Buff Zao and GK turret angles.

[Sweedish_Gunner]

Title says it all really.

 

Both of these ships are made up Weegee fantasy and they both have godawful turret angles for no reason. 

 

When things like the Petro have 360 turrets all around and the Columbo has 360 turrets in the rear there's no excuse for these paper ships to be arbitrarily bad. 

 

You even buffed the Donskoi's angles back in the day so it's not like it isn't thought about in regards to balance. 

 

P.s buff secondary skills. 

[Odo_Toothless]

IX Lion has awful rear angle too, so I think VII KGV with 32 mm armor would be easier to play in the same MM ...

[Origin47]

There are a lot of ships that could use better turret firing angles: all IJN cruisers from Myoko -> T10, german cruisers from T8 ->T10, german BBs from T8 -> T10, some french DDs, Tallinn, Riga, KGV, Monarch, Lion, and so on.

[22cm]

The turret angles in the game was a way of balancing those ships.

In real life, there were many obstacles built in the superstructure that limited the turret angles. 

Of course, new paper-ships like strong-vodka Russian-bullshitt Petrov made them powercrept. 

[Animalul2012]

You dont buff a ship weakness in the first place,you enhance its strenghts beyod the threshold.

GK and german BB are in a rough spot cause they are low skill ship and yet results in low reward. Would be good to reduce secondary range to 11.5 for all t8-10 german BB and exchnage have the secondary skill which gives -35% dispersion already build in or the 20% range increase one.

ZAO needs 4 k more HP at least and decrease japanese cruiser dispersion beyond the threshold: Give them the same dispersion as IWAKY ALPHA. Yet you will have now the higghest accuracy of any ship in the game. 

[Dan7e_DMC]

Buffing ships that are already fine is not the answer.  The buffs won't change how a bad player performs in them.  Leave them be as they are.

[KillStealBoss]

4 hours ago, HMCS_Halifax said:

Buffing ships that are already fine is not the answer.  The buffs won't change how a bad player performs in them.  Leave them be as they are.

Zao with 40k hp is fine on T10? Huh ?

[Gebe_]

Zao most definitely needs a buff - I don't even remember when I have last seen a Zao in competitive.

 

GK, on the other hand, is fairly balanced. Anyway, slightly better turret angles probably wouldn't make it OP.

[Dan7e_DMC]

6 hours ago, MacArthur92 said:

Zao with 40k hp is fine on T10? Huh ?

Always has been.

[KapteinSabeltann]

On 4/22/2021 at 3:24 AM, Sweedish_Gunner said:

Title says it all really.

 

Both of these ships are made up Weegee fantasy and they both have godawful turret angles for no reason. 

 

When things like the Petro have 360 turrets all around and the Columbo has 360 turrets in the rear there's no excuse for these paper ships to be arbitrarily bad. 

 

You even buffed the Donskoi's angles back in the day so it's not like it isn't thought about in regards to balance. 

 

P.s buff secondary skills. 

You forgot: reinstate zao health. It had it's health dropped 10k when it could invisifire (like that counters invisifire), when they removed invisi-fire they kept the health at T8 (40k) Literally no reason for it. None. Hindi is better long range HE anyways.

[JohnMac79]

1 hour ago, HMCS_Halifax said:

Always has been.

But now we have a ton of 457mm guns we didnt have before.... It has the same HP as the T7 Myoko... at T10.

[Ronchabale]

Agree Zao could do with better angles (or faster turret rotation)

Add to that 5-10k more HP

[SV_Kompresor]

Zao's angles are fine. What it needs is 10k more HP.

[ghostbuster_]

On 4/22/2021 at 3:24 AM, Sweedish_Gunner said:

Title says it all really.

 

Both of these ships are made up Weegee fantasy and they both have godawful turret angles for no reason. 

 

When things like the Petro have 360 turrets all around and the Columbo has 360 turrets in the rear there's no excuse for these paper ships to be arbitrarily bad. 

 

You even buffed the Donskoi's angles back in the day so it's not like it isn't thought about in regards to balance. 

 

P.s buff secondary skills. 

Why? Gk already has great turret angles when disengaging.  Besides she is already a strong ship. Why buffing her? There is absolutely no need for that.

[KillStealBoss]

On 4/25/2021 at 3:21 PM, HMCS_Halifax said:

Always has been.

Zao was having 48k hp in the old times. It got nerfed because of stealth fire - to nerf it survivability if it gets spotted. Now stealth fire is long gone and having lowest hp pool means also the lowest hp regen. Having 3k less hp than Mino is.... a joke.

[Aragathor]

6 hours ago, JohnMac79 said:

But now we have a ton of 457mm guns we didnt have before....

Well, some people ignore the fact that the game is constantly changing and evolving. Like the devs.

They think old ships are fine. While they are in fact at the bottom. Look at not only Zao.

Montana? Nerfed by the lack of overmatch. Khabarovsk? Nerfed into oblivion and powercrept.

Indianapolis? Kept in a bad state by being excluded from line-wide buffs.

 

WG has the reflexes and perception of a blind chess player.

 

[ghostbuster_]

1 minute ago, Aragathor said:

Well, some people ignore the fact that the game is constantly changing and evolving. Like the devs.

They think old ships are fine. While they are in fact at the bottom. Look at not only Zao.

Montana? Nerfed by the lack of overmatch. Khabarovsk? Nerfed into oblivion and powercrept.

Indianapolis? Kept in a bad state by being excluded from line-wide buffs.

 

WG has the reflexes and perception of a blind chess player.

 

Montana nerfed? She is still a very solid ship... what are you talking about?

[JohnMac79]

1 minute ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Montana nerfed? She is still a very solid ship... what are you talking about?

I barely see one per hundred games.

[Aragathor]

2 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Montana nerfed? She is still a very solid ship... what are you talking about?

Solid ship for whom? Stats show a different image.

With the amount of ships that can bow tank 406mm shells Montana has little to offer. And it can't improve the reload, so you can just more accurately bounce your shells from ships like Petropavlovsk.

[GarrusBrutus]

52 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

With the amount of ships that can bow tank 406mm shells Montana has little to offer.

Just shoot High Effective ammo

[geschlittert]

GK needs to keep her bad turret angles, or it would outclass Montana in every way. 

Yours, a GK main

[ghostbuster_]

1 hour ago, JohnMac79 said:

I barely see one per hundred games.

And this means she needs a buff?

56 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

Solid ship for whom? Stats show a different image.

With the amount of ships that can bow tank 406mm shells Montana has little to offer. And it can't improve the reload, so you can just more accurately bounce your shells from ships like Petropavlovsk.

Well, look for other targets or load HE if you dont have any other targets or go for upper bow? Why dont i have any issues with montana?

[Yxkraft]

On 4/22/2021 at 12:21 PM, Animalul2012 said:

You dont buff a ship weakness in the first place,you enhance its strenghts beyod the threshold.

GK and german BB are in a rough spot cause they are low skill ship and yet results in low reward. Would be good to reduce secondary range to 11.5 for all t8-10 german BB and exchnage have the secondary skill which gives -35% dispersion already build in or the 20% range increase one.

ZAO needs 4 k more HP at least and decrease japanese cruiser dispersion beyond the threshold: Give them the same dispersion as IWAKY ALPHA. Yet you will have now the higghest accuracy of any ship in the game. 

 

The #1 problem with german bbs are the shitty main guns placed in crappy poorly armored turrets that have poor angles. German turret armor at T10 is comparable to German turret armor at T7. The secondaries are a skill trap, they are easily destroyed by large caliber HE or small caliber fast firing AP. Then you have 7 points sunk into nothing. Most survivable secondaries are american, but even they are destroyed by the same means, it just takes a bit longer.  The idea of "close combat battleships" is poorly thought out, german bbs do not have the heal capabilities and fast turret turn rates to survive in close combat, and they are best deployed at range, where they dont hit crap, because they have the crappiest guns. If you look at competitive play, they are exceedingly rare.  And they take surprising amounts of damage from small caliber HE to the superstructure. The battle below happened at ranges starting at 7 km, when 1 GK followed by 1 Conqueror and 1 Des Moines tried to flank bottom to top on the right side. Map was north, ranked gold 7v7.  Look at number of secondary shots fired and number of secondary hits and secondary damage on the GK compared to Conqueror and Des Moines. The secondaries did an insignificant amount of damage to these ships despite a comparable number of hits, but the GK got a workover. Wut? 

[DFens_666]

9 hours ago, Yxkraft said:

The battle below happened at ranges starting at 7 km, when 1 GK followed by 1 Conqueror and 1 Des Moines tried to flank bottom to top on the right side. Map was north, ranked gold 7v7.  Look at number of secondary shots fired and number of secondary hits and secondary damage on the GK compared to Conqueror and Des Moines. The secondaries did an insignificant amount of damage to these ships despite a comparable number of hits, but the GK got a workover. Wut? 

 

Since secondaries aim at the center of the ship at waterlevel, angling and distance are important. The further away the ship was, the more likely it is that the secondaries will hit the superstructure.

[JohnMac79]

12 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

And this means she needs a buff?

It kinda does because it has been left way behind, there is a reason nobody is playing it anymore.

 

12 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Why dont i have any issues with montana?

You are super unicum, you dont struggle too much in anything, but how often do you play montana these days really?