't played them yet at the liveserver so I can't say much about them. From what I have seen they are performing similar to Warspite in lower tiers with tight turning radius and slow turret turn rate. Starting at t8 they then change that maneauverability against speed and range, making them more similar to the IJN BBs. At t10 we than have guns vs calibre what should result in a more or less equal fight between both nations. I might be wrong here, but from what I have seen they are not underperforming despite their big range disadvantage at low- and mid-tier That's it for now. Feel free to discuss