Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pawndemonium

Murmansk and Gremyashchy

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Weekend Tester
482 posts

I'm not sure if those two are suitable tier 5 premium ships. As they're premium they should suffer the same fate as any other ship of this status and sort of have a tier penalty, by being moved up to tier 6.

The Murmansk is pretty much a fully upgraded Omaha (this got more apparent with 0.3.1 as a new hull option got introduced), with less drawbacks, which just can't be right, I'd even go as far and say that this premium ship outperforms the American Tier 5 Cruiser even when fully upgraded (the range alone is a big point, but it doesn't even stop there, it has higher manoeuvrability aswell, let alone superior torps).

 

And yeah, the Gremyashchy... I think I don't even have to mention this one, just totally out of place at tier 5, more so when it's a premium ship.

So... not sure, am I missing something? I have to add, I don't own any of these, it's pretty much just comparing statistics.

 

Any ideas why Tier 5 is reasonable here (apart from russian bias .p)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
109 posts
836 battles

they are premium RUSSIAN ships.... that explains everything and  why it will stay so.

 

Then about their tiers well if I can agree they are good right now, they aren't the only one it the wrong tier..; who said Cleveland or Atlanta ?

Edited by Harada_Taro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
3,402 posts
18,101 battles

I'm not sure if those two are suitable tier 5 premium ships. As they're premium they should suffer the same fate as any other ship of this status and sort of have a tier penalty, by being moved up to tier 6.

The Murmansk is pretty much a fully upgraded Omaha (this got more apparent with 0.3.1 as a new hull option got introduced), with less drawbacks, which just can't be right, I'd even go as far and say that this premium ship outperforms the American Tier 5 Cruiser even when fully upgraded (the range alone is a big point, but it doesn't even stop there, it has higher manoeuvrability aswell, let alone superior torps).

 

And yeah, the Gremyashchy... I think I don't even have to mention this one, just totally out of place at tier 5, more so when it's a premium ship.

So... not sure, am I missing something? I have to add, I don't own any of these, it's pretty much just comparing statistics.

 

Any ideas why Tier 5 is reasonable here (apart from russian bias .p)?

 

 

Hello Pawndemonium, I was intrigued regarding your thoughts as you have made judgement without owning any of the ships you mention. You have made a comparison of the Omaha versus the Murmansk, but until you actually sail either of them you cannot make assumptions on their relative performance as statistics are not the sole representative for results. I can say that both the Omaha and Murmansk are pretty much equal having played 82 and 60 battles in them respectively. Has the Murmansk got the edge? Possibly but that can be as much as down to the player. For instance I had the Omaha pretty early on and did not get the Murmansk until much later by that time my skill in cruisers had risen a bit so I am getting averagely better results in the Murmansk now. I am not much of a DD player so would leave views on that to someone who has had decent experience in sailing the 'Greg'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
482 posts

I'm not sure why you completely ignore my main issue and instead attempt to mock my lack of experience with said ships, even though you apparently admit that I might have a point. It's not my fault that I'm asked to mindlessly shell out cash to test some aspects of a beta test.

Ship performance can easily be determined by looking at certain stats (more so when both are the same ship class, I wouldn't dare saying the Montana outperforms the Yamato, as there are factors which require ingame experience). And in the case of the Murmansk it has to be compared to a fully upgraded ship in its own tier (and the same class!!!, making it reasonable enough to bring up), which as a Premium ship is just a huge balancing issue, more so when it outperforms it.

The Murmanks has 14.8km range compared to 12.7km, along with more agility, and superior torpedoes (which are more apparent when trying to fill the AA niche).

Some might argue that in most cases these are minor differences, but apart from those adding up, and giving the Murmansk more flexibility in many situations, the fact that you admit that they are pretty equal (with random variance on your behalf), while the Murmanks also has a better credit/XP income makes me wonder why you even bring up the point that I should first sail these ships.

So please tell me of factors which actually require me to acquire these ships, before having a valid opinion in your eyes. I'm intrigued now!

Edited by Pawndemonium
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-RFA-]
Alpha Tester
237 posts
9,568 battles

I'm not sure why you completely ignore my main issue and instead attempt to mock my lack of experience with said ships, even though you apparently admit that I might have a point. It's not my fault that I'm asked to mindlessly shell out cash to test some aspects of a beta test.

Ship performance can easily be determined by looking at certain stats (more so when both are the same ship class, I wouldn't dare saying the Montana outperforms the Yamato, as there are factors which require ingame experience). And in the case of the Murmansk it has to be compared to a fully upgraded ship in its own tier (and the same class!!!, making it reasonable enough to bring up), which as a Premium ship is just a huge balancing issue, more so when it outperforms it.

The Murmanks has 14.8km range compared to 12.7km, along with more agility, and superior torpedoes (which are more apparent when trying to fill the AA niche).

Some might argue that in most cases these are minor differences, but apart from those adding up, and giving the Murmansk more flexibility in many situations, the fact that you admit that they are pretty equal (with random variance on your behalf), while the Murmanks also has a better credit/XP income makes me wonder why you even bring up the point that I should first sail these ships.

So please tell me of factors which actually require me to acquire these ships, before having a valid opinion in your eyes. I'm intrigued now!

 

Dude chill out!

He is not mocking you, just stating an rather real critic... And if he has the ships and find them to be more or less the same...

 

You make some good point regarding range, but there are other stats, and these might make up for the difference.

But the critic is real

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
482 posts

Whut? How was my post offensive? .p

Thing is, and the Murmansk is probably a better example for this, as you can easily compare it to the Omaha, what stats make the difference? I'd totally look forward to examples why I'm wrong, and why I actually have to own the ship. But as of now I just see the same shipclass, where the premium version gets better modules.

Maybe I just misunderstand the concept of Premiums, and I'm totally fine with being wrong, but compared to other nations, which have quite the niche ships, the Murmansk just looks like an upgrade compared to the Omaha (which I have to admit hardly has any impact on gameplay in most cases, because of the tier, but it still is a difference compared to other nations)

I think the best example will be made when the Bismarck gets released as a premium and also is available in the tech tree. Although I'm pretty sure the performance of the premium version is supposed to be lower (as it's about training a commander and making credits).

So if my earlier post read offensive, it wasn't supposed to, I just thought it was inappropriate to tell me I have to own a ship, which apparently can easily be discussed with stats alone. Again, if it's not the case, please tell me why... is the citadel different, is i the armour/module layout... I don't know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RONIN]
[RONIN]
Beta Tester
2,687 posts
5,569 battles

Knew I'd written a comparison before:

 

 
 
Mumansk:
 
 
 
This is essentially an omaha, with some differences, which again youll either prefer, or think it makes it worse.
 
I'll start with the cons:
 
Less guns
 
Worse dispersion
 
Weaker gun casement
 
Slower (by 1kmph) torps
 
2x3 torps instead of 4x2 so less torps, less flexible (one either side)
 
AA is shorter range, mostly 2.5 not 3.5
 
 
 
Pros:
 
Range is 14.5 km
 
Torps are 8km
 
Harder to spot
 
Rudder turns 5.0 secs not 9.8
 
Tighter turn
 
More AA
 
 
 
So you get less shots, and they miss more, while providing less AA support for team mates, and your guns break more.
 
However, you can shoot further than your spotted, the AA is nice for protecting you, and you turn on a dime. This really annoys TB and DD which you can dodge their torps with impunity, and you can engage battleships at range while easily dodging any return fire. The torps actually are used at a range you're more likely to be at without needing to be on a suicide run
Slow long range torps are however incredibly likely to miss.
 
This was pre-patch. I haven't got home from work yet to check if anything has changed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
3,402 posts
18,101 battles

@Pawndemonium - I was not mocking but pointing out a very prominent point, your inexperience in those particular ships. Let me use an analogy; if you read about 2 cars and their statistics you are not going to buy one purely on that alone, you test drive them. Ok, you cannot 'test drive' the ships but have to purchase them but none the less personal experience counts for more than reading paper statistics.

 

@Xevious_Red -  Thank you for posting those statistics and pros and cons, will help convince more that there are some pretty convincing reasons to have both ships in their port.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
482 posts

Lol I do get your point that it's normally bold to post something like that without having those ships in the port.

However in that case we are talking about base parameters (the ship in question is still an Omaha). In the case of your analogy I actually test drive a car, and get notified that there is a premium version which handles better for more cash afterwards... .p

 

I have to add something to those stats aswell.

While you have the option to have more guns and more torps (however, less damage, and range when it comes to the latter), the recent update added another hull which pretty much attempts to convert the Omaha into a Murmansk.

The gun accuracy is actually in favour of the Murmansk, the dispersion is just higher because of the range difference.

Before the patch the Murmansk was a sidegrade, compared to the second hull of the Omaha (as the posted comparison pointed out, the AA on that hull is abyssmal though), apparently we can agree on that (which is imo a problem already, as it still receives more credits/xp, it's a premium ship), however the recent patch added a hull to the Omaha which just added insult to injury (it removes 2 guns, 2 launchers, for more AA, resulting in a Murmansk setup with less versatility).

Long story short, yes it's reasonable to have both ships in your harbor for different applications (as long as you just stick to the second hull), but I still think it's wrong when a tech ship doesn't perform better under general circumstances. That's like having an Atlanta with 14km gunrange... it wouldn't be broken, just more effective. .p

 

When it comes to the Gremy, it's actually unreasonable to bring it up without owning it, I totally agree on that, it's just a good strategy to release a ship with less extreme parameters like the USN DDs and IJN DDs have at lower tiers (although I'm not sure if it's a grand idea to release a jack of all trades as a premium ship, but apparently that's just me).

Edited by Pawndemonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CPC]
Beta Tester
149 posts
4,170 battles

As they're premium they should suffer the same fate as any other ship of this status and sort of have a tier penalty, by being moved up to tier 6.

Why ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
49 posts
2,730 battles

I got the gremlin and to say the truth statistics or no those guns are completely useless when you maneuver to avoid fire (that being the case if you decide to go torp someone). so from my point of view its just one of those ships that in the right hands can do a LOT of damage (which I manage to do every 4 battles or so) but in the hands of an inexperienced player or someone who just doesn't fit his style its useless. The guns are op if u know how to use them but all vessels can be a pain in the right hands. example: most people hate the m7 in wot. I loved it and racked tons of kills in it.

keep in mind that the DDs role is recon and torp surprise behind sex (at least that's what I think of em). the gremlin is not that good in those roles cause its more suited for long range ,firing its guns. also its quite vulnerable against other DDs.


 

Edited by Aethanos

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.

×