T9 Essex oneshotting a T10 Montana in one attack run.

[Syrchalis]

Dive bombers disagree with you. And a 'bit' higher is not twice.

 

Show me a guy with 55% GWR that pulls off 170k average damage on a t10 BB.

 

Either you support or you deal damage. Currently CVs deal the best damage by a wide margin and they also have the best spot. This shouldn't stay. You know what's the only thing that a CV needs to be efficient? Meatshields so he can chew through the enemy hp faster than the other CV.

 

To decap you need to have planes ready. In the worst case they are on the other end of the map and empty - that means over 3 minutes before you can act. 3 minutes is enough even to solo cap an encounter cap. Since domination games are currently whats played most by far - nope, you can't attack someone often enough to keep him from capping, other ships can do that however. Also you can't ever risk capping yourself if the enemy team has more than 3 ships or so.

 

http://warshipstats.com/na/player/ShekelerUndKoch (145k average on Montana) 59% GWR - keep in mind that some games BBs don't even get to attack, while a CV nearly always gets at least one attack off, so stats are once again biased.

 

Spotting is way overrated. Every BB will always be visible once they start shooting which is around 1-2 minutes of the game. Cruisers will barely be hidden. Only destroyers need to be spottet and like I said, atm CVs are too good at that. Since CVs cant cap, or keep for capping, can't provide a meatshield and are helpless if ever in firing range I don't see how their support is so great.

[Pupu_prpr]

The stats sharana posted looks like a bunch of nonsense to me, what are the so called 'higher tiers' in that list? I average 146k damage on my Essex and it isn't even fully upgraded yet, and there's no way I'm 3x better than the average. Looks like T5 stats to me.

[Syrchalis]

The stats sharana posted looks like a bunch of nonsense to me, what are the so called 'higher tiers' in that list? I average 146k damage on my Essex and it isn't even fully upgraded yet, and there's no way I'm 3x better than the average. Looks like T5 stats to me.

 

Oh so solid evidence that doesn't support your cause is nonsense and a single case in a youtube video is of course absolute proof of your argument.

 

[Sharana]

The stats sharana posted looks like a bunch of nonsense to me, what are the so called 'higher tiers' in that list? I average 146k damage on my Essex and it isn't even fully upgraded yet, and there's no way I'm 3x better than the average. Looks like T5 stats to me.

 

High tier is  from tier 7 to 10. For CVs that means avarage stats for Ranger/Hiryu. Lexi/Shokaku, Essex/Taiho and Midway/HIA.

 

Just for for comparison how they looked since OBT start till the 0.4.1 patch. Notice the difference?

 

div	name	class	players	total battles	average of rates
					battles	win	draw	lose	exp	damage caused	warship destroyed	aircraft destoryed	base capture	base defense	survived	kill / death	point
1	Higher Tier	BB	10595	940533	88.77	43.59	10.45	45.96	1355	39135	0.54	2.32	0.53	2.65	47.28	1.10	23556
1	Higher Tier	CA	21002	1478955	70.42	41.18	12.19	46.62	1180	25016	0.50	2.63	0.88	4.93	30.12	0.81	24585
1	Higher Tier	CV	5217	483289	92.64	44.56	12.95	42.48	1976	51970	0.93	17.67	0.28	5.54	69.01	3.55	36925
1	Higher Tier	DD	8071	444982	55.13	42.45	10.73	46.81	1127	16730	0.44	0.46	1.84	3.64	25.12	0.65	24375
2	Lower Tier	BB	209097	10734801	51.34	45.20	5.97	48.82	623	18269	0.50	0.31	0.95	4.56	32.00	0.81	21583
2	Lower Tier	CA	315783	15884278	50.30	46.17	3.61	50.22	560	14464	0.54	0.22	0.87	6.98	20.91	0.73	23028
2	Lower Tier	CV	70058	3282336	46.85	43.81	7.33	48.86	925	31500	0.69	7.68	0.20	2.17	51.70	1.74	29561
2	Lower Tier	DD	196868	8124097	41.27	45.92	3.32	50.77	558	12222	0.53	0.05	0.94	2.88	16.81	0.69	25068

[Lord_WC]

http://warshipstats.com/na/player/ShekelerUndKoch (145k average on Montana) 59% GWR 

An 59% GWR guy is roughly 150% as good as you. When I said 55% GWR I meant 55% GWR. He still has 17% less average damage despite being much-much better player than you.

 

Syrchalis, on 14 September 2015 - 09:48 AM, said:

keep in mind that some games BBs don't even get to attack, while a CV nearly always gets at least one attack off, so stats are once again biased.

You really don't know how averages work, do you?

[Solial]

Sharana, most of time I disagree with ur opinion but I thank you for those stats and the link beneath it. I'd like to know: who is doing those boards (http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html) ? Copyrights are linked to Ayase Megumi, dunno who it is. And from which exact source do they extract those stats? is it 100% sure? (I'm not doubting, it's just a fair intellectual questioning).

[Syrchalis]

An 59% GWR guy is roughly 150% as good as you. When I said 55% GWR I meant 55% GWR. He still has 17% less average damage despite being much-much better player than you.

 

You really don't know how averages work, do you?

 

1. How do you want to know how good I am?

2. Apparently you don't. If I deal at least 50.000 damage every game, because I get always an attack off as CV my average will be a lot higher than that of a BB that has sometimes games with 0 damage.

3. Please get a CV to T10 and then come back and we can argue - in fact, get any ship to T10 and see for yourself how powerful BBs are at that tier.

[Sharana]

Sharana, most of time I disagree with ur opinion but I thank you for those stats and the link beneath it. I'd like to know: who is doing those boards (http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html) ? Copyrights are linked to Ayase Megumi, dunno who it is. And from which exact source do they extract those stats? is it 100% sure? (I'm not doubting, it's just a fair intellectual questioning).

 

That's some asian guy who was getting the stuff from Asian portal. Since WG released API with the stats he started doing it for all servers. So the stats themself come from WG's API.

[Solial]

 

That's some asian guy who was getting the stuff from Asian portal. Since WG released API with the stats he started doing it for all servers. So the stats themself come from WG's API.

 

Thanks for ur perfect answer.

[Pupu_prpr]

 

High tier is  from tier 7 to 10. For CVs that means avarage stats for Ranger/Hiryu. Lexi/Shokaku, Essex/Taiho and Midway/HIA.

 

Just for for comparison how they looked since OBT start till the 0.4.1 patch. Notice the difference?

 

div	name	class	players	total battles	average of rates
					battles	win	draw	lose	exp	damage caused	warship destroyed	aircraft destoryed	base capture	base defense	survived	kill / death	point
1	Higher Tier	BB	10595	940533	88.77	43.59	10.45	45.96	1355	39135	0.54	2.32	0.53	2.65	47.28	1.10	23556
1	Higher Tier	CA	21002	1478955	70.42	41.18	12.19	46.62	1180	25016	0.50	2.63	0.88	4.93	30.12	0.81	24585
1	Higher Tier	CV	5217	483289	92.64	44.56	12.95	42.48	1976	51970	0.93	17.67	0.28	5.54	69.01	3.55	36925
1	Higher Tier	DD	8071	444982	55.13	42.45	10.73	46.81	1127	16730	0.44	0.46	1.84	3.64	25.12	0.65	24375
2	Lower Tier	BB	209097	10734801	51.34	45.20	5.97	48.82	623	18269	0.50	0.31	0.95	4.56	32.00	0.81	21583
2	Lower Tier	CA	315783	15884278	50.30	46.17	3.61	50.22	560	14464	0.54	0.22	0.87	6.98	20.91	0.73	23028
2	Lower Tier	CV	70058	3282336	46.85	43.81	7.33	48.86	925	31500	0.69	7.68	0.20	2.17	51.70	1.74	29561
2	Lower Tier	DD	196868	8124097	41.27	45.92	3.32	50.77	558	12222	0.53	0.05	0.94	2.88	16.81	0.69	25068

 

Ah, it includes T7 and T8, no wonder then. Makes the stats absolutely pointless since CVs turn to godmode at T9. Extra TB squad for US CVs and the dumb +15% attacking aircraft upgrade.

[Lord_WC]

1. How do you want to know how good I am?

2. Apparently you don't. If I deal at least 50.000 damage every game, because I get always an attack off as CV my average will be a lot higher than that of a BB that has sometimes games with 0 damage.

3. Please get a CV to T10 and then come back and we can argue - in fact, get any ship to T10 and see for yourself how powerful BBs are at that tier.

1. You have 55% GWR. It's a rough estimation obviously, but an 59% guy will be much better than you.

2. So, then those 50k damages don't count? Or what? Hey, why don't I get 50k guaranteed damage no questions asked in my DD? Average damage means just that - your likelyhood of dealing an amount of damage. If there is little discrepancy in it it's even worse - no matter what happens in a battle you are not likely to get shafted.

3. When I worked as a space engineer and had to design a lunar lander they sent me to the moon first, because it was needed to have firsthand experiences. Then I was extremely grateful I wasn't trying to design an instrument to take lava samples because then I would have to swim in lava.

[Solial]

I don't like the way Flamu is going in a crusade but his last post is right on a single thing: it would be really cool to get those stats for T9-T10. Playing T10 myself, the whole CV games and balance is changed as soon as T9 is at stake. T10 is even "worse" with the speed boosts of airplanes etc.

 

But if we don't have it: don't put those boards in a trash because they don't support ur crusade Flamu. Self intellectual moderation is a good start when you try to be smart (not easy though).

[Syrchalis]

 

Ah, it includes T7 and T8, no wonder then. Makes the stats absolutely pointless since CVs turn to godmode at T9. Extra TB squad for US CVs and the dumb +15% attacking aircraft upgrade.

 

And BBs AA doesn't improve, they also don't get another AA upgrade and there aren't crazy cruisers like the Baltimore at T9 that kill 1 plane per second with 8km range.

 

Also for CVs to score lower than BBs if they are as godmode as you say at T9/10 they would need to be really crap at T7/8 to drag the statistics down so much.

1. You have 55% GWR. It's a rough estimation obviously, but an 59% guy will be much better than you.

2. So, then those 50k damages don't count? Or what? Hey, why don't I get 50k guaranteed damage no questions asked in my DD? Average damage means just that - your likelyhood of dealing an amount of damage. If there is little discrepancy in it it's even worse - no matter what happens in a battle you are not likely to get shafted.

3. When I worked as a space engineer and had to design a lunar lander they sent me to the moon first, because it was needed to have firsthand experiences. Then I was extremely grateful I wasn't trying to design an instrument to take lava samples because then I would have to swim in lava.

1. Where do you get that number from? My winrate is 60,33%.

2. They count, but as I said, CVs need higher damage, because they can't contribute directly to victory in any other way

3. Great, pull an example that has nothing to do with it at all and doesn't fit at all just to defend yourself. Hey I can even use that non-fitting example and turn it on you. Would you ask the guy who was on the moon 700 times to design your lander or the guy who never was?

[Pupu_prpr]

 

And BBs AA doesn't improve, they also don't get another AA upgrade and there aren't crazy cruisers like the Baltimore at T9 that kill 1 plane per second with 8km range.

 

Also for CVs to score lower than BBs if they are as godmode as you say at T9/10 they would need to be really crap at T7/8 to drag the statistics down so much.

Just speaking from experience playing against them and playing as one.

 

On my Lexington I averaged 74k damage. On my Essex I average 146k damage and it's not even fully upgraded yet.

 

I know I didn't magically turn into a twice as good player overnight, it's just the ship that's blatantly overpowered.

 

You guys can argue you all you like, but having played a T9 CV myself now it's absolutely blatantly obvious how broken it is and I can't help but shrug my head at how deeply you have to be in denial to even argue against that.

[Hauptbahnhof]

DDs which are at the absolute bottom of the foodchain and are close to unplayable above T5 aren't crying ever really, even though they have all reason to.

 

What DDs?

[Gekko2]

Top average damage, top total damage, top xp, top win rates  http://wows-numbers.com/ranking/?order=average_damage__desc    all CV's you need to scroll a while to come across any other class - look at the names of those players as well - look familiar... it should if you have read the post in this thread.

[Exocet6951]

I leave the forum and the game for a few weeks, and come back to yet another round of BB tears.

Figures.

 

This is exactly like +-2 MM whining, where someone moans and cries when they're bottom tier, but shuts right up as soon as they are top tier.

Wrecking cruisers and DDs is all fun and games until they get hit by a couple TBs. Then come the waterworks.

 

Oh well, more salt for the ocean, that WG is kind enough to (mostly) ignore.

[Lord_WC]

1. Where do you get that number from? My winrate is 60,33%.

2. They count, but as I said, CVs need higher damage, because they can't contribute directly to victory in any other way

3. Great, pull an example that has nothing to do with it at all and doesn't fit at all just to defend yourself. Hey I can even use that non-fitting example and turn it on you. Would you ask the guy who was on the moon 700 times to design your lander or the guy who never was?

1. Yes. Your CV winrate is 64,75%, your non-CV winrate is 53,26%. I looked at your stats and calculated the latter quickly in my head, that's why I rounded up to the next 5%. Also, forgive me if I don't consider sealclubbing in CVs skill, or 'legit' winrate. Which is indicated by the 11% difference as well.

2. Well, BBs can't contribute also. Or CAs. The game is all about the damage. If there was respawn and the game could only be won by capping and holding points (something like a ticket system in fps where a death is only about 1/500th of winning the game) I would agree with you. But currently the game can be easily won by killing everything.

3. I'm not defending myself. I'm saying that your initial thought that reading stats requires playing CV is simply wrong. And to answer your question - I would ask the guy to design a lander who is an engineer by trade. Just because someone sit 700 times in a cabin doesn't mean he is skilled or understands what's he's doing.

[Hellfoxe]

Let's all complain about how brokenly overpowered JAPANESE carriers are...   oh wait. People forgot to cry about American carriers and they are actually still very good now and now they suffer for it lulz.

 

p.s. Montana's torpedo belt is terrible, you could not do this to a Yamato.

 

I think op cv must lacking fighters otherwise his torp and bomber squadrons would be destroyed within few minutes.

[Syrchalis]

Top average damage, top total damage, top xp, top win rates  http://wows-numbers.com/ranking/?order=average_damage__desc    all CV's you need to scroll a while to come across any other class - look at the names of those players as well - look familiar... it should if you have read the post in this thread.

 

Pre 0.4.1 stats - irrelevant since mirror matchmaking. We all know that having a CV and enemy having none or 2vs1 was broken and that's why WG reacted.

3. I'm not defending myself. I'm saying that your initial thought that reading stats requires playing CV is simply wrong. And to answer your question - I would ask the guy to design a lander who is an engineer by trade. Just because someone sit 700 times in a cabin doesn't mean he is skilled or understands what's he's doing.

Oh come on. You're really like girls in school that need to nitpick about anything in an example one doesn't 100% clarify. If you had two twins both expert engineers and one was on the moon 700 times and experienced all challenges that came with it and the other was designing self-cleaning sinks in the meantime - who would you hire?

I wasn't saying you can't read stats, I was just saying you are insanely biased against CVs because you haven't been on the other side. I was on both sides.

[OldGrandad]

Yes, the OP has a point, but the given example was a little poor as the best way to display the concern that at tier 10 CV's overpower BB's would have been to show the video from the BB's perspective as well. I am now too far away to offer judgement on balance at the upper tiers but I am surprised at how this 'debate' has escalated in a day!

[AgarwaenME]

 

Ah, it includes T7 and T8, no wonder then. Makes the stats absolutely pointless since CVs turn to godmode at T9. Extra TB squad for US CVs and the dumb +15% attacking aircraft upgrade.

 

Do you understand what "average" means? If T9 and T10 CVs are "godmode", then T7 and T8 BBs needs to be even more "godmode" to make those stats appear like they do.

 

And no, your personal performance isn't relevant for what the average should be. Nor are the top scores amongst all players, especially due to how so many of those not merely played ships that have now been seriously nerfed, they also semi-abused the MM during the first few weeks and regularly had battles against full teams of low tier ships in their 3 player high tier divisions.

[Pupu_prpr]

Yes, the OP has a point, but the given example was a little poor as the best way to display the concern that at tier 10 CV's overpower BB's would have been to show the video from the BB's perspective as well. I am now too far away to offer judgement on balance at the upper tiers but I am surprised at how this 'debate' has escalated in a day!

 

I have done that before.

 

 

People told me to turn towards the torps, like it would make some groundbreaking change. In response I posted this Essex vid where he turns towards them.

 

As I've said before, without Defensive Fire active on a nearby cruiser you might as well be lobbing rocks at the planes.

[Sharana]

That's the avarage stats. Yes the ships can achieve a lot more, yet the majority of the players can't and that applies to all ships, not only for CVs. You have 146K avg damage in Essex - good for you, the others don't. There are guys with 140K+ avg in Yamato, yet the majority is not. You can fish for attention for your YT channel all you want, that doesn't change the avarage stats.

 

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20150912nt/average_ship.html

nation	class	tier	name	players	total battles	average of rates
						battles	win	draw	lose	exp	damage caused	warship destroyed	aircraft destoryed	base capture	base defense	survived	kill / death	point
JP	CV	9	Taiho	133	1976		47.37	5.52	47.11	8140	68629	1.09
JP	CV	10	Hakuryu	63	912		51.23	3.88	44.90	13794	85667	1.16
US	CV	9	Essex	100	2347		42.16	5.12	52.72	7343	76035	1.18
US	CV	10	Midway	48	792		54.02	4.28	41.71	11110	110067	1.46

 

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20150912nt/average_ship.html

nation	class	tier	name	players	total battles	average of rates
						battles	win	draw	lose	exp	damage caused	warship destroyed	aircraft destoryed	base capture	base defense	survived	kill / death	point
JP	BB	9	Izumo	125	3253		44.91	4.03	51.06	3619	56385	0.81
JP	BB	10	Yamato	165	3434		52.64	4.40	42.96	6622	91254	1.12
US	BB	9	Iowa	465	9784		51.60	4.94	43.46	8212	67083	1.03
US	BB	10	Montana	144	2157		47.08	3.65	49.27	7390	77485	1.04

 

As for the high tier CVs becoming better and only Midway probably a bit OP if they keep these stats (only 8 days worth of stats in this), that's the developers vision of high end gameplay:

 As per historical reality, our game will reflect the growing influence of carriers for higher tiers. ... Further on, at higher tiers, heavy carriers will begin fielding dozens of plane squadrons, and can easily turn the tides in any battle.

http://blog.worldofwarships.com/aircraft-carrier-vs-battleship-force-balance/

 

 Getting a bit higher, tier IX and X players will see that carriers there have an edge over battleships. Their hangars will embed several dozens of attack aircrafts that are deadly enough (if operated properly) to drown a casual battleship.

...

Q: OK, so what ships may players use to counter them at higher tiers?

A: During WWII, they introduced “AAA arrangement” — moving in a certain formation with wisely distributed firing sectors, where all the ships cover each other from aerial attacks. No wonder such an “umbrella” was hard to penetrate for any sort of aircraft.

...

This type of defense implies a complicated tactical interaction of naval groups. So, if at the early stages, ships tend to be more independent from one another, the later stages are known more for wise communication between all team members, that defines battle outcome rather than individual features of each vessel afloat.

http://blog.worldofwarships.com/aircraft-carrier-vs-battleship-the-clash-of-the-titans/
 

[AgarwaenME]

I don't like the way Flamu is going in a crusade but his last post is right on a single thing: it would be really cool to get those stats for T9-T10. Playing T10 myself, the whole CV games and balance is changed as soon as T9 is at stake. T10 is even "worse" with the speed boosts of airplanes etc.

 

But if we don't have it: don't put those boards in a trash because they don't support ur crusade Flamu. Self intellectual moderation is a good start when you try to be smart (not easy though).

 

On that note, I'd like to see those stats with the top and bottom 10% or so excluded. Ie, a more relevant real list of average performance, without unicums and the very worst heavily influencing stats.