Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Hayashio

POLL: Your worst performing ship

Worst performing ships of personal choice  

90 members have voted

  1. 1. Tier II, Worst performer

    • Chester
      24
    • Albany
      15
    • Smith
      2
    • Sampson
      7
    • Chikuma
      8
    • Umikaze
      3
    • Tachibana
      1
    • Mikasa
      25
    • Novik
      11
    • Storozhevoi
      4
    • Diana
      7
    • Dresden
      11
    • Emden
      12
  2. 2. Tier III, Worst performer

    • St. Louis
      2
    • Wickes
      6
    • South Carolina
      18
    • Bogatyr
      3
    • Derzki
      8
    • Aurora
      3
    • Kolberg
      26
    • Campbeltown
      8
    • Tenryu
      3
    • Katori
      5
    • Wakatake
      6
    • Kawachi
      43

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Community Contributor, Players, Beta Tester
367 posts
7,134 battles

Ahoy Forum Dwellers and Captains!

 

 

Today I have come to you to ask for your opinions. Which ship did you think was the worst performer in your eyes? Which ships of tier II to III did you have the least fun playing in?  Or perhaps, you skipped because of it's bad reputation. Tier II and III are tiers most of us have seen quite a lot of, so it's the perfect starting point. I will be extending it further down the line, but for now we will stick to low tiers.

Your opinion is very much appreciated.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
872 posts
5,885 battles

To be honest I don't play low tiers in fear of being called a stat padder or whatever name. I just rush through them to get to tier 4 to 7. Shame because I think those tiers are quite fun really but WG kind of makes it all to easy and quick to get past them. Personally I think WG should keep people there longer to learn the game but hay what do I know.

 

Tier II - Umikaze

 

Tier III - Katori / Kolberg / Kawachi. I chose Kawachi but all 3 of those are bad performers. Can't vote for more than one.

Edited by Venatacia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Community Contributor, Players, Beta Tester
367 posts
7,134 battles

To be honest I don't play low tiers in fear of being called a stat padder or whatever name. I just rush through them to get to tier 4 to 7. Shame because I think those tiers are quite fun really but WG kind of makes it all to easy and quick to get past them. Personally I think WG should keep people there longer to learn the game but hay what do I know.

 

Tier II - Umikaze

 

Tier III - Katori / Kolberg / Kawachi. I chose Kawachi but all 3 of those are bad performers. Can't vote for more than one.

 

I had a feeling that some people would tell me this. It is indeed true that players tend to have a bad reputation for playing low tier. Although nowadays seals go through CooP before they can go into the random queue so they will have some prior training.

Changed the number of votes you can put in to 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BABBY]
Beta Tester
1,608 posts

Mikasa: Fun but thoroughly uncompetitive. Anyone with half a brain stays outside secondary range and kills her at their leisure. The fact she is now on general sale has hurt her by making her more common, so people know what to expect.

Chester: Large and poorly protected. The worst regular ship, though not spectacularly bad compared to her opposition; the guns are big.

 

Kawachi: Good stealth but short range combined with low speed with the worst dispersion in the game make her more painful to play than she really needs to be for WG to discourage players from pursuing BB and CV lines.

Kolberg: Much worse health, armour and guns than St. Louis and Bogatyr without any redeeming features. Pre-5.6 Karlsruhe (one set of torps per side) should be tier 3, with something more contemporary with Phoenix and Kuma at tier 4.

Tenryu: I don't consider her an underperformer and haven't voted for her, but she is notably harder to play than other tier 3 cruisers.

Edited by StringWitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLOBS]
Beta Tester
5,330 posts
13,776 battles

T3 both BBs. They start yout too weak compared to CA and have near 0 defence vs DDs just geting in your face and torping you from Point blank range.

T2 Mikasa for reasons allready listed. Enemys Needs to be very stupid to let you perform in her. on the other Hand i Love Katori since she benefits from a skilled comander and wrecks ST Louises easyly if your not stupid enogh to seek an Close range Engagement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
1,920 posts
4,612 battles

Sampson & Novik. 

And no tier 3s really underperform for me, so Kawachi gets a vote. Even if it is undeserved in my opinion.

Changed it to St Louis for schitz und giggles. 

Edited by Trainspite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,497 posts
3,475 battles

 Tier II and III are tiers most of us have seen quite a lot of

 

Erhm i highly doubt that, well i guess anything is relative :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,460 posts
13,036 battles

Interestingly enough, my stats on the Umikaze are atrocious ... and I hate the Kolberg and Kawachi with a passion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TS1]
Players
658 posts
8,162 battles

Sampson & Novik.

 

The Novik? I had a blast with that one during the Russian cruiser competition a while back.

 

But as for underperformers, I haven't really seen any battleship at tier II-III be any good at all. Not counting the St. Loius, which is certainly as tough as one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
109 posts
4,949 battles

I'd say Novik at T2. The guns felt inadequate (those bloody arcs...).

 

For T3, Kolberg. It doesn't feel good enough against the competition (and is absolutely helpless when uptiered)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Community Contributor, Players, Beta Tester
367 posts
7,134 battles

 

Erhm i highly doubt that, well i guess anything is relative :D

 

Technically we all had the ability to try them, they are easily accessible. Might have worded it incorrectly ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,064 posts
4,944 battles

Gotta be the Albany. Lovely aesthetics and interesting and all you want, but I had it pre-buff and it was frustrating. So much that I rage-sold it.

Tier 3, I voted for SC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NIKE]
Beta Tester
3,412 posts
7,888 battles

For tier 3 it was the st Louis for me, played it during a loss streak;

Decent damage each game (32k), positive K/D, fought to the last to try to prevent cap.... 29% WR lol

 

Ended up skipping the end of it so I could play tier 4 where the standard of players is (marginally) better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[S0F]
Beta Tester
169 posts
11,280 battles

Derzki and Sampson but it won't let me vote, I get the error message - You must cast your vote in each question of the poll. I ticked both ships as well...

Edited by xeransa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PRAVD]
Weekend Tester
3,802 posts
8,373 battles

Well when you get to tier 5, that would be Zuiho for me.

 

I finished her grind with 38% winrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,064 posts
4,944 battles

Yes, Albany. I got it last summer when she was given for free and before she was buffed. As this thread is about our opinions rather than facts (official stats should tell us which ship is the worst), I have to say the Albany felt like a bad joke. Everything could outrange her, and she was slow.

Notwithstanding, I'd be curious to play her now to see how it feels post buff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,059 posts
7,793 battles

I voted for Chester and Derzki, since I sucked with those two ships. No tier 2 ship feels like a grind really. I have recently repurchased Kolberg and can understand why people are voting for it. I manage not to suck with the ship, but I'm not exactly carrying the games with it. The short range of Kolberg guns and getting spotted before you're in range makes it fairly difficult to play. Always salvo fire with a Kolberg.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
5,609 posts
5,569 battles

Yes, Albany. I got it last summer when she was given for free and before she was buffed. As this thread is about our opinions rather than facts (official stats should tell us which ship is the worst), I have to say the Albany felt like a bad joke. Everything could outrange her, and she was slow.

Notwithstanding, I'd be curious to play her now to see how it feels post buff.

 

Ah, in this context it is true, before range buff Albany was garbage. Now it's very fine. Not so fun as uber dakka Dresden, but more than other 2 tier cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
5,090 posts
30,625 battles

Kawachi is the worst ship in the game. Just started replaying some T1-3 ships with my mate (new to the game) and the Kawachi is just ........ F****** FRUSTRATING

With AP it's either a bounce (even on cruisers) or an overpen. Played with it all day (yesterday) and I got only 1 citadel hit (in 11 games). And if you're in a donkey team you can't win. You just can't. Even T1 cruisers could dominate this piece of junk.

Imo the BBs at low tier shouldn't be as good as at higher tiers but they are just too awful to play. I remember from my first plays that it wasn't really accurate, but now I'm just baffled by how inaccurate it really is. There's nothing as frustrating as a cruiser being able to close 6 kms when you hit one or two hits per salvo (8 shells) and they only do 810 damage.

Edited by lup3s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×