Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Mr_Dced

My Standpoint on a couple of things.

70 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[ATAC]
Players
16 posts
15,388 battles

Hi,

i kinda felt the need to at least write up some sort of short view on current topics of discussion so I sat down for a bit and came up with a few things on the following 5 topics. 1.) Stalingrad 2.) Harugumo 3.) Worcester 4.) Role of the DD 5.) CBs/ranked/competitive. Its about 3 pages so for those who are interested feel free to take a look and share your opinion too.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W74nNODMFxw0R-BwObUshyPKOnpXgn96d4bUgL2iipo/edit?usp=sharing

 

Mr_Dced

 

P.s: By the way i dont have a clue what if im doing stuff on here correctly so if im not... sorry in advance i probably didnt know better.

  • Cool 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
6,520 posts
7,482 battles

Read almost all of it except the last part, since i dont care about too much.

 

1. Stalingrad

The major problem with this is, as a non-Stalingrad owner i dont have any information INGAME about this ship. This is ofc not limited to Stalingrad - its basicly all Premium ships which cant be bought with Doubloons. Personaly i dont like that. Atleast for me it would help a lot if i could see armor module ingame and consumables and stuff. Consumables not so much since i know which ship has what type of consumables, but others might not know. F.e. someone sees a Belfast for the first time and gets killed by it. He cant get any info ingame about it that this thing has actually Radar.

So atleast for me it would be great if i could see the armor layout.

 

2. Harugumo

Basicly you described the problem: Ppl play "their own" way with it because they see famous players do it aswell. Ignoring, that if they are the sole DD, they still play like a CL even if they need to give up that role in order to be benefitiary to the team. This mixing up roles between classes is just bad imo.

 

3. Worcester

Yep, been saying that also. The recent Radar whine is coming from something, conincidently around the time Worcester was released. Ppl insist its radar - while its most likely Worcester and even Seattle + Cleveland. The occasional Chapa wasnt a big deal with his Radar range, but those others actually are more problematic.

I consider going up against Belfast Radar to be a piece of cake compared to getting inside Worc Radar - and luckily i dont have a DD which can meet it yet^^

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
5,567 posts
11,231 battles

Personally, I put my faith in WG - they will likely handle this situation just as well as they did with other debated ships in the past. They just need more data.

Spoiler

giphy.gif

 

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ATAC]
Players
16 posts
15,388 battles

Yes, thats something that should be integrated into the client ASAP. People need to be able to view armor models of every ship in the game without having to research multiple pictures online.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
257 posts
3,072 battles
11 minutes ago, Mr_Dced said:

Yes, thats something that should be integrated into the client ASAP. People need to be able to view armor models of every ship in the game without having to research multiple pictures online.

i would even add a intel section to the port where you unlock all ships stats/armor layout based on encountering them by the time you faced a ship X amount of times your intel is complete and you know as much about the ship's armor model as the owner, could make it a clan thing but that would just screw over non-clan players

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,847 posts
4,581 battles

Issue with stalingrad is that it gets completely broken ap, which would be somewhat fine if it didnt have he, thus making it highly situational, the way it currently is, is just stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HF_30]
Players
1,373 posts

@MrConway @Crysantos read and forward this please.

 

Didn't find much I'd disagree with, but does Stalingrad really need the improved normalisation? If the point of the ship is to be able to punish mistakes, the margin for error seems a bit too small. Especially so in randoms, which effectively means even more matches being decided too much by MM.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
4,344 posts
8,033 battles
1 hour ago, Mr_Dced said:

The Stalingrad is a great addition to the game

How? How is this ship a "great" addition to the game? How could a balancebraking ship be good in any kind to the game?

 

1 hour ago, Mr_Dced said:

it combines what the top percentage player base has been asking for a long time

What? An easy tool to sealclub everything? Can you point out why the top players, who are already superior to others, need an additional tool to be more on top?

 

1 hour ago, Mr_Dced said:

I'd advise you to look up the model and look at the very small part of 50mm compared to the huge 25mm parts which can even be overmatched by 380mm

Let's take a closer look to the armour model and see what we got there:

Spoiler

shot-18_09.02_20_33.06-0288.thumb.jpg.bac9e564d3168f0432b40c75c7b436ee.jpg

A nice and convenient armour "nose" within the ship. To penetrate the citadel from the front you need a somehow flat shell trajectory. Shells penetrating the 25mm bow will lose penetration and combined with the plat trajectory might be ricocheting on this nice nose and thus be not able to reach the cidatel.

 

Imagine a scenario where the bow section (and the superstructure) got damaged saturated, how do you deal damage to this ship when it is bow on to you? While he is still farming insane damage on you with AP or HE.

 

 

 

 

 

But I understand, that you somehow have to "defend" that ship for obvious reasons...

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
3,800 posts
15,395 battles
1 hour ago, principat121 said:

How? How is this ship a "great" addition to the game?

Well it's understandable what he's saying. Every Stalingrad owner would swear on their mother that the ship is fine and it's the rest of us that's bad.

The moment he wrote "ultimate random seal clubbing machine" he clearly has shown where he stands.People Like @Mr_Dced want OP ships. And it should be WG's duty to deny them that.

  • Cool 6
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
257 posts
3,072 battles

my POV on the role of a dd

 

Any ship can cap it don't need to be a dd, there just better at it due to there concealment, so i wouldn't say capping is the solo responsibility of the dd.

 

the way i always viewed the interaction with class's is something like this:

 

Carriers:

 

CV's kill big slow BB's while spotting DD's and of course defending bb's and counter spotting/defending dd's that have been spotted

 

vulnerable to cruisers that are aa spec as well as bb's tier 8+ a deplaned cv is effectively 1 ship down. death sentence if a dd gets close to you or well anything for that matter. 

 

Battleships:

 

BB's massive potential damage good at fighting other bb's better at deleting cruisers.

weak against dd's especially unspotted ones and CV's if not speced in someway to counter

 

Heavy Cruisers:

 

reliable armor and good speed, good at killing light cruisers and dd's can harass a bb but for the most part your more of an annoyance to a bb that a true threat, that said they will still whittle a bb down if left to do so.

weak against BB's

 

Light cruisers:

good against DD's if spotted and bb's with that rapid firing flamethrower they all seam to have these days, good concealment, if speced for it shred planes for fun.

week against heavy cruisers and bb's due to lack of hit points and armor.

 

Destroyers:

great concealment ideal as a spotter for the team sitting just outside detection range spamming torps, in my opinion guns should only be used if you will remain undetected or vs other dd's if spotted the longer you stay undetected the better.

 

strong vs BB's and other dd's (depending on the dd gunboat vs torp boat)

weak against CV (spotting) cruisers (rapid-fire guns) some dd's

 

from a balance perspective this seams fine but that all went out the window with a lack of CV's and the introduction of Radar.

 

now i would say DD's are in a place where there role is somewhat limited to hunting solo bb's and well spotting, capping is a risky game now with 9km (Cleveland) radars that takes the concealment and smoke a dd has and says nope because i pushed this button to make your 1 strength completely disappear.

 

it is radar that in my opinion that is the most broken part of the game at the moment or at least on par with the CV

 

  

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
3,423 posts
9,203 battles

Ive been saying this in the past and I will say it again:

 

It is a mistake to reward an OP ship to the most hardcore players in this game. Unique yes, but OP? Hell no!

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
257 posts
3,072 battles
3 minutes ago, nambr9 said:

Ive been saying this in the past and I will say it again:

 

It is a mistake to reward an OP ship to the most hardcore players in this game. Unique yes, but OP? Hell no!

they should have rewarded them with the black pearl from pirates of the Caribbean to go along with the jolly Rodger and made it a special battle only ship  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,847 posts
4,581 battles

heres to everyone that said stalingrad will never see competitive play.

 

Taken from the wows tourney that ran today.

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
22 posts
9,153 battles
Just now, thiextar said:

heres to everyone that said stalingrad will never see competitive play.

 

Taken from the wows tourney that ran today.

 

Yes Stalingrad may see some comp play but in this tournament it was used only as a counter to TWA's tactic as those teams anticipated TWA running the CL, It does NOT define meta and still has weaknesses that would make it unwanted, but keep listening to that blithering idiot flamu

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,847 posts
4,581 battles
Just now, DerpHerpInAShip said:

Yes Stalingrad may see some comp play but in this tournament it was used only as a counter to TWA's tactic as those teams anticipated TWA running the CL, It does NOT define meta and still has weaknesses that would make it unwanted, but keep listening to that blithering idiot flamu

Except his right about the ship being op, because the stats show it as a fact.

 

Who would have thought that a ship with battleship guns, russian railgun velocity, american piercing angles, and cruiser dispersion would be op? Its almost like it didnt get a combination of all the best national/class gun traits in the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,507 posts
8,204 battles
4 minutes ago, DerpHerpInAShip said:

>Worcester in the game

>People complain about Stalingrad

 

So you cant complain about something thats wrong because there is other things wrong, too? Do you go into a Worcester-thread and post

 

Quote

>Stalingrad in the game

>People complain about Worcester

there?

 

Or should I rather tell you:

 

Quote

>World hunger not solved yet

>People complain about Computer-games

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
22 posts
9,153 battles
2 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

So you cant complain about something thats wrong because there is other things wrong, too? Do you go into a Worcester-thread and post

 

there?

 

Or should I rather tell you:

 

 

No my point is that people throw so much  crap at Stalingrad calling it overpowered but almost nobody bats an eye for the Worc, guess when you can just research the broken ship its fine but when you have to earn it through CB and most of the salty people cant do that, they gotta [edited] about it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
99 posts
8,032 battles

People were trying new comps in just-for-fun one-day-tournament so ofc they run Stalingrad to see how it performs. KotS is 9v9 with 2 BBs, CBs 7v7 with unknown enemies (so you can't just counterpick like a lot of clans did here) which is vastly different from the format we saw today. Calling this "competitive play" is just Flamu desperately trying to prove his point.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,507 posts
8,204 battles
Just now, DerpHerpInAShip said:

No my point is that people throw so crap at Stalingrad calling it overpowered but almost nobody bats an eye for the Worc, guess when you can just research the broken ship its fine but when you have to earn it through CB and most of the salty people cant do that, they gotta [edited] about it.

 

I made like 95465 posts in the last weeks (since Worcester was first seen played by CCs) that Wor is stupid and broken. So I guess I have the right to call out Stalingrad aswell then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
3,800 posts
15,395 battles
3 minutes ago, Sirius707 said:

People were trying new comps in just-for-fun one-day-tournament so ofc they run Stalingrad to see how it performs. KotS is 9v9 with 2 BBs, CBs 7v7 with unknown enemies (so you can't just counterpick like a lot of clans did here) which is vastly different from the format we saw today. Calling this "competitive play" is just Flamu desperately trying to prove his point.

Sure. The same way those same people are running Stalingrad in ranked. Just "for fun" right? No influence on the meta, really.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×