Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[Nishi_Kinuyo]

11 hours ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

A year ago, I asked about this during a dev Q&A, and sub octavian told me point blank that they don't like having sisterships as different tiers. 

 

He told me that while the Musashi was being released. 

 

 

Honestly, I've never felt my lied to to my face in a video game than in this game. 

It's constant. 

Sister ships at different tiers? What on earth could he be on about. No such thing ever happens in WoWS.

Nagato-Mutsu

Amagi-Ashitaka

Yamato-Musashi

...

[BruceRKF]

6 hours ago, Nishi_Kinuyo said:

Sister ships at different tiers? What on earth could he be on about. No such thing ever happens in WoWS.

Nagato-Mutsu

Amagi-Ashitaka

Yamato-Musashi

...

Fletcher-Kidd

Kaiser-König Albert

Colorado-West Virginia 41

Kirov-Molotov

Edinburgh-Belfast

Kuma-Kitakami ()

...

Also, they took it one step further in some cases and put the SAME ship at different tiers

Svietlana-Krasny Krym

Gangut-Okt. Revolutsiya

...

 

[DFens_666]

Quote

Constant DPS (just multiply the damage value with hit chance, e.g. 100 DPS and 70% hit chance will give you 100*0,7 = 70 DPS.

 

Just facepalming... WHY? would be too easy to just say "70 DPS is 70 DPS" not "100 DPS actually means 70 DPS"...

 

Quote

Average amount of flak. E.g. if you have 10 flak bursts base and 70% hit chance, then your medium and long range AA will give 7 flak bursts average. Also, an important addition (because I obviously was not clear enough) - flak bursts are not full RNGjesus. It's still normal distribution. If you have 10 bursts with 70% hit chance, most often you will have 7 bursts. Not 1-10 bursts randomly. 

 

Even more facepalm

[HaachamaShipping]

19 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Just facepalming... WHY? would be too easy to just say "70 DPS is 70 DPS" not "100 DPS actually means 70 DPS"...

 

 

Even more facepalm

"Managing CV and squad at the same time is too confusing for players", but this isn't? Everyday again, I find out new things about this rework that leave me speechless.

[El2aZeR]

2 hours ago, Allied_Winter said:

But yeah, they (AP DBs) are probably the most difficult weapons to use atm and will need some love. But then, we don’t want them to be as toxic as they used to be.

 

Spoiler

 

Also oh no, old AP bombs were broken. Nobody predicted that.

And I distinctively remember WG telling us in a Q&A that old AP bomb performance was fine. Go figure.

¬_¬

 

2 hours ago, Allied_Winter said:

A: I agree that current MAA is probably underwhelming for 4 points, and this is something for us to address

 

Am I the only one who thinks MAA is actually pretty good for 4 points?

[DFens_666]

11 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Am I the only one who thinks MAA is actually pretty good for 4 points?

 

I feel its crap actually?

Having a stronger sector sounds good ofc, aslong as the CV is only attacking from one side. But that doesnt usually happen, unless they abuse Torp drops/F button?

I havent played randoms yet (dont feel like a guinea pig), but i wouldnt take MAA right now.

[Allied_Winter]

16 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Am I the only one who thinks MAA is actually pretty good for 4 points?

It's a decent skill, but not worth 4 points for what it offers. 

 

But that's more a problem of overall time that it takes to switch sectors (which I think is too long).

[El2aZeR]

12 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Having a stronger sector sounds good ofc, aslong as the CV is only attacking from one side. But that doesnt usually happen, unless they abuse Torp drops/F button?

7 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

But that's more a problem of overall time that it takes to switch sectors (which I think is too long).

 

You actually need to start switching sectors as soon as the enemy aircraft start their attack. It's a bit more micromanagement compared to previously but it works fine.

The only problem I see is that a percentage increase in DPS doesn't particularly benefit ships that have bad DPS in the first place, but then again that has always been the case.

[Allied_Winter]

7 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

It's a bit more micromanagement compared to previously but it works fine.

That I don't mind, but having an attack from left (with my sector on the left) and the CV makes a follow through to the right side, I have to wait until the attacking planes drop their load before I can switch sectors to the right side. And then 10s with just mediocre AA (or even outright bad AA) isn't fun.

 

I guess I just miss my impenetrable AA forces that make's CVs weep tears of sorrow.

 

 

If there just was a button to force CVs to attack you from one side only....

[avenger121]

17 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

.......

But that's more a problem of overall time that it takes to switch sectors (which I think is too long).

 

I would like to imagine what people would say if planes could only change course once every 5s/10s.

[El2aZeR]

4 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

That I don't mind, but having an attack from left (with my sector on the left) and the CV makes a follow through to the right side, I have to wait until the attacking planes drop their load before I can switch sectors to the right side. And then 10s with just mediocre AA (or even outright bad AA) isn't fun.

 

No you don't. While sector is switching your AA will still be reinforced on the side you previously chose. That means you can start switching when the CV starts his attack run and by the time he dropped his ordinance and flew to the other side your sectors will have switched. It's just a question of timing.

Unless I missed something?

[Allied_Winter]

1 minute ago, El2aZeR said:

It's just a question of timing.

Now that you mention it... that could actually be the case.

 

I'd just wish you could abort the setting of one sector halfway through, to keep the previously set sector.

[El2aZeR]

9 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

I'd just wish you could abort the setting of one sector halfway through, to keep the previously set sector.

 

True. I'll leave a suggestion in the feedback thread. :)

[fumtu]

LWM preliminary review of Exeter

 

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/181906-premium-ship-preview-hms-exeter-080/

 

Quote

Exeter feels like a Heavy-Cruiser version of Belfast.  The claustrophobic maps at tier 5 (including some of the low tier maps like Solomon Islands, Big Race, etc) make hydro almost as good as radar. At close ranges, Exeter's relatively fast-firing 203mm guns obliterate cruisers and chunk destroyer for most of their hit points in single salvos.  If things get hot, it's amazing what problems smoke can solve. You do really feel the squishiness of her bows, though.  It's only 13mm thick which means it gets overmatched by 203mm guns or greater.  While it's nice to have this weakness, I'm not going to pretend it provides a modicum of balance here.  Exeter overperforms.  She's an overbuffed Furutaka with heals, stealth, smoke, boosted engine power and single fire torpedoes. 

 

My feedback to Wargaming has been to bump Exeter up to tier 6. They could try and gut her to shoe-horn her into tier 5, or they could largely leave her as is and nudge her up a tier. I feel the latter is the better choice, but that's just me.

 

I really hope that WG will bump it to T6.

[Aragathor]

12 minutes ago, fumtu said:

LWM preliminary review of Exeter

 

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/181906-premium-ship-preview-hms-exeter-080/

 

 

I really hope that WG will bump it to T6.

You forgot the awesome picture she posted:

Spoiler

 

 

The Exeter in game is the 1935 refit with the York camo. This ship should not be at t5, let's hope WG listens to feedback as we don't need another Buckfast. Ahem, Belfast.

 

PS: In 1941 Exeter received a refit that might come in the future as a york B hull, if WG ever listens to us and gives us RN heavy cruisers. Do you hear that WG? Listen!

[ColonelPete]

The picture is funny.

[fumtu]

Just now, Aragathor said:

You forgot the awesome picture she posted:

 

I didn't want to quote whole post but yes that is a great image

 

Just now, Aragathor said:

The Exeter in game is the 1935 refit with the York camo. This ship should not be at t5, let's hope WG listens to feedback as we don't need another Buckfast. Ahem, Belfast.

 

Actually this is already 1941 refit Exeter. In game ship has two octuple 40mm AA mounts and 20mm gun pits on turrets. These were added in 1941. Also she has twin 4inch mount instead of original single mounts.

 

 

[Aragathor]

27 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

Actually this is already 1941 refit Exeter. In game ship has two octuple 40mm AA mounts and 20mm gun pits on turrets. These were added in 1941. Also she has twin 4inch mount instead of original single mounts.

You're right, I missed the tubs. It's weird that they are empty.

[creamgravy]

13 minutes ago, fumtu said:

You do really feel the squishiness of her bows, though.  It's only 13mm thick which means it gets overmatched by 203mm guns or greater.  While it's nice to have this weakness, I'm not going to pretend it provides a modicum of balance here. 

 

It's worth noting this isn't specific to Exeter. All tier 5 'heavy' cruisers have 13mm plating, tier 6-7 get 16mm, tier 8-10 have 25-27mm depending on balance. DM would have 13mm everywhere at tier 5 too...

Moving to tier 6 only stops lol pens from other 203mm ships but you still get wrecked from almost any shell calibre (esp DD HE spam!) like all sub tier 8 cruisers.

 

Tier 5 is one of those odd tiers that only exists to make up numbers for 1-10 progression/grind. WG have never managed to balance it out, so you get old designs (Furutaka A-hull, Emerald) getting crushed by modern ships/refits/weapons (GC, Émile Bertin, Gremy etc)

 

I'd strip it out completely, a bit like WOWS legends.

 

Tier 1: Who cares.

Tier 2-4: WW1.

Tier 5: Delete.

Tier 6-8: WW2.

Tier 9: Delete.

Tier 10. Post WW2.

[HaachamaShipping]

OMG, Giulio Cesare might get nerfed. Finally!

 

And I say that as a GC owner. Would keep the ship even at T6.

[Affeks]

That has to be the most useless buff to a DD ive ever seen...

 

btw I dont think many knows this, but Le terribles (and Aigle) Speed Boost lasts shorter than all other french speed boosts. 120 sec vs 180 sec duration on cruisers and BBs, with speed boost modification CAs and BBs speed boosts last 90 seconds longer than those of the DDs... idk why they need such a short speed boost when french DDs already struggle so much.

[Allied_Winter]

15 minutes ago, Seiranko said:

OMG, Giulio Cesare might get nerfed. Finally!

 

And I say that as a GC owner

How different view points are. To me that's a sad day. I hope testing turns out badly...

[JaiFoh]

20 minutes ago, Seiranko said:

OMG, Giulio Cesare might get nerfed. Finally!

 

And I say that as a GC owner. Would keep the ship even at T6.

technically, it is a buff as it gets an armour increase

 

[Aragathor]

3 minutes ago, JaiFoh said:

technically, it is a buff as it gets an armour increase

 

Yeah, except it will stop seeing T4s and instead get uptiered up to T8. Every single BB there will overmatch the improved armor and with only 45k health the ship will become a XP pinata.

 

[TeaAndTorps]

28 minutes ago, Seiranko said:

OMG, Giulio Cesare might get nerfed. Finally!

 

And I say that as a GC owner. Would keep the ship even at T6.

Also as a GC owner, it does seem fair enough to move it up a tier. Getting the economy of a T6 premium (hopefully?) having paid for a T5 will also be nice, and I don't think it should suffer too badly in terms of fun factor. Worth trying at the very least.