Soviet T10 Cruiser Moskva - First Impressions [183k damage]

[mtm78]

 

 

As per usual some condesending comments about me basing my opinions on some video and the usual "you have not played them so you can not know". If you instead focused on what I wrote this discussion might be better. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible to observe the bias by playing the ships, you have to look at the stats to see it.

 

So, people saw Furutaka and started complaining that those guns would be so OP at tier 5 and it could never be balanced.... and we all know how that turned out. Stats are important but ONLY if you're capable of seeing how individual values influence each other. If you're not.. Or if you suffer from confirmation bias... 

 

As of now, the worst Russian ship in the game with more then 1000 battles on the EU server, the Derzki have WR of 49% on avarage and 28 ships worse then it when it comes to WR. 22 of those ships are American. In fact, Russia have 12 ships placed between 1-50 and four ships between 51-100, and none among 101-117, while the US have eight ships 1-50, 17 ships 51-100 and 14 ships between 101-117. Check it yourself if you do not trust me, and I want to ask you two things:

 

Totally irrelevant in this thread, you know this but you are bothered by it so much you feel the need to bring it up everywhere anyway,

 

1. Please do explain how this is not Russian bias and just a result of randomness Irrelevant to your 'notion' about how OP these new cruisers are, and this thread is about those cruisers.

2. Please do explain how the HELL I am supposed to discover this by "playing the ships" You don't. You rely on people like Flamu and Chrysantos, and even to other people also already able to playtest them. And those people seem to have a common consensus about how 'OP' they will be.

 

My prediction is that the new cruiser line will not compete with the US ships for worst WR, and I am willing to take bets. I assume you are eager to challange me since you have "played the ships"...

 

So first you claim they are overpowered, and not you went down to "not having the lowest win rate on the server". Well at least you seem to actually start listening now

 

[Takeda92]

Wait.. who said that Furutaka would be OP before it came? We already had Aoba and the entire IJN line before Furutaka and I remember from Ectar stream that people, including him, said that the ship is going to suck (it was before the buff mind you).

 

[von_Boeg]

 

 

So first you claim they are overpowered, and not you went down to "not having the lowest win rate on the server". Well at least you seem to actually start listening now

 

 

Where did I claim they were OP? How come playtesters are unable to read? I rather said that the OP / not OP issue was irrelevant, and that the real issue here is the hidden slight advantage in WR of Russian ships compared to ships of other nations, an issue that it is impossible to discover by playtesting them. In light of that the WR stats of different nations is highly relevant.

 

If you REALLY wanted to know if there were a Russian bias you would be interested in those WR stats, not the OP-ness of single ships. Instead you find it more useful to type trollish comments.

[Crysantos]

 

Where did I claim they were OP? How come playtesters are unable to read? I rather said that the OP / not OP issue was irrelevant, and that the real issue here is the hidden slight advantage in WR of Russian ships compared to ships of other nations, an issue that it is impossible to discover by playtesting them. In light of that the WR stats of different nations is highly relevant.

 

If you REALLY wanted to know if there were a Russian bias you would be interested in those WR stats, not the OP-ness of single ships. Instead you find it more useful to type trollish comments.

 

Seriously, how do you come up with things like that? What hidden slight advantage are you talking about, please enlighten me - in detail. Please show me where the russian WR bias can be seen, back it up with data - let's take the russian DD line for example. I've checked maple syrup and other stats site like warships today, the only ships with a better WR than the other nations are the Kiev / Udaloi and sometimes Ognevoi or Khaba, depends on the data sample. Hidden advantages, russian bias and all these things seem like a thing that apparently have their origin in WoT - in WoWS it's a tinfoil hat thing for me. The only ship that's really overpowered for its Tier is the Nikolai - besides that the russian ships are not the issue, I'd be more worried about the clear IJN bias at higher Tiers - but it's hard to blame that on russians, eh?

 

Ships have in this game such a variety and different playstyles to them, that the ships with the best and easiest appeal to the average Joe have the highest winrate. Winrate is only one of many stats, it doesn't say too much on its own - the same thing applies to player stats. But when there's one thing that I've learned from this first preview of russian ships that the actual bias isn't the WG - russian things stronk bias but the player bias towards WG releasing russian ships.

[mtm78]

Nicolai AND Gremlin, those are kind of obvious since Gremlin > Gnevny in every way. The time Murmansk had longer range then C hull Omaha I would also consider her better in every way because personally I enjoy having more range. But that has been rectified already. Also, Nicolai is perhaps a bit overrated, I win more in AB then Nicolai, it's just easier/more fun to play Nicolai because of the triple forward facing turrets making it easier to keep a good amount of firepower on target.

 

Wait.. who said that Furutaka would be OP before it came? We already had Aoba and the entire IJN line before Furutaka and I remember from Ectar stream that people, including him, said that the ship is going to suck (it was before the buff mind you).

 

 

Trust me, some people did, because '203mm on tier 5 would not be balanced'. I was in your camp btw, the 'meh it will suck' one. 

 

 

Where did I claim they were OP? How come playtesters are unable to read? I rather said that the OP / not OP issue was irrelevant, and that the real issue here is the hidden slight advantage in WR of Russian ships compared to ships of other nations, an issue that it is impossible to discover by playtesting them. In light of that the WR stats of different nations is highly relevant.

 

If you REALLY wanted to know if there were a Russian bias you would be interested in those WR stats, not the OP-ness of single ships. Instead you find it more useful to type trollish comments.

 

You did say that, and reading this back you're right: I should look at WR stats. But only if I were able to correlate those to overall player stats. Maybe 'good/better' players play RU ships, and more 'average/worse' players play USN line? I actually think this is part of the reason some lines underperform and some overperform, without the ships themselves being a good enough reason to show such big differences ( big being relative ofc ). And it, to me atleast, means we as players can not just use global wr as indicative of balancing issues. I mean, it's better then nothing and since we don't have access to the correlated statistics, the wr is probably as good as it gets, but it's still not conclusive on it's own.

 

Sorry Von_Boeg that I did not go into this in my prior post, I should have.

[22cm]

Uhhh,  his argument about better WR for RU ships actually kinda stands. Went to warships.today site,  checked the all-time EU WR for all existing ships,  the worst RU ships are Derzki and Izyaslav,  but they still had an acceptable 49% WR,  with 30 more ships listed below them,  the worst 10 having 47% WR.  Only 2 RU ships below 50% , all the rest are over 50%.

We ll have to wait and see for the new ships,  but considering the previous examples from WoT,  WoWs and WoWp,  I somehow doubt that WG will make any RU item less than average. Without any real historical basis,  especially regarding the ships or planes. 

[mtm78]

And did you correlate that with the nominal performance of the people playing them?

[allufewig]

Well, all russian premiums to date were either OP like hell or at least very good. From that point of view Im not surprised people sense a russian bias.

 

Russian DDs however seem very balanced to me since the last nerfs. Warshipstats.com uses accumulated data and is therefore worthless. Maplesyrup shows them to be largely in line with other nations. A tiny advantage for the T7-10 might be there, but it is questionable if this is because the ships perform better per se, or if we have a population-bias. Ru DDs are niche-ships. I assume baddies will just abandon the line after Gnevny or Ognevoi since all the ships require quite some skill to perform above average.

[22cm]

And did you correlate that with the nominal performance of the people playing them?

 

Yes.  Somehow I don t believe that Derzki and Izyaslav are the choice vehicle for unicum players statpadding (someone was noticing rerollers started to appear in WoWs too…) 

[22cm]

Well, all russian premiums to date were either OP like hell or at least very good. From that point of view Im not surprised people sense a russian bias.

 

Russian DDs however seem very balanced to me since the last nerfs. Warshipstats.com uses accumulated data and is therefore worthless. Maplesyrup shows them to be largely in line with other nations. A tiny advantage for the T7-10 might be there, but it is questionable if this is because the ships perform better per se, or if we have a population-bias. Ru DDs are niche-ships. I assume baddies will just abandon the line after Gnevny or Ognevoi since all the ships require quite some skill to perform above average.

 

Warships.today also has 1week or 2 weeks stats,  but for this the all time stats is more relevant,  because it also covers all buffs and nerfs.  For example,  looking at Karlsruhe,  Colorado,  Yorck,  Furutaka,  Mutsuki,  etc. stats now,  they are still not good,  but however are much better than the complete turds they were for a long time. 

 

 

[mtm78]

 

Yes.  Somehow I don t believe that Derzki and Izyaslav are the choice vehicle for unicum players statpadding (someone was noticing rerollers started to appear in WoWs too…) 

 

Can you show us your number crunching then, sources for your data you used for correlation between class/nation winrate vs overall player win rate?

 

Well, all russian premiums to date were either OP like hell or at least very good. From that point of view Im not surprised people sense a russian bias.

 

Russian DDs however seem very balanced to me since the last nerfs. Warshipstats.com uses accumulated data and is therefore worthless. Maplesyrup shows them to be largely in line with other nations. A tiny advantage for the T7-10 might be there, but it is questionable if this is because the ships perform better per se, or if we have a population-bias. Ru DDs are niche-ships. I assume baddies will just abandon the line after Gnevny or Ognevoi since all the ships require quite some skill to perform above average.

 

Nicolai is very good. But that is also because the enemies it meets ( and I don't mean the ships themselves ). Gremmy is special in that it wasn't nerved like the other RU DD's, being able to stealth fire from 9.7km is a great thing Murmansk is as far as I'm concerned not better than Omaha now, except for better rudder shift. And I think Atago is more useful in most situations then MK, though ofc MK is the best escort cruiser with his through the roof AAA abilities. 

 

The DD's are the only normal ship line, and as you say they appear to be balanced pretty well. 

[allufewig]

 

Warships.today also has 1week or 2 weeks stats,  but for this the all time stats is more relevant,  because it also covers all buffs and nerfs.  For example,  looking at Karlsruhe,  Colorado,  Yorck,  Furutaka,  Mutsuki,  etc. stats now,  they are still not good,  but however are much better than the complete turds they were for a long time.

 

 

 

 

Didnt knew warshipstats now has snapshots.

 

But I dont understand why all time stats are relevant? What do we care how ships performed in the past? The Status quo after the last buff/nerf is relevant when making judgements about balance. After all we want to know how ships perform now. Thats why we look at stats for the last weeks, not at stats from months or years back.

[von_Boeg]

 

Seriously, how do you come up with things like that? What hidden slight advantage are you talking about, please enlighten me - in detail. Please show me where the russian WR bias can be seen, back it up with data - let's take the russian DD line for example. I've checked maple syrup and other stats site like warships today, the only ships with a better WR than the other nations are the Kiev / Udaloi and sometimes Ognevoi or Khaba, depends on the data sample. Hidden advantages, russian bias and all these things seem like a thing that apparently have their origin in WoT - in WoWS it's a tinfoil hat thing for me. The only ship that's really overpowered for its Tier is the Nikolai - besides that the russian ships are not the issue, I'd be more worried about the clear IJN bias at higher Tiers - but it's hard to blame that on russians, eh?

 

Ships have in this game such a variety and different playstyles to them, that the ships with the best and easiest appeal to the average Joe have the highest winrate. Winrate is only one of many stats, it doesn't say too much on its own - the same thing applies to player stats. But when there's one thing that I've learned from this first preview of russian ships that the actual bias isn't the WG - russian things stronk bias but the player bias towards WG releasing russian ships.

 

Okay, please let me explain it for you in a simple way then:

 

The avarage Russian ship is way better then the avarage ship of any other nation.

 

To describe it more in detail:

 

A nations avarage ship in this definition is the avarage WR value of all ships from a specific nation, based on the all time WR for ships with more then 1K battles on the EU server. Now, I am not as stupid as you first assumed so I full well understand that there are several problems with using this method, but I also know that the difference between the nations is very extraordinary. I will redo those calculations for you with both All time and 2 weeks stats so you can see for yourself.

 

 

[von_Boeg]

You did say that, and reading this back you're right:

 

All respect, I have never found you unreasonable before and it seems I was right in assuming that.

[mtm78]

 

All respect, I have never found you unreasonable before and it seems I was right in assuming that.

 

You are a bit too selective in quoting my post It would almost seem like I said you were right in your conclusion

 

edit: and the only reason I can't agree with your conclusion is because the method of reaching it is flawed or at the least incomplete. You can't take global stats and present them as evidence. You need to correlate it with the players performance in the other nations as well. 

 

Sure, my Murmansk stats are of xyz level, but so are my Marblehead and Omaha. My Imperator Nicolai has a very high win rate, but my Arkansas Beta beats it. Kutozov has reasonable stats ( most of them btw are from live testing, not from after I recently bought it ), but afaik my Atago beats it still ( and my AFT enabled Mogami was even better ). 

 

I would not be surprised if this were the case for a lot more people. 

[Crysantos]

 

Okay, please let me explain it for you in a simple way then:

 

The avarage Russian ship is way better then the avarage ship of any other nation.

 

To describe it more in detail:

 

A nations avarage ship in this definition is the avarage WR value of all ships from a specific nation, based on the all time WR for ships with more then 1K battles on the EU server. Now, I am not as stupid as you first assumed so I full well understand that there are several problems with using this method, but I also know that the difference between the nations is very extraordinary. I will redo those calculations for you with both All time and 2 weeks stats so you can see for yourself.

 

 

 

I never said that you're stupid, I just disagree with hidden stats because there's no way to prove them. I also disagree with WR being the only real measure to rate a ship's strength. I do see some of the russian premiums as very strong / borderline OP - but I always try to set things in perspective. For example the Gremy is a really strong ship - imo in the right hands one of the strongest around - but still the Kamikaze / Fujin beat it in WR and DMG usually. Different roles, different impact. I'm not surprised that for example the IJN DDs are very strong on the low Tiers but kind of lose their "pushing" power when it comes to actually winning a battle / avg on the higher Tiers. They just can't compete with gun DDs for cap zones and most of their players don't even try to do so.

 

Yes you can try to compare them generally but I think that's not fair - the only real telling stats are the ones per Tier imho and a cross-checking of all stats, not just winrate. I never agreed with WG taking that value as the most important one and the same thing applies to this. Furthermore we only have one russian tree right now, compared to 3-4 for IJN / USN ship lines. Just melting everything into one "RU ships are the best in general" statement is something I can't get behind, if you understand what I mean. Certain ships need tweaking, if you take a look at my statistics threads you'll see that for me balance is the most important thing is this game because a decent balance usually means a lot of fun and longterm motivation to keep playing.

 

I'm still happy to see these statistics, I'm always a fan of those and appreciate the work you're putting into this. I just dislike the way most people on the forums just dish out the usual "this OP, that OP, ruskies stronk" without actually backing it up with facts. Especially doing this without having any data to work with, nor the experience of playing these ships like we can see with the russian cruiser line ... makes me a bit sad. I hope you can understand that.

[von_Boeg]

 

You are a bit too selective in quoting my post It would almost seem like I said you were right in your conclusion

 

edit: and the only reason I can't agree with your conclusion is because the method of reaching it is flawed or at the least incomplete. You can't take global stats and present them as evidence. You need to correlate it with the players performance in the other nations as well. 

 

Sure, my Murmansk stats are of xyz level, but so are my Marblehead and Omaha. My Imperator Nicolai has a very high win rate, but my Arkansas Beta beats it. Kutozov has reasonable stats ( most of them btw are from live testing, not from after I recently bought it ), but afaik my Atago beats it still ( and my AFT enabled Mogami was even better ). 

 

I would not be surprised if this were the case for a lot more people. 

 

Nono, I picked that part because I do not want to go in to the rest before I had time to write up the stats, I should have explained that.

[mtm78]

Like Chrysantos, I am also very interested in the actual numbers behind you reasoning

 

edit:

 

But I have to say; I don't like the hijacking of Flamu's thread here...

[22cm]

 

 Furthermore we only have one russian tree right now, compared to 3-4 for IJN / USN ship lines. Just melting everything into one "RU ships are the best in general" statement is something I can't get behind, if you understand what I mean.

 

But there is also another nation with a single tree right now, and RU ships are in general better than the GE ships.

EU worst all-time GE WR, Karlsruhe, 48%, best Dresden 52%. Worst RU WR Derzki 49%, best Kiev, 55%. I left the premium ships out of this for obvious reasons.

QED.

[Crysantos]

 

But there is also another nation with a single tree right now, and RU ships are in general better than the GE ships.

EU worst all-time GE WR, Karlsruhe, 48%, best Dresden 52%. Worst RU WR Derzki 49%, best Kiev, 55%. I left the premium ships out of this for obvious reasons.

QED.

 

As I've said, WR is not the nonplusultra value to rate a ship - the Kiev got nerfed over time, the Karlsruhe buffed. Not sure how that is actually reflected in the stats and I'm pretty sure that most of the ship statistics sites don't have the entire server data pool available. The only one I know that shows that is maple (and even he can't see the hidden accounts) which makes most data more and more unreliable. There's also a different influence of ships on wins themselves - DDs usuall have a bigger impact due to the importance of capping - german cruisers favor a certain gamestyle that usually doesn't feature getting really close.

 

This is why I say it's more complicated than many of you make it out to be - just take WR and say this is stronger than the other one. It's way more complicated and each ship / tier has a different role and a different set of strong / weak sides to it.

[allufewig]

 

But there is also another nation with a single tree right now, and RU ships are in general better than the GE ships.

EU worst all-time GE WR, Karlsruhe, 48%, best Dresden 52%. Worst RU WR Derzki 49%, best Kiev, 55%. I left the premium ships out of this for obvious reasons.

QED.

 

I dont understand how you fail to see that these stats are worthless. 55% is not how Kiev performs these days. Last 2 months, post-nerf, show 51,45%. You cant prove the current OPness of a ship with stats that were largely achieved prior to a significant nerf. Isnt that obvious?

[22cm]

Ok, because you insist:

According to warships.today, worst EU WR GE ship for the last week, karlsruhe, 50%, best, Hermelin, 56%, worst WR RU ship, Gnevny, 50%, best, Imperator 60%. Last week worst 4 german ships had 50% WR, while only 1 RU ship had 50%, all others RU ships had over 51%.

Considering last week only, RU ships are still better than GE ships. Maybe you were expecting different results?! Really?!

[mtm78]

Ok, because you insist:

According to warships.today, worst EU WR GE ship for the last week, karlsruhe, 50%, best, Hermelin, 56%, worst WR RU ship, Gnevny, 50%, best, Imperator 60%. Last week worst 4 german ships had 50% WR, while only 1 RU ship had 50%, all others RU ships had over 51%.

Considering last week only, RU ships are still better than GE ships. Maybe you were expecting different results?! Really?!

 

Those are still limited to nation stats. Show me the win rate of those players in other nations. Maybe GE is attractive to more 'lesser skilled players'..... 

 

edit: and I thought you would leave out the premium ships... ;)

[allufewig]

Ok, because you insist:

According to warships.today, worst EU WR GE ship for the last week, karlsruhe, 50%, best, Hermelin, 56%, worst WR RU ship, Gnevny, 50%, best, Imperator 60%. Last week worst 4 german ships had 50% WR, while only 1 RU ship had 50%, all others RU ships had over 51%.

Considering last week only, RU ships are still better than GE ships. Maybe you were expecting different results?! Really?!

 

I didnt expect or fear anything. But now at least your numbers make sense. .)

 

[Crysantos]

Ok, because you insist:

According to warships.today, worst EU WR GE ship for the last week, karlsruhe, 50%, best, Hermelin, 56%, worst WR RU ship, Gnevny, 50%, best, Imperator 60%. Last week worst 4 german ships had 50% WR, while only 1 RU ship had 50%, all others RU ships had over 51%.

Considering last week only, RU ships are still better than GE ships. Maybe you were expecting different results?! Really?!

 

Warships today doesn't feature the entire server though. And that still doesn't cover the other points I've made.