Petro needs to go

[Port_Authority]

No amount of fine balancing will balance this ship.

It should not have been released from the design department. It's not a valid design.

 

Soviet/Russian ships were massively top loaded. Just take a look at any of their original (not license/Italian) cruiser classes. I understand that WG's ship devs will take influence from historic plans and such, and it's ok to do so. It's ok to have Moskvas fighting with/against Iowas and stuff, no it would never happen because such ships aren't blue water friendly, but it's a game.

 

Petro? It's a monitor. It's a coastal defense ship. It would flip over at sea conditions 4 to 5. There are rafts more stable than this design. It takes the Soviet "major surface combatant as a brown water ship" concept 5 steps ahead into pure fantasy territory.

 

The functional reflection of invalid IRL design is the visible footprint of the ship. Why would anyone use tons of armour if all it took was submerging all ship systems while still having the huge [edited]bridge and sensors and high caliber guns outside? Win win. Stupid USN, IJN and the rest, they actually wasted steel. In reality the ship is so top loaded that even a double sized freeboard wouldn't grant it any significant open sea stability.

 

Freeboard increase will slightly impact broadside shots, but for bow in the only thing that's extruded out is the icebreaker.

This is all happening while Gearing doesn't have its real model, which should be lesser in size and in freeboard height.

 

If you don't like real world parallels (its a game after all) just keep in mind that fantasy solution also applies to the world set by the game.

Petro's baseline fantasy design gives it such a pro in the game world that cons would have to be severe.

 

If the game is balanced via direct action - for example real potential of the guns, the effect of alpha dmg and dispersion combined, is balanced by both reload and turret traverse, Petro's hull design should be characterized by a severe lack of mobility for both the hull and the weapons. Again, if you want to have references on how this goes, check out coastal defense ships, "monitors" and so on.

 

My proposed solution would be a completely new T10 for the line. Petro gets a dispersion buff, gets standard cruiser dispersion and gets moved to T11/supership of the line.

 

[illy]

can we give it a few days, just finishing a research bureau grind and about 40k exp from rebuying her to finish it off

[Panocek]

 

Guess what? Wargaming doesn't care UK light cruisers and then destroyers got logic defying ship handling and no one seems to bat an eye.

 

25 minutes ago, Port_Authority said:

If the game is balanced via direct action - for example real potential of the guns, the effect of alpha dmg and dispersion combined, is balanced by both reload and turret traverse, Petro's hull design should be characterized by a severe lack of mobility for both the hull and the weapons

You mean Petro already have one of the slowest turret traverses, top speed of 32kts is one of the worst among T10 cruisers and she features one of the longest rudder shifts to go with 1km turning radius?

 

Meanwhile Alaska, having equal lack of freeboard, comparable armor and even bigger guns AND being tier lower:

[Tanaka_15]

29 minutes ago, Panocek said:

 

Guess what? Wargaming doesn't care UK light cruisers and then destroyers got logic defying ship handling and no one seems to bat an eye.

 

You mean Petro already have one of the slowest turret traverses, top speed of 32kts is one of the worst among T10 cruisers and she features one of the longest rudder shifts to go with 1km turning radius?

 

Meanwhile Alaska, having equal lack of freeboard, comparable armor and even bigger guns AND being tier lower:

Alaska was bulid and i would soppose petro is not seaworthy and alaska was sea worthy but the ship was unsuccesful cos various reasons. Any way imho petro is more op than alaska. 

[Yedwy]

31 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Guess what? Wargaming doesn't care UK light cruisers and then destroyers got logic defying ship handling and no one seems to bat an eye.

 

You mean Petro already have one of the slowest turret traverses, top speed of 32kts is one of the worst among T10 cruisers and she features one of the longest rudder shifts to go with 1km turning radius?

 

Meanwhile Alaska, having equal lack of freeboard, comparable armor and even bigger guns AND being tier lower:

Thats why Alaska was pulled, also she burns longer and has worse stealth...

 

Anyway The Riga/Petro would be ok even with thinner plate, their decks and sides need to resist light cruisers not bbs

[Adm_Lindemann]

You cannot win here - reality is really far away from this game but it will really boring if it's a simulator, not an arcade game.

 

Bismarck (in the game) has terrible dispersion, while (IRL) it equipped Europe's most accurate guns (on ships).

[Panocek]

23 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

Anyway The Riga/Petro would be ok even with thinner plate, their decks and sides need to resist light cruisers not bbs

Plate that can resist CL automatically resists all but Yamato/superBB guns. And in case you've missed the memo, Glorious Navy ships tend to go around existing game design decisions to get an edge, either out of "patriotic" or "its OP and I want it" reasons.

 

27 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

Thats why Alaska was pulled, also she burns longer and has worse stealth...

Alaska actually have better camo than Petro after latter received repeated Concealment nerfs.

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

1 hour ago, Panocek said:

 

Guess what? Wargaming doesn't care UK light cruisers and then destroyers got logic defying ship handling and no one seems to bat an eye.

 

You mean Petro already have one of the slowest turret traverses, top speed of 32kts is one of the worst among T10 cruisers and she features one of the longest rudder shifts to go with 1km turning radius?

 

Meanwhile Alaska, having equal lack of freeboard, comparable armor and even bigger guns AND being tier lower:

 

Can you tell me why Petro was banned from CB? Petro should be nerfed hard........as should Alaska, Smolensk, Conqueror and the other clear OP ships. 

[Panocek]

7 minutes ago, Your38PercentWRTeammate said:

 

Can you tell me why Petro was banned from CB? Petro should be nerfed hard........as should Alaska, Smolensk, Conqueror and the other clear OP ships. 

If WG wouldn't have such hard-on for T10 CBs, you'd see Alaska ban or other limitation during T9 season. On T8 you'd have Massa/Enty/Cossack ban. At tier 7 it would be Haida/Sinop/Fiji/Belfast

 

In ideal world, game dev would do good job of balancing ships on first pass AND even better, have separating balancing for Randoms and "Competitive" game modes. Relying on "can be balanced later" rule opens up very dangerous route of releasing oh so slightly overperforming ships, in line with new CB/Ranked season then nerfhammering ship, routine already embraced by WG in their tech tree releases. Rinse and repeat to milk the tryhards.

[WWDragon]

Petro have stupid guns, serious ... that pen is downright stupid.

[Panocek]

Just now, WWDragon said:

Petro have stupid guns, serious ... that pen is downright stupid.

Stalin have even better pen, and unlike Petro, have good long range accuracy, 21mm overmatch and more than functional HE.

 

Both Petro and Stalin start struggling dealing with T10 BBs when they stop showing perfect broadside at usual combat ranges, while this pen is complete overkill against normal cruisers. 

[Lebedjev]

15 minutes ago, Panocek said:

In ideal world, game dev would do good job of balancing ships on first pass AND even better, have separating balancing for Randoms and "Competitive" game modes. Relying on "can be balanced later" rule opens up very dangerous route of releasing oh so slightly overperforming ships, in line with new CB/Ranked season then nerfhammering ship, routine already embraced by WG in their tech tree releases. Rinse and repeat to milk the tryhards.

 

The ideal world is when we end up with only one ship to play ? :v

[Panocek]

Just now, Lebedjev said:

 

The ideal world is when we end up with only one ship to play ? :v

Only then you'd achieve perfect balance

[Port_Authority]

1 hour ago, Adm_Lindemann said:

You cannot win here - reality is really far away from this game but it will really boring if it's a simulator, not an arcade game.

 

Bismarck (in the game) has terrible dispersion, while (IRL) it equipped Europe's most accurate guns (on ships).

 

I am only talking about basics of reality, which need to be reflected in the gameplay.

 

For example, Kremlin guns turret traverse is arcade thing. That's fine. Having them traverse like a light cruiser gun would be a fantasy.

 

Petro's hull issue is reflected in the worst possible way for a game where RNG has effect on shots/dispersion.

Petro has vulnerable sections but their profile at 12 km engagement is so small that any attempt even from an accurate BB is an rng affair.

 

I am really not certain what are we discussing here. The thing has less non-superstructure profile than Minotaur or any T10 CL bar Austin and new pan asians.

 

The issue is whether WG should balance it for T10 with iterative nerfs - the raising of freeboard is minimal and it won't affect the core issue that much, although it will result in brawls being more consistent. We had DMs firing volleys into Petro's slightly angled broadside (which is actually better than firing at dead broadside) for 9k dmg in clan wars. When Petro anchors you have minimal profiles and it takes RNG or 10 minutes to focus it down, when you catch it point blank pants down its submerged hull can troll you hard. That's why they removed it from CW in the first place, it's an rng ladden hell for whomever is playing against it.

 

I think that's not a good way to do it because we have a fantasy ship in the first place. So move it where it belongs, with BBs that fire 500mm shell missile accuracy volleys and cruisers that can pump out one hundred 203mm shells in 10 seconds - the supership tier.

 

See, in the end Bismarck pays for having utility and secondary guns. Sonar is too powerful for vision across islands. So it has standard accuracy on less than average shells which gives it less than average consistency. If it lost sonar, or secondaries, one of those, then a simple dispersion buff and a penetration buff so its 380mm reaches French level would make it a satisfactory BB from the standpoint of main guns.

 

Bismarck's balance state is due to 'flavor' of the line, which is based on two and a half gimmicks (sonar, sec, and turtleback). Lose one of the gimmicks and you lose the flavor. You get the standard BB then, which would warrant main gun buffs. So their decision for germans is to have a gimmick BB with substandard accuracy.

 

Petro's hull is flawed design in the first place. That's like drawing board stage 1.

[Port_Authority]

57 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Both Petro and Stalin start struggling dealing with T10 BBs when they stop showing perfect broadside at usual combat ranges, while this pen is complete overkill against normal cruisers. 

 

You do understand what this means, right?

 

It means that BB risks getting smacked twice if it tries to reposition, from a cruiser that's 12-13 km away, island camping, that's trolling all your shells hard with it's hull and armor profile. Any kind of a cruiser that tries to approach the situation risks getting radared and shot at at least once, which can have pretty devastating consequences. The DD is possibly the safest here, but keeping in mind that Petro can get very good RNG, we're still talking about possible 10k+ dmg which is 1/3 of a T10 DDs theoretical health on avg.

 

All while crossfire from the other flank is less likely to succeed due to it's size.

 

There is a clear case why WG removed it from CW. Because it's a cruiser, that on every map has positions where it can tank as a BB all while being dangerous to everyone in mid range that gives it broadside, and has a 12 km radar which is short, but is 12 km radar. It lights half the map, gives you precious info about enemy DD movement.

[tocqueville8]

1 hour ago, Panocek said:

Plate that can resist CL automatically resists all but Yamato/superBB guns.

 

I think the plating is the biggest issue with the Petro.

 

I used to play the JB a lot a couple of years ago, and while the frontal firepower was awesome, you paid dearly for it if there was a Musashi, an IFHE light cruiser or any heavy cruiser slinging HE at you. If you were caught nose-in by overmatching or HE-penning ships, you could melt in a minute.

 

Obviously, the Petro has much lower alpha, and no reload boost either, but the plating makes her a lot tankier. She's also a much smaller target.

 

In short, I just think she's bad for the game. Maybe not OP, but she encourages bad habits.

 

I'm seeing a lot of Ranked players just driving her to the nearest island and parking there, playing like a coastal battery simulator, because it's reasonably effective, requires zero adaptiveness and, while it might turn out to be a strategic mistake (they get flanked and crossfired), it's never a tactical mistake (they're not going to get Dev Struck like a regular cruiser showing broadside).

 

I think the Des Moines, with a higher risk, higher reward design, is better for the game.

[Panocek]

55 minutes ago, Port_Authority said:

 

You do understand what this means, right?

 

It means that BB risks getting smacked twice if it tries to reposition, from a cruiser that's 12-13 km away, island camping, that's trolling all your shells hard with it's hull and armor profile. Any kind of a cruiser that tries to approach the situation risks getting radared and shot at at least once, which can have pretty devastating consequences. The DD is possibly the safest here, but keeping in mind that Petro can get very good RNG, we're still talking about possible 10k+ dmg which is 1/3 of a T10 DDs theoretical health on avg.

 

All while crossfire from the other flank is less likely to succeed due to it's size.

 

There is a clear case why WG removed it from CW. Because it's a cruiser, that on every map has positions where it can tank as a BB all while being dangerous to everyone in mid range that gives it broadside, and has a 12 km radar which is short, but is 12 km radar. It lights half the map, gives you precious info about enemy DD movement.

Then blame Wargaming for their pursuit of gimmicks and blurring the lines between what used to be clear cut ship types. Now we have cruisers classified as destroyers, destroyers classified as cruisers, battleships classified as cruisers and battleships with cruiser survivability or packing torpedo payload that makes DD blush. Hybrid cruisers and battleships, what we're missing is hybrid DD and then hybrid sub, both have IRL examples already. Its only natural some combination of gimmicks will be better than others, especially in "comp" where you don't have randomly assembled team and you usually have some form of coordination.

 

Petro was designed as "anti BB" cruiser from ground up with her ridiculous AP pen and armor layout useful against battleships, just as you have destroyers capable ripping a new one in a cruiser.

 

 

18 minutes ago, tocqueville8 said:

I think the plating is the biggest issue with the Petro.

At the same time "Battleship Moskva" is ancient ship by now and everyone seems to forget about her

 

18 minutes ago, tocqueville8 said:

I'm seeing a lot of Ranked players just driving her to the nearest island and parking there, playing like a coastal battery simulator, because it's reasonably effective, requires zero adaptiveness and, while it might turn out to be a strategic mistake (they get flanked and crossfired), it's never a tactical mistake (they're not going to get Dev Struck like a regular cruiser showing broadside).

And how is that different from any other "safe and most consistent" form of gameplay, like, I dunno, island camping Des Moines, Yamato sitting at 15-18km disappearing between salvos or Halland enjoying his 15km torpedo privileges? 

[tocqueville8]

Just now, Panocek said:

And how is that different from any other "safe and most consistent" form of gameplay, like, I dunno, island camping Des Moines, Yamato sitting at 15-18km disappearing between salvos or Halland enjoying his 15km torpedo privileges? 

 

Des Moines is squishier, less forgiving. Definitely more fun to play against.

 

Yamato captains don't typically put themselves in trouble and then berate the team for "not supporting them".

I've seen several Petro ones that headed straight for the nearest island, dropped anchor, got burned down/crosstorped/etc., and blamed the team. They thought they were being clever by playing their coastal defense simulator, or maybe sidescraping like one does in WoT (I imagine: I've never played it myself...).

 

Halland is a bit of a standoff DD, what with the torps and the AA, so it doesn't make players feel they're entitled to more help (which the team is often not in a position to give) because they have Petro's in-your-face playstyle.

[Panocek]

1 minute ago, tocqueville8 said:

Des Moines is squishier, less forgiving. Definitely more fun to play against.

DM also can bury you under ordnance much faster than most ships, and unlike Petro, is way less picky about islands to camp.

[Dutchy_2019]

4 hours ago, Port_Authority said:

No amount of fine balancing will balance this ship.

It should not have been released from the design department. It's not a valid design.

 

Soviet/Russian ships were massively top loaded. Just take a look at any of their original (not license/Italian) cruiser classes. I understand that WG's ship devs will take influence from historic plans and such, and it's ok to do so. It's ok to have Moskvas fighting with/against Iowas and stuff, no it would never happen because such ships aren't blue water friendly, but it's a game.

 

Petro? It's a monitor. It's a coastal defense ship. It would flip over at sea conditions 4 to 5. There are rafts more stable than this design. It takes the Soviet "major surface combatant as a brown water ship" concept 5 steps ahead into pure fantasy territory.

 

The functional reflection of invalid IRL design is the visible footprint of the ship. Why would anyone use tons of armour if all it took was submerging all ship systems while still having the huge [edited]bridge and sensors and high caliber guns outside? Win win. Stupid USN, IJN and the rest, they actually wasted steel. In reality the ship is so top loaded that even a double sized freeboard wouldn't grant it any significant open sea stability.

 

Freeboard increase will slightly impact broadside shots, but for bow in the only thing that's extruded out is the icebreaker.

This is all happening while Gearing doesn't have its real model, which should be lesser in size and in freeboard height.

 

If you don't like real world parallels (its a game after all) just keep in mind that fantasy solution also applies to the world set by the game.

Petro's baseline fantasy design gives it such a pro in the game world that cons would have to be severe.

 

If the game is balanced via direct action - for example real potential of the guns, the effect of alpha dmg and dispersion combined, is balanced by both reload and turret traverse, Petro's hull design should be characterized by a severe lack of mobility for both the hull and the weapons. Again, if you want to have references on how this goes, check out coastal defense ships, "monitors" and so on.

 

My proposed solution would be a completely new T10 for the line. Petro gets a dispersion buff, gets standard cruiser dispersion and gets moved to T11/supership of the line.

 

 

Allegedly, Petro does not even have the lowest freeboard in the game - allegedly one of the Germans has (Gneise or Scharny!).

 

Petro is allegedly an actual design, less fantasy than many of the ships out there. And if the actual design was followed, she would have had Stalingrad guns (better guns than she has now!).

 

 

 

 

 

[tocqueville8]

Just now, Panocek said:

DM also can bury you under ordnance much faster than most ships, and unlike Petro, is way less picky about islands to camp.

 

And as I said, I'm fine with that. Higher risk, higher reward.

 

I'm not complaining about an OP ship, I'm complaining about a ship I feel has a low skill floor and is unfun to deal with. At least Stalingrad has some ridiculous accuracy and an easier-to-hit citadel...

[Dutchy_2019]

I guess people have not noticed the new DevBlog:

 

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/299

 

Petro is getting a nerf, Tashkent a buff.

[BlackYeti]

3 hours ago, Your38PercentWRTeammate said:

Conqueror

Huh? Conq is toxic, sure but far from op...

[Chips_uk]

Are you really mentioning fantasy ships, but ignore the "press button to magically reload huge bb guns faster", or "the more you get shot the faster you reload" Captain skill, or "your AA guns can magically behave better if you select a side to focus on despite having no extra guns capable of shooting there", or that "my boat can magically repair critical damage better than yours" / "we have secret rounds that penetrate instead of bounce at better angles", or how about the "I can call in air bombing runs, "I can charge in smoke invisible until 2km at full speed despite smoke generators not puffing smoke ahead of ships in real life ever" ...

 

The game is filled with gimmicks to try and make things "different", enable them to expand lines with new things (or duplicate lines) in order to keep people playing/grinding/paying - and all that creates zero balance (and worse still, renders older ships obsolete because they have zero gimmicks). And then the random gauntlet of enemy team having the super unicum division 80% win raters as divisions in top tier, while your teams "best" players are bottom tier... 

 

Singling out Petro? I'd rather face that then some of the other bonkers beyond belief crap that the game has in it :D The game is a game. Don't take it seriously. It helps to just accept it's a bit fubar at times and enjoy the rest :) 

[FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor]

<Bayraktar intensifies>

https://soundcloud.com/shota-tepnadze/bayraktar-official-song?utm_source=clipboard&amp;utm_medium=text&amp;utm_campaign=social_sharing