Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[Yogibjoern]

Russian Bias confirmed

[principat121]

20 hours ago, Loran_Battle said:

Exactly my thought when I read that.

5 DDs a side (which almost never happens) OMG WTF need to fix IMMEDIATELY.

5 BBs a side as a constant for 1.5 years: absolutely fine.

Remember people, the devs are not biased and there are no double standards

 

The developer do not force people to play specific classes. If the general playerbase likes to play BB, then it is obvious that there are often many BB in a match. But what the developer means is, that in the future the few DD in a queue will be more spread out and thus more balanced and they try to avoid "clumping" or rarer ships in single matches. There is a clear difference between too many ships of one class in a battle because they are played alot and too many ships in a battle because the MM put them all together.

 

If this is too hard to understand, I will try to elaborate this more.

 

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Yogibjoern said:

Russian Bias confirmed

No! Just historical correctness! Secrit russian archives clearly shows the superiority of soviet designs over all imperial pig ships!!!

 

[Yogibjoern]

26 minutes ago, Nechrom said:

Holy crap, that Stalingrad buff!

 

2.25 sigma and USN CA AP penetration angles.

 

 

 

More ranked/CW gated OP crap.

Yep no chance us merely mortals getting our hands on this

[tamagotchi]

Well, at least we can get Kronshtadt (very likely to be the next free-xp ship), which, stat-wise, seems to be quite fine.

[Culiacan_Mexico]

Four DD limit. This is not a strict restriction, and if there are destroyers waiting in the queue for too long – this restriction will be discarded. But in the total mass of battles with 5+ DD will be much less.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I guess this means the soft cap for DDs is reduced to 4.  I am all for it, although a soft cap of 2 or less would be better for me personally.

[Darth_Glorious]

Devs go full retard again, those Soviet CA ships really don't need more buffs

[Affeks]

Really liking the look of the Kronny and Stalingrad buffs.

 

To me i didnt see anything the ships could actually do other than punishing the occasional broadside sailing cruiser.

 

Even an angled cruiser completely out DPMs both of those so nice to see them getting more tools to play with. As they were (and still kinda are) they just seem like cruisers with low skill floor, but even lower skill ceiling.

[Comodoro_Allande]

WG seems to be overbuffing too much the downtiered USN CA's: I mean, 27 mm plating and 10 seconds reload at tier VIII and the already monstruous Pepsi guns at tier VI, and all of that just to fit the Buffalo at tier IX instead of leaving all the heavy branch untouched, with just some paper to cover the space left by the Cleveland... 

[Exocet6951]

2 months ago:
Community to WG devs : "Alright devs, the Stalingrad is too squishy, too inaccurate, guns too unreliable and the DPM is too weak. Which of those things are you going to fix to make her attractive? Accuracy, reliability, or survival?"
WG devs: "yes"

[Nechrom]

10 minutes ago, Comodoro_Allande said:

WG seems to be overbuffing too much the downtiered USN CA's: I mean, 27 mm plating and 10 seconds reload at tier VIII and the already monstruous Pepsi guns at tier VI, and all of that just to fit the Buffalo at tier IX instead of leaving all the heavy branch untouched, with just some paper to cover the space left by the Cleveland... 

Armor and reload is one thing, but giving every USN CA 853m/s AP shells will just make them absolute face-rollers.

The entire point why they got the improved AP angles in the first place was because their range and ballistics were kinda bad. Now they have everything.

Super magical AP penetration angles, good velocity, heavy shells, super overbuffed krupp, great reload and great turret angles.

[Capra76]

2 hours ago, Nechrom said:

RIP cruisers.

 

WG are taking a hell of a risk sticking 2 x BB in the game as premium cruisers, if they break the game (and they might) there's no going back for them.

 

What's it going to be like once you've got 5 x BB plus 2/3 of these in every game?

[Deckeru_Maiku]

1 hour ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

I guess this means the soft cap for DDs is reduced to 4.  I am all for it, although a soft cap of 2 or less would be better for me personally.

 

Yeppers.. two or a maximum of three DDs per side would be great... I hate it, when I have to dodge five enemy DDs in my Kamikaze on the way to get me my regular dose of BaBBysealsteaks...

[WeGreedy]

Screw ranked, let's start clan season three! 

[Affeks]

1 hour ago, Capra76 said:

 

WG are taking a hell of a risk sticking 2 x BB in the game as premium cruisers, if they break the game (and they might) there's no going back for them.

 

What's it going to be like once you've got 5 x BB plus 2/3 of these in every game?

These are not BBs tho, they might look like it because they are almost as tanky as BBs. In reality though they only fill half the role as a BB because they dont lolpen anything with their guns. They overmatch nothing so they can threaten cruisers the same way BBs can. Only exception to this is RN CLs.

[ColonelPete]

Believe me, Cruisers will suffer under those guns.

Molotov, Hipper, Donskoi and Moskwa are already showing how long range citadelling works on enemy cruisers and their guns are weak compared to the rapid fire 305mm railguns.

[Panocek]

2 hours ago, Nechrom said:

Armor and reload is one thing, but giving every USN CA 853m/s AP shells will just make them absolute face-rollers.

The entire point why they got the improved AP angles in the first place was because their range and ballistics were kinda bad. Now they have everything.

Super magical AP penetration angles, good velocity, heavy shells, super overbuffed krupp, great reload and great turret angles.

853m/s velocity you can have already on Pensacola, Nope Orleans, Indianapolis and stock Baltinope. And those AREN'T oh so famous superheavy shells.

 

Though 27mm plating AND 10s reload on T8 Baltimore is overkill. 27mm plating I'm more than happy with, nice alternative to Hipper, which is about to get RoF buff anyway.

[Nechrom]

3 minutes ago, Panocek said:

853m/s velocity you can have already on Pensacola, Nope Orleans, Indianapolis and stock Baltinope. And those AREN'T oh so famous superheavy shells.

Okay I misunderstood the article to mean that the shell changes was for all the USN CA and not just the tier 6 Pensacola.

[josykay]

I particulary love:

Quote

Main battery angles are changed in a way that the cruiser doesn't have to show her br

oadside to fire all the main guns anymore.

[...]

In combat the lifeboats are not displayed to allow for additional turret movement, yet they are still displayed in port.

Oh really?! Can we expect a similar handling for New York, Ishizuchi and others? Aside from having boats in port but make them disappear is stupid. At least do it like König Albert and Kaiser, not having the boats on the echolon turrets in both, port and battle.

 

In addition:

Quote

These changes increase the combat effectiveness of Stalingrad against battleships in exchange for some hit points, which decrease her average lifetime somewhat.

You do know, that the Stalingrad was not neither supposed nor designed to be "effective" against battleships? It is a (heavy) cruiser killer... Not to mention that "Somewhat" makes the nerf in exchange kind of sound like de facto a nonissue. Like the "nerfed" sigma value of the famous, and historical Conqueror.

 

 

[Toivia]

Ok, those Massachusetts changes I like. Both buffs and nerfs. When it gains advantages for drawbacks (and vice versa) I'm fine with it. Also great they're no longer clones with 'bama.

 

The Soviet imposter BBs I have problems with principially. And these tweaks (read "buffs") certainly don't make me appreciate them any more. Though there are some nerfs to them as well... Ehh, guess we'll have to see how game breaking they actually are. Still, these should have been lower tier BBs all along.

 

I'm kinda worried about USN CAs and CLs being in general too strong now... (though Buffalo is getting slight nerfs)

 

Also, Hakuryu getting 3 fighters? Oh my!   *runs to Farazelleth for expert opinion*

[josykay]

17 minutes ago, Toivia said:

Ok, those Massachusetts changes I like. Both buffs and nerfs. When it gains advantages for drawbacks (and vice versa) I'm fine with it. Also great they're no longer clones with 'bama.

 

I am a bit torn  on her. On the one hand, not having a clone is good. Yes. Otherwise it would be boring. But aside from  a questionable viability of US secondary ships in volume, and rate of fire, I am inclined, to give her a pass:

To make  the secondaries work properly, you need a dedicated captain... but there is no battleship in the techtree, that could use him. You could of course slap your usual Monty/ Iowa/ NC in it to train, and it would work. But why should I buy the Massachusetts, that does not work that well together with the tech tree ships, if I could by the Alabama, which fits so much better for training your tech tree ship captains.

If I collect ships maybe. If I absolutely need a  fourth or fifth or even sixth (If you have Arkansas) US BB for crewtraining... maybe. But just if you want a premium vessel, or even specificly an US premium battleship?  No. Go Alabama instead.

[Hades_warrior]

21 hours ago, Loran_Battle said:

Exactly my thought when I read that.

 

5 DDs a side (which almost never happens) OMG WTF need to fix IMMEDIATELY.

 

5 BBs a side as a constant for 1.5 years: absolutely fine.

 

Remember people, the devs are not biased and there are no double standards

  Reveal hidden contents

/sarcasm

 

Well, its worse scenario to see 5 DD's on each side, even for DD's on other team. I saw to many times how DD players eat some torpedos in first 2 min of battles. Spam is overwhelming.

Look on the bright side, those 5 BB's are likely campers (some or most of them) so they cant hit DD's in cap zones.

[Toivia]

7 hours ago, josykay said:

I am a bit torn  on her. On the one hand, not having a clone is good. Yes. Otherwise it would be boring. But aside from  a questionable viability of US secondary ships in volume, and rate of fire, I am inclined, to give her a pass:

To make  the secondaries work properly, you need a dedicated captain... but there is no battleship in the techtree, that could use him. You could of course slap your usual Monty/ Iowa/ NC in it to train, and it would work. But why should I buy the Massachusetts, that does not work that well together with the tech tree ships, if I could by the Alabama, which fits so much better for training your tech tree ship captains.

If I collect ships maybe. If I absolutely need a  fourth or fifth or even sixth (If you have Arkansas) US BB for crewtraining... maybe. But just if you want a premium vessel, or even specificly an US premium battleship?  No. Go Alabama instead.

Several things:

1) US BBs already have a number of viable captain trainers. So no particular need for another one.

2) Don't forget the drastically sped up CD on the Massa repair party (similar to Gascogne). If you are a more agressive type of captain that likes to get close in your BB, you can use that heal quite well (and it works quite nicely with the buffed secondaries and decent torpedo bulge - well, except against Asashios...).

3) I don't believe the goal is to sell Massa specifically as a first US BB to somebody. As you say, if you consider a US BB premium, you'll generally be far better served with Alabama, Missouri, Arizona, Arkansas Beta or Texas. But well, many people already have one (or more) of those. As the modelling is basically done on Massa for free given Alabama is in game, why wouldn't they want to sell it as an "optional addition"? And as that, would you rather buy another Alabama or a (somewhat) different ship.

Again, somebody in search of his first crew trainer will probably get the Alabama instead. But there's no harm for WG, both should cost pretty much the same.

 

6 hours ago, Hades_warrior said:

Well, its worse scenario to see 5 DD's on each side, even for DD's on other team. I saw to many times how DD players eat some torpedos in first 2 min of battles. Spam is overwhelming.

Look on the bright side, those 5 BB's are likely campers (some or most of them) so they cant hit DD's in cap zones.

I tend to agree that 5DDs per team often leads to worse gameplay than 5BBs per team, regardless of the class of ship I am in. (Particularly the lately widespread 5BBs and 5DDs per team with 2 cruisers - that is just a pain to play with.)

However putting a soft cap in only for DDs is absurd. Moreso when BB overpopulation is seemingly a far longer term issue.

 

Just bloody put (at least soft) caps on both classes already, devs! (My pick is 3 per.)

[josykay]

1 hour ago, Toivia said:

Several things:

1) US BBs already have a number of viable captain trainers. So no particular need for another one.

2) Don't forget the drastically sped up CD on the Massa repair party (similar to Gascogne). If you are a more agressive type of captain that likes to get close in your BB, you can use that heal quite well (and it works quite nicely with the buffed secondaries and decent torpedo bulge - well, except against Asashios...).

3) I don't believe the goal is to sell Massa specifically as a first US BB to somebody. As you say, if you consider a US BB premium, you'll generally be far better served with Alabama, Missouri, Arizona, Arkansas Beta or Texas. But well, many people already have one (or more) of those. As the modelling is basically done on Massa for free given Alabama is in game, why wouldn't they want to sell it as an "optional addition"? And as that, would you rather buy another Alabama or a (somewhat) different ship.

Again, somebody in search of his first crew trainer will probably get the Alabama instead. But there's no harm for WG, both should cost pretty much the same.

I don't know, if the repair is enough. It sounds great, but on the other hand you get a significant worse sigma, and a 60!  or 40 seconds longer Damage Control cooldown depending on the standard or premium variant. You can heal your self. But the damaged main turrets, rudder, or engine, the flooding... and to some extends the fires are there to stay.

Gascogne did get the same repair party... but if I remember correctly, she has the usual french  damage control.

[Affeks]

On 4/17/2018 at 10:28 PM, ColonelPete said:

Believe me, Cruisers will suffer under those guns.

Molotov, Hipper, Donskoi and Moskwa are already showing how long range citadelling works on enemy cruisers and their guns are weak compared to the rapid fire 305mm railguns.

those guns punish mistakes... Normal BB guns punish every cruiser they hit... very big difference

[Hades_warrior]

54 minutes ago, Toivia said:

Several things:

1) US BBs already have a number of viable captain trainers. So no particular need for another one.

2) Don't forget the drastically sped up CD on the Massa repair party (similar to Gascogne). If you are a more agressive type of captain that likes to get close in your BB, you can use that heal quite well (and it works quite nicely with the buffed secondaries and decent torpedo bulge - well, except against Asashios...).

3) I don't believe the goal is to sell Massa specifically as a first US BB to somebody. As you say, if you consider a US BB premium, you'll generally be far better served with Alabama, Missouri, Arizona, Arkansas Beta or Texas. But well, many people already have one (or more) of those. As the modelling is basically done on Massa for free given Alabama is in game, why wouldn't they want to sell it as an "optional addition"? And as that, would you rather buy another Alabama or a (somewhat) different ship.

Again, somebody in search of his first crew trainer will probably get the Alabama instead. But there's no harm for WG, both should cost pretty much the same.

 

I tend to agree that 5DDs per team often leads to worse gameplay than 5BBs per team, regardless of the class of ship I am in. (Particularly the lately widespread 5BBs and 5DDs per team with 2 cruisers - that is just a pain to play with.)

However putting a soft cap in only for DDs is absurd. Moreso when BB overpopulation is seemingly a far longer term issue.

 

Just bloody put (at least soft) caps on both classes already, devs! (My pick is 3 per.)

I think this new system will be better and more important to say, fair for most players. Every class exept CV of course will be equal numbers if I understand this good.

Team filled with 5 DD's is bad, and to see matches with 7+ BB's per team is also bad. Today I had battle with 9-10 BB's per one side with only 3 DD's. Some strange MM.