Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[ColonelPete]

21 minutes ago, Affeks said:

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

You cannot angle vs everyone. And regular penetrations to your upper front will hurt enough.

[Affeks]

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

You cannot angle vs everyone. And regular penetrations to your upper front will hurt enough.

Remember these guns also dont have cruiser dispersion so actually hitting those soft upper parts will be harder... yet not being able to lolpen cruisers is already a big downgrade from BB guns and the lack of way more reliable HE damage on angled targets is a huge downgrade from cruiser guns... so I really dont see this being better than either....

[Toivia]

2 hours ago, josykay said:

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.

Well the question of whether Massa is actually balanced can only be answered by testing the ship. I just stated my opinion based on the stats alone, and it does look balanced to me. Fires are not really an issue, particularly when you can basically outheal them. Guns I personally don't repair (not that they break much on BBs - with exceptions like Izumo). The only threat is flooding, but that risk is decreased by supposedly good torpedo bulge.

 

EDIT: Oh, and the sigma. Well that is only one part of the equation for hitting targets. Personally I have often much worse results with ships supposedly very accurate (Yamato, lately even Missouri) while doing just fine in others (Normandie). Long story short, I don't see that much difference between a stated 1,7 and 1,9 sigma on the same guns.

[ColonelPete]

5 hours ago, Affeks said:

Remember these guns also dont have cruiser dispersion so actually hitting those soft upper parts will be harder... yet not being able to lolpen cruisers is already a big downgrade from BB guns and the lack of way more reliable HE damage on angled targets is a huge downgrade from cruiser guns... so I really dont see this being better than either....

With that Sigma, no problem.

[Culiacan_Mexico]

15 hours ago, Hades_warrior said:

Well, its worse scenario to see 5 DD's on each side...

Why is that?

[Khul]

On 4/17/2018 at 7:49 PM, 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?

Then they'll just give them radar so they can take out DDs as we—

 

Oh.

Oh.

[Toivia]

6 hours ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

Why is that?

Somehow those games tend to be awful. Usually one side loses 3 DDs almost insantaneously and the battle is decided right at the start.

And regardless of that, any DD caught between so many other DDs has a much tougher job staying concealed and safe. Any cruiser is permanently spotted and defenceless against enemy BBs (I find a combination of a DD and BB together are the strongest, particularly with a 5DDs and 5BBs per team). And any BB (obviously also spotted) is just waiting to get torped from all sides.

Really this game needs 3 BBs, 3 DDs, 5-6 cruisers per team as standard (with the occasional carrier).

[Culiacan_Mexico]

46 minutes ago, Toivia said:

Somehow those games tend to be awful...

 

...And regardless of that, any DD caught between so many other DDs has a much tougher job staying concealed and safe...

 

And any BB (obviously also spotted) is just waiting to get torped from all sides.

 

The issue I see or feel, is that fewer DDs in a game= fewer active DD counters. In mid-tier games, there seems to be fewer DDs being played (this might just be my perception), which allows me greater freedom of action, plus the ability to have a greater influence on the game.  Fairly often you see people start threads about how influential DDs are to the outcome of the game, yet reducing DDs doesn't lessen that influence, but instead increases the influence of good DD players.

 

Yet me point out again, I am all for reducing the number of DDs in a game; and I think many other dedicated DD players feel the same way.  That should raise some flags.  Reducing active DD counters in game... this is a DD buff for good players; and will increase the skill spread between good and bad DD players.

 

Now four DDs per side will have little effect at mid tier, but at high tier isn't this a rather modest cruiser nerf?  Won't more tier 8 cruisers get pulled into tier 10 now that it will only have 4 DDs vs the previous 5DD?  MM will need to bottom tier a cruiser to make up for the change.  It will most likely be modest.

 

As for BB players getting torpedoed from all sides... bad players will always find a way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Toivia]

That is an interesting opinion. You might be right. Even then though, I have no problem with giving good players an edge over bad ones.

[Culiacan_Mexico]

2 hours ago, Toivia said:

That is an interesting opinion. You might be right. Even then though, I have no problem with giving good players an edge over bad ones.

I could be wrong, but I don't want to see a scenario like we have with CV where they arguable have both too much influence and the difference between the good players and the bad players is so dramatic.  Overall game play suffers for almost everyone.

[Sigimundus]

Me:

"Sadly removing 20km torps from my Shima"

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

[Affeks]

12 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

With that Sigma, no problem.

Its still much worse than cruiser dispersion regardless so my point still stands

[ColonelPete]

11 minutes ago, Affeks said:

Its still much worse than cruiser dispersion regardless so my point still stands

Your point is that you underestimate the ship.

See Scharnhorst Guns...

[Affeks]

10 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Your point is that you underestimate the ship.

See Scharnhorst Guns...

Scharnhorst guns absoluetly suck. I take Gneisenau guns over them any day. Sure my opinion might be more negative than most, but nowhere have I heard that Scharnhorst guns are particularly good. Remember the german ships are all about brawling through secondaries, torpedoes and turtleback, three things that Kronny and Stalingrad doesnt have.

 

also Scharnhorst isnt relevant at all. Its a tier 7 ship ffs, it meets tier 5-7 cruisers that get overmatched by the 283mm guns. Kronny and Stalingrad will meet almost exclusively cruisers with 25mm plating on tier 8 and up. That stuff bounces 305mm shells harmlessly off the bow or stern like its nothing. Playing Scharnhorst in a tier 7-9 match really shows you how weak those guns are in that MM bracket.

 

Not to mention the fact that Scharnhorst has proper BB protection and more HP for its tier. I dont know how you can even bring it up to be honest. I think this is more than proof enough that you havent put much tought into this, seems obvious to me that youre overestimating these ships.

[ColonelPete]

Sure, Scharnhorst never meets Tier IX Cruisers... just tell you that.

 

Btw, these are your solo stats:

 

	Warship	Tier	Nation	Battles	Win rate	PR	Average Damage	Avg. frags	Avg. planes destroyed
1	Scharnhorst	7	Germany	61	68.85%	2 344	82 824	1.74	2.87	Details
2	Gneisenau	7	Germany	32	62.5%	1 994	74 300	1.44	5.25	Details

 

[Affeks]

4 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Sure, Scharnhorst never meets Tier IX Cruisers... just tell you that.

 

Btw, these are your solo stats:

 

	Warship	Tier	Nation	Battles	Win rate	PR	Average Damage	Avg. frags	Avg. planes destroyed
1	Scharnhorst	7	Germany	61	68.85%	2 344	82 824	1.74	2.87	Details
2	Gneisenau	7	Germany	32	62.5%	1 994	74 300	1.44	5.25	Details

 

Nice bringing up personal stats as an argument!

You know you cant really rely on stuff like that? For example I may have played one of those ships when I was much worse than when I later played the other ship. I may have played one of the ships in divs only while the other one solo etc etc. 

 

I dont even know where you wanted to take this by showing personal stats, not to mention that said stats arent even relevant to the Kronshtadt/Stalingrad conversation.

[ColonelPete]

You made a claim, I saw the opposite.

[Affeks]

2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You made a claim, I saw the opposite.

in personal stats that have big chance to have major deviations... Yeah statistics doesnt work like that sorry.

[Toivia]

5 hours ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

I could be wrong, but I don't want to see a scenario like we have with CV where they arguable have both too much influence and the difference between the good players and the bad players is so dramatic.  Overall game play suffers for almost everyone.

Point taken.

 

If they hardcapped DDs at say two per team (like CVs on lower tiers) and made maps smaller overall (like I always call for), one or two very good DDs for one team could easily control the whole map and subsequently battle. That could get closer to the CV problem, but:

1) CVs really can fight all over the map, island cover (from both vision and shells) doesn't matter - no DD can ever torp all around, behind islands etc.;

2) CVs have a drastically different gameplay from other classes. At least some DDs play similar to light cruisers, that play similar to other cruisers, that have similarities to even BBs... In that, there should always be more players at least trying out DDs and having some clue about how to play them. The result is more players -> more average players (unlike the huge separation between capable CVs and the rest).

 

In short, you show me I would probably lead the game to doom if I were given control. But as I am not, many many things would have to change to run into the risk of DDs becoming another CV problem. Just adding soft caps is fine and I'm still of the opinion lower cap would be better.

 

EDIT: Yeah, that 5km limit on torpedo friendly damage to be taken into account also caught my eye. Better remove that imit for now indeed...

[El2aZeR]

30 minutes ago, Toivia said:

CVs really can fight all over the map

 

No, they cannot. Having an island between you and incoming planes can easily turn you from a strikeable target to an undesirable one. Just because the CV could fly around the island doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do. You'll either spend a ludicrous amount of time flying a large circle around, drastically increasing the chance of a timely response from your teammates or the enemy CV, or you'll spend a lot more time in AA by flying directly over your target. This is made even worse if there are other enemy ships nearby.

Besides, some AA ships can deny over 16km of air space. On some of the smaller ones that's, what, a quarter to a third of relevant sections on the entire map? Really, if we'd not have BB overpopulation CVs would be far more restricted in terms of movement, perhaps even more so than any other class. The mere presence of an enemy AA ship is enough to deter you from ever venturing in that area, having five or six on the map basically prevents you from moving into enemy territory for a good majority of the match.

 

30 minutes ago, Toivia said:

The result is more players -> more average players (unlike the huge separation between capable CVs and the rest)

 

No, "average" CV players inherently do not exist even if we'd suddenly get a big influx of new players. Being able to strafe and manual drop alone along with some basic knowledge about target selection catapults you easily into unicum territory because almost everyone else, including people playing other classes, is abysmally bad at the game. That means if you just show the slightest amount of competence you are suddenly turned into one of those CV players that, according to some, utterly ruin matches.

 

That CVs excel has little to do with their inherent design and much more with how the current meta plays and how the average player in every class performs.

[Toivia]

16 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

No, they cannot. Having an island between you and incoming planes can easily turn you from a strikeable target to an undesirable one. Just because the CV could fly around the island doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do. You'll either spend a ludicrous amount of time flying a large circle around, drastically increasing the chance of a timely response from your teammates or the enemy CV, or you'll spend a lot more time in AA by flying directly over your target. This is made even worse if there are other enemy ships nearby.

Besides, some AA ships can deny over 16km of air space. On some of the smaller ones that's, what, a quarter to a third of relevant sections on the entire map? Really, if we'd not have BB overpopulation CVs would be far more restricted in terms of movement, perhaps even more so than any other class. The mere presence of an enemy AA ship is enough to deter you from ever venturing in that area, having five or six on the map basically prevents you from moving into enemy territory for a good majority of the match.

Yes, yes, even CVs have limitations, true. But they still can get places faster with their planes than a DD. (Besides, how many of the AA no fly zones are there in the game, actually? Do people in randoms spec for AA? I certainly was not discussing competitive play.) Put another way, I'll rather have a CV be the last surviving ship on the team than another ship, even a DD.

 

16 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

No, "average" CV players inherently do not exist even if we'd suddenly get a big influx of new players. Being able to strafe and manual drop alone along with some basic knowledge about target selection catapults you easily into unicum territory because almost everyone else, including people playing other classes, is abysmally bad at the game. That means if you just show the slightest amount of competence you are suddenly turned into one of those CV players that, according to some, utterly ruin matches.

 

That CVs excel has little to do with their inherent design and much more with how the current meta plays and how the average player in every class performs.

Read that quoted sentence again. I wrote the same thing. CVs have competent players... and the rest. The first part with "average" refers to DDs.

[El2aZeR]

4 hours ago, Toivia said:

Put another way, I'll rather have a CV be the last surviving ship on the team than another ship, even a DD.

 

Honestly, that'd be entirely situational. In many cases I'd actually much prefer to be a DD as the last ship alive. Being alone in a CV usually means you'll lose by default unless your team has a tremendous point lead and the game is about to end.

 

4 hours ago, Toivia said:

Besides, how many of the AA no fly zones are there in the game, actually? Do people in randoms spec for AA?

 

The problem with AA ships isn't their number but that the vast majority of them are concentrated in T9-10 or only available as premium ships. There are in my experience only two tech tree cruisers below T9 that pose a significant threat against same tier CVs: Cleveland (which will get moved up) and Hipper. Instead you'll actually have to rely on BBs to take over the air defense role, which are only effective at it if you invest a massive amount of points and upgrades.

Few people spec ships the "right" way in general. Expecting them to disregard themselves and spec for AA is even more rare. And with the scarcity of CVs around it's even understandable. Plus with CVs being excluded from CBs even skilled players can be deterred from using a partial or full AA build.

 

All these issues are a massive factor in why CVs are so dominate in the current meta. And there are still plenty more that have very little to do with CVs themselves.

 

4 hours ago, Toivia said:

CVs have competent players... and the rest.

 

Which ofc begs the question why. There is this weird misconception that making CVs more popular or even letting more CVs into a match will somehow address the skill gap between good and bad CV players "just like any other class". It's hilariously wrong but you see it thrown around so often it's mind boggling.

Doesn't help that competent and incompetent CV players basically play two entirely different games thanks to the existence of "noob friendly" mechanics which in reality just  new players over big time.

[Humorpalanta]

What happened to credit earnings? When were they nerfed? Seems like half a year ago because ever since it is incredibly hard to make good amount of credits...

[ColonelPete]

Probably around the time your memory got jumbled.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

21 hours ago, Humorpalanta said:

What happened to credit earnings? When were they nerfed? Seems like half a year ago because ever since it is incredibly hard to make good amount of credits...

Probably around the time when You started doing battles in T9/10 ships.

 

At least that's usually the point where people stop making "good amounts of credits"