Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[Yedwy]

Ah well then that explaines things

[rnat]

17 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

This is also funny.

 

Because clearly Enterprise RFs weren't maneuverable enough yet. 

Spare a though on us poor f2p CV-potatoes. We wanna effortlessly murder helpless loli-boats as well. T_T

(and everything else too)

[Excavatus]

19 hours ago, Kartoffelmos said:

Yudachi, a ship which is commonly regarded as underwhelming, gets nerfed while Slava and Colbert, both ships which are regarded as very strong, get buffed.

 

Either there has been an influx of dubious players amongst the ST which skews the statistical data or WG is being drunk silly again. 

Just asking out of curiosity, not trying to be a jerk or something.

Have you played said ships?

 

Because I played all of them in dozens of battles with 19 captains..

Slava started as an extremely, maybe borderline OP ship in the first testing phase.

they nerfed it for the second phase. They nerfed it extremely hard. Trust me.

There were no reasons left to play slava instead of Kreml.. And guns were really lacking after the nerf,

because you could not get close even at mid range.

Trust me, a lot of testers ı've spoken to, agreed they butchered slava into a useless blob of metal after the nerf.

 

for colbert... aha.. that ship is just looks.. trust me.

very strong ship.. but please don't look flamu / flambass videos and give opinion about ships.

Don't get me wrong, colbert makes me giggle to play with. Amazing ship.. very powerful indeed..

but you have only 1 and a half citadel life from any BB around, and you can eat citadels from any, I MEAN ANY angle.

and your guns are usually useless except the fires. and trust me I built it around fires, with generally around 400 - 500 hits in a battle I get 10 fires in total.

on the other hand, at least %50 or % 60 of those shells does no damage at all.. all shatters. even on some cruisers.

and the firing arcs makes it really hard to fight cruisers...

colbert is a very fun ship which has great rate of fire with a lot of guns,

but on the other side,

 

it has abysmal firing arcs,

laughable HP,

127mm gun caliber which only tickles most ships even some DDs,

no short range AA, so without defAA, the only thing any enemy CV cares is your mediocre mid range, when they pass that, it is frigging open buffet!

did I say, 36K health? with no protection at all! none! nada! zilch!

even minotaur laughes at you :)

[fumtu]

9 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

127mm gun caliber which only tickles most ships even some DDs,

 

Yes, without IFHE. But with IFHE it can pen 27mm or armour which means every single cruiser in the game. With IFHE it can more then just tickle all but BBs. Also with that DPM her AP is still very dangerous if enemy cruiser is not careful anough.

 

 

[Taliesn]

Whatever happened about the IFHE rework?

[Excavatus]

3 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

Yes, without IFHE. But with IFHE it can pen 27mm or armour which means every single cruiser in the game. With IFHE it can more then just tickle all but BBs. Also with that DPM her AP is still very dangerous if enemy cruiser is not careful anough.

 

 

yeah but the problem is.. hitting enemy cruiser with those gun arcs..

would you like to get close to them with that armor and HP?

:) I don't.

 

on the other hand, do you know how colbert reacts to heavy HE? like zao, or moskva?

not good :)

 

don't get me wrong, I am not saying it is not a strong ship.

I just say, it is nothing like some people suggest.. an OP ship which will break the game

smolensk on the other hand :)

mino lovers will love her! will marry her..

[fumtu]

1 minute ago, Excavatus said:

I just say, it is nothing like some people suggest.. an OP ship which will break the game

 

I am aware that Colbert has lot of weaknesses and I don't think she is OP in the way GC is. Still it doesn't mean that she is either balanced or good ship for the game. You can say to don't watch Flamu or Flambass or Aerroon or any other CC that was playing it, but if that is what a good player can do with her than Colbert doesn't look balanced at all. It is same as it was when people defended ships like Belfast or GC, that maybe good player would outperform in it but average player will struggle. And that turned quite well for those ships, didn't it?

 

Sure increase Colbert survivability but I'm little skeptical that that buff while keeping same amount of DPM is a good thing.

[Taliesn]

1 minute ago, fumtu said:

 

I am aware that Colbert has lot of weaknesses and I don't think she is OP in the way GC is. Still it doesn't mean that she is either balanced or good ship for the game. You can say to don't watch Flamu or Flambass or Aerroon or any other CC that was playing it, but if that is what a good player can do with her than Colbert doesn't look balanced at all. It is same as it was when people defended ships like Belfast or GC, that maybe good player would outperform in it but average player will struggle. And that turned quite well for those ships, didn't it?

 

 Sure increase Colbert survivability but I'm little skeptical that that buff while keeping same amount of DPM is a good thing.

 

You could probably make a case against just about every bl00dy ship in game if you were watching top players sailing around in them though.

 

What average players can do with them should matter more, and I don't think Colbert will be loved by your average joe. He'll end up with 500 hits for 15k damage and sunk the moment any BB looks at him funny.

Smolensk has smoke but a couple of hits inside that smoke and, well...

 

Very different proposition to Belfast (or GC) that have no real weakness within class/tier.

[Excavatus]

7 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

I am aware that Colbert has lot of weaknesses and I don't think she is OP in the way GC is. Still it doesn't mean that she is either balanced or good ship for the game. You can say to don't watch Flamu or Flambass or Aerroon or any other CC that was playing it, but if that is what a good player can do with her than Colbert doesn't look balanced at all. It is same as it was when people defended ships like Belfast or GC, that maybe good player would outperform in it but average player will struggle. And that turned quite well for those ships, didn't it?

 

Sure increase Colbert survivability but I'm little skeptical that that buff while keeping same amount of DPM is a good thing.

First, I don't say don't watch them.

I watch them almost every day,

I just say, don't judge a ship with THEIR performance in it.

 

On the other hand, the question is then..

how do you balance a ship..? according to what..

I trust according to performance..?

What performance? on whose hands?

If we gonna balace ships, according to what unicums can do? or for that matter, %30 WR players can do..

I think that will output very bad results.

 

I wasn't around here when belfast was released, but I wouldn't oppose to that.

Because I still don't think belfast is an OP ship.. at least I don't feel that when I see one infront of me.

Extremely strong? yes.. carrying more than it should? yes..
but my definition of op is something that everybody does good on it :)

my definition of OP is, like.. adding 30% WR on your average number.

If you are a %50 player, and after a 1000 battle, If you have 65% WR in a ship.. that is OP for me..

but thats all me.. so I don't say belfast is not OP L2P.. I just say, I don't feel scared when I see a belfast..

 

 

[fumtu]

21 minutes ago, Taliesn said:

You could probably make a case against just about every bl00dy ship in game if you were watching top players sailing around in them though.

 

What average players can do with them should matter more, and I don't think Colbert will be loved by your average joe. He'll end up with 500 hits for 15k damage and sunk the moment any BB looks at him funny.

Smolensk has smoke but a couple of hits inside that smoke and, well...

 

Very different proposition to Belfast (or GC) that have no real weakness within class/tier.

 

Sorry but no. Sure good player could be good in very ship, but that doesn't mean he could do that consistently or in the case that he outperform in comparation to his own average stats.

 

I never said that ship should be balanced about top players, but also what top players could do with some ship should not be discarded completely. You can't expect that ship compensate for a luck of the skill.

 

16 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

First, I don't say don't watch them.

I watch them almost every day,

I just say, don't judge a ship with THEIR performance in it.

 

But that you can say that I don't judge the ship by whatever you said too because that is just YOUR performance, good or bad.

 

Quote

On the other hand, the question is then..

how do you balance a ship..? according to what..

I trust according to performance..?

What performance? on whose hands?

If we gonna balace ships, according to what unicums can do? or for that matter, %30 WR players can do..

I think that will output very bad results.

 

I never said it would be easy or I that I have bulletproof system. I don't think that ship should be balanced around top players but again you can't disregard what top players can do with it too.

 

Quote

I wasn't around here when belfast was released, but I wouldn't oppose to that.

Because I still don't think belfast is an OP ship.. at least I don't feel that when I see one infront of me.

Extremely strong? yes.. carrying more than it should? yes..
but my definition of op is something that everybody does good on it :)

my definition of OP is, like.. adding 30% WR on your average number.

If you are a %50 player, and after a 1000 battle, If you have 65% WR in a ship.. that is OP for me..

but thats all me.. so I don't say belfast is not OP L2P.. I just say, I don't feel scared when I see a belfast..

 

Lets agree to disagree. You can consider it OP or not but Belfast is for sure overperfoming. And in the end WG did remove it permanently from the store.

[Excavatus]

1 hour ago, fumtu said:

But that you can say that I don't judge the ship by whatever you said too because that is just YOUR performance, good or bad.

yeah, that is exatcly what I'm saying,

Thats because I suggest everyone to go in PTS to tryout new ships before forming even a rough opinion.

and I really would like ALL the ships which are in game could be tried in PTS including premiums. even the ones that were removed from the shop.

1 hour ago, fumtu said:

I never said it would be easy or I that I have bulletproof system. I don't think that ship should be balanced around top players but again you can't disregard what top players can do with it too.

Yeah.. always take that in mind, but my objecktion (ruski tonks!) for people who watch a flambass video and scream out "THAT THING IS OP!" without even trying or getting infront of it.

It was not directed to you personally.

1 hour ago, fumtu said:

Lets agree to disagree. You can consider it OP or not but Belfast is for sure overperfoming. And in the end WG did remove it permanently from the store.

Always healthy :)

I understand why it was removed,

I understand why people think it is OP,

I respect,

 

but that is not my idea.

On the other hand, I really like to go in a double belfast and a flint division ( I will get it soon - right now I use helena)

It is so much fun :)

[fumtu]

3 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

yeah, that is exatcly what I'm saying,

Thats because I suggest everyone to go in PTS to tryout new ships before forming even a rough opinion.

and I really would like ALL the ships which are in game could be tried in PTS including premiums. even the ones that were removed from the shop.

 

I'm less concerned about silver ships then premiums as they could be nerfed if outperform. It would be nice if people could try premiums ships there too but that doesn't mean it is a wise thing to do as PTS was never a good representation of live server both by quality of players and quality of playstyle. People quite often do things on PTS which they usually wouldn't do on Live server. At least I did.

 

3 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

Yeah.. always take that in mind, but my objecktion (ruski tonks!) for people who watch a flambass video and scream out "THAT THING IS OP!" without even trying or getting infront of it.

It was not directed to you personally.

 

I agree. People should not just listen what CCs are saying but they could drown their own conclusions too just by watching them playing. Maybe they could also learn a thing a too about the game.

 

3 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

Always healthy :)

I understand why it was removed,

I understand why people think it is OP,

I respect,

 

but that is not my idea.

On the other hand, I really like to go in a double belfast and a flint division ( I will get it soon - right now I use helena)

It is so much fun :)

 

Wonder would that be fun for the other side as well. I mean they deserved to have fun too, right. I always have fun as DD when focused by CV. Just pure fun, fun, fun

[_HMS_RICHY]

Lets face it the belfast is op everyone knows it. Watch the tier 7 ranked coming up. But you ask how should WG balance ships well they have been doing it for 3years or so . how did they do it then.?

[HaachamaShipping]

2 hours ago, Taliesn said:

What average players can do with them should matter more, and I don't think Colbert will be loved by your average joe. He'll end up with 500 hits for 15k damage and sunk the moment any BB looks at him funny.

Smolensk has smoke but a couple of hits inside that smoke and, well...

 

2 hours ago, Excavatus said:

First, I don't say don't watch them.

I watch them almost every day,

I just say, don't judge a ship with THEIR performance in it.

 

On the other hand, the question is then..

how do you balance a ship..? according to what..

I trust according to performance..?

What performance? on whose hands?

If we gonna balace ships, according to what unicums can do? or for that matter, %30 WR players can do..

I think that will output very bad results.

By that logic, if you balance around the average Joe, CVs are fine. CV averages in terms of performance are well within acceptable parameters. Heck, if I consider the battles I played in the last few patch cycles, half the CVs I don't mind, because they are far from game-breaking. But that doesn't mean CVs are fine or that it's balanced when unicums basically can crap on anyone and everyone whenever they so choose and get ridiculous results. No, a ship has to be balanced also around the top players and not just the average player, otherwise you get ridiculous results.

[Toivia]

In my mind, no ship should enable even the best unicum to wreck face in it every time, consistently. And that is exactly what ships like Colbert and Slava currently let the really good players do (mind you, Flamu and Flambass actually aren't the best players in the game either and what we see are streams, ie. when those players are also somewhat distracted managing their streaming).

Simply put, a ship which lets unicums have 200k DMG in every battle while every potato explodes with 15k DMG dealt is not fine. And even if the overall stats would indicate such a ship is actually very weak, it is in fact too strong.

 

I mean fine, maybe Colbert before the heal regen buffs wasn't strictly speaking OP (maybe), but buffing?! Without any nerfs at the same time as well? That's ridiculous.

 

EDIT: Btw, as I haven't seen it explicitly pointed out yet (I could have obviously ovelooked it, in which case, sorry): Slava actually has the most penetration on her guns of any ship in the game, somehow. At most typical ranges (not sure if République and Yamato for instance have better initial pen, as in, point blank range), it pens more than Yamato, République, Kreml, 457mm Conqueror, etc.

[WeGreedy]

1 minute ago, Toivia said:

In my mind, no ship should enable even the best unicum to wreck face in it every time, consistently. And that is exactly what ships like Colbert and Slava currently let the really good players do (mind you, Flamu and Flambass actually aren't the best players in the game either and what we see are streams, ie. when those players are also somewhat distracted managing their streaming).

Simply put, a ship which lets unicums have 200k DMG in every battle while every potato explodes with 15k DMG dealt is not fine. And even if the overall stats would indicate such a ship is actually very weak, it is in fact too strong.

 

I mean fine, maybe Colbert before the heal regen buffs wasn't strictly speaking OP (maybe), but buffing?! Without any nerfs at the same time as well? That's ridiculous.

I'm thinking exactly the opposite. Some ships shouldn't be easy to play and "idiot-proof". Glass cannons like Colbert will always have a huge skill ceiling.

[Toivia]

6 minutes ago, B0Tato said:

I'm thinking exactly the opposite. Some ships shouldn't be easy to play and "idiot-proof". Glass cannons like Colbert will always have a huge skill ceiling.

Don't misunderstand me, I want ships to enable good players do well in them and potatoes to do almost nothing. But Colbert and Slava is far too much in my opinion.

Not to mention that I am not entirely sure potatoes (with the usual urge to stay far back in spawn) would not actually do at least decently well in Slava as well. It does have a distinct weakness if you attempt to tank, but most players never even try that. It could end up being too strong for really good players, paradoxically weak for alright players (you know, those that at least try to do something in a battle, try to push caps, try to tank) and okay for potatoes. Which sounds really horrid as a plan.

[DFens_666]

2 hours ago, B0Tato said:

I'm thinking exactly the opposite. Some ships shouldn't be easy to play and "idiot-proof". Glass cannons like Colbert will always have a huge skill ceiling. 

 

Well i think its ok to have low skill/risk + low reward ships. You could say, german BBs go into that direction as they have basicly no citadel, and are also sturdy against HE alpha damage. Yet, average player will also not get the best results in them, simply because the guns are meh-ish.

However, i wouldnt say ships like Smolensk, Colbert and Slava are high risk + high reward ships. The risk is imo rather small for all of them, if you just know where to sit and how to aim. Slava even comes with awesome longrange dispersion, which makes it better playing low risk. Smolensk wont change as much with the range nerf, as you can buff the range with module and/or AFT. Sitting behind an island (or even in your smoke) with more range than some CAs, arcs that can lob over many islands and having "stealth" AA (Colbert) is not something which makes them high risk ships in the first place. However, amount of shells they can dish out can give insane rewards: Evaporating DDs faster than anything, HE pen that can melt CAs, and fires that will bring down any BB to their knees.

 

If id compare Slava to something else, id imagine 20km shima torps with very low detection, making it a low risk + high reward ship. Luckily, 20km shima torps are visible from the moon, so thats balanced. Slava dispersion on the other hand is awesome on long range, making the entire concept flawed or bad for the game basicly. Same goes for Colbert and Smolensk. They arent balanced because they shatter a lot and are squishy (i dont see squishyness as a balancing factor anyway, as its something i can work around with skill, thats why i like Musashi). Imo balanced version of those 2 would be, having 1/5 or 1/4 pen (which ever is necessary) having a SLOW reload like CAs.

[Kartoffelmos]

23 hours ago, Excavatus said:

Just asking out of curiosity, not trying to be a jerk or something.

Have you played said ships?

 

Nope. Just as I don't need to have played Belfast to realise how strong the ships is. I mean, it's not really hard to use the stats of ships to figure out the playstyle and if you have the armour layout information, you can also make a good prediction of how the ships will perform. Though, this depends on how good you are at the game as bad players don't really understand which stats that supports the specific playstyles. This is not a veiled insult by the way (which I realise is less credible since I pointed it out, but I needed to say it just the same). Whether a ship is comfortable to play is another matter entirely.

But now I'm curious: were those ships available on the Public Test server (just checked: they aren't) or are you really asking me if I'm a supertester (which I'm not and I assume that you knew this) who broke the NDA? 

 

23 hours ago, Excavatus said:

they nerfed it for the second phase. They nerfed it extremely hard. Trust me.

 

No, I won't, because they nerfed things that were irrelevant to the playstyle of the ship (bar the reload of course). The accuracy change meant that she became better at her supposed weak area (while not really that much worse at longer ranges) while both the heal and turret traverse merely meant that she would be "forced" to play at max range where those nerfs does not matter. If you have the opportunity to always disengage (and always be effective while playing safe), what will one less heal really accomplish?

 

23 hours ago, Excavatus said:

There were no reasons left to play slava instead of Kreml.. And guns were really lacking after the nerf,

 

Really? Then I must assume that you played the ship incorrectly. Slava has all the advantages while staying at range (which is a terrible design choice by the way) while Kreml shines in mid-/close-range. Stating the opposite is like saying the Yamato has no place since the Kurfurst/Conqueror/Montana exist (or vice versa if you will).

 

23 hours ago, Excavatus said:

1. it has abysmal firing arcs,

2. laughable HP,

3. 127mm gun caliber which only tickles most ships even some DDs,

4. no short range AA, so without defAA, the only thing any enemy CV cares is your mediocre mid range, when they pass that, it is frigging open buffet!

5. did I say, 36K health? with no protection at all! none! nada! zilch!

even minotaur laughes at you :)

 

1. Which is terrible for open-water fighting, but really good for contesting caps and playing defensively behind islands.

2. I wonder why. It's almost as if the ship is a glass cannon (with high mobility when speed boost is active) and should be played accordingly (island cover, etc.). The arcs also supports this playstyle.

3. That's extremely dishonest. IFHE only makes her "bad" at damaging battleships (and certain sections of some cruisers) so her "bad" HE penetration isn't really an issue. Just like Worcester, she is also really annoying to face in a cruiser. Though, for the sake of consistency, I don't really think that she was that broken before the proposed buffs (though too strong versus cruisers) but I really don't see why she should receive an increase in survivability whilst keeping her firepower.

4. 1-6 km AA range is mediocre now? Defensive fire also affects all ranges so I'm not sure why only the midrange is relevant. The only issue is that the long-range DPS have a slow reload (hooray for hidden stats) but I hope that this will be fixed sooner or later to ensure consistent AA behaviour. In any case, the performance (with the exception of the close-range aura) is comparable to Worcester (slightly worse) so I don't see her AA being weak at all.

 

I may be biased since I haven't played the ships (which you already knew, so why did you even bother asking? ) but I also predicted that the GC (and Conqueror for that matter) would be quite strong when a lot of players claimed that their armour (or lack thereof in the case of Conqueror) would balance the ships or even render them useless.

[Excavatus]

21 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

Nope. Just as I don't need to have played Belfast to realise how strong the ships is. I mean, it's not really hard to use the stats of ships to figure out the playstyle and if you have the armour layout information, you can also make a good prediction of how the ships will perform. Though, this depends on how good you are at the game as bad players don't really understand which stats that supports the specific playstyles. This is not a veiled insult by the way (which I realise is less credible since I pointed it out, but I needed to say it just the same). Whether a ship is comfortable to play is another matter entirely.

But now I'm curious: were those ships available on the Public Test server (just checked: they aren't) or are you really asking me if I'm a supertester (which I'm not and I assume that you knew this) who broke the NDA? 

ok If you think, you can have a solid opinion about a ship without playing it.. I have no comment on this. But thats me..

On the other hand, NDA does not cover forum, we are allowed to talk about test ships. 

1 hour ago, Kartoffelmos said:

No, I won't...

again, I'm sorry but you haven't played the first version neither the second version.

That ship only had 1 good thing about her which was the guns, and with armor scheme and limited repair party,

she suffers extremely bad at close to mid range. nerfing dispersion and reload really killed that ship.

But again, thats my opinion, and almost all other testers I've spoken with..

1 hour ago, Kartoffelmos said:

Really? Then I must assume that you played the ship incorrectly. Slava has all the advantages while staying at range (which is a terrible design choice by the way) while Kreml shines in mid-/close-range.

I completely agree that the first version of slava was a bad design gameplaywise, but after the nerfs, she was not really better than kremlin at long ranges, so she has to go around 15 km to be really effective.. then.. Kremlin.. way better than her at those ranges..

 

1 hour ago, Kartoffelmos said:

1. Which is terrible for open-water fighting, but really good for contesting caps and playing defensively behind islands.

2. I wonder why. It's almost as if the ship is a glass cannon (with high mobility when speed boost is active) and should be played accordingly (island cover, etc.). The arcs also supports this playstyle.

3. That's extremely dishonest. IFHE only makes her "bad" at damaging battleships (and certain sections of some cruisers) so her "bad" HE penetration isn't really an issue. Just like Worcester, she is also really annoying to face in a cruiser. Though, for the sake of consistency, I don't really think that she was that broken before the proposed buffs (though too strong versus cruisers) but I really don't see why she should receive an increase in survivability whilst keeping her firepower.

4. 1-6 km AA range is mediocre now? Defensive fire also affects all ranges so I'm not sure why only the midrange is relevant. The only issue is that the long-range DPS have a slow reload (hooray for hidden stats) but I hope that this will be fixed sooner or later to ensure consistent AA behaviour. In any case, the performance (with the exception of the close-range aura) is comparable to Worcester (slightly worse) so I don't see her AA being weak at all.

it does not matter where you are, open water or behind island.

after around 10 to 12kms, your arcs practically makes it impossible hitting full speed sailing cruisers.

Your only targets especially in the first half of the battle are bow tanking ships and usually BBs.

 

on the other hand, even with IFHE, your shells just shatter on BBs, or just does 600 to 800 damage in every salvo. 3K salvos are very very rare.

 

for the AA?,

you have 6 flaks on long range and 11 in mid.. which is completely dodgeable,

and If you don't have AA active, midway planes usually laughs at you for your 2K long range pulse and mid range pulse.. Appereantly only your midrange is quite effective when defAA is active. and DBs are.. since you are usually stationary behind an island, are your worst nightmare because you don't have short range AA at all so when they slingshot on you with DBs, they are practically free to feast on you, you really don't wanna know how much damage you eat from them.. just let me say that, 1 squadron of DBs means death If you have your defAA on cooldown..

 

But lets not argue,

I'm not trying to say that ship is weak or something, on the contrary that ship is very strong,

but extremely situational, depending on map, enemies and intelligence of the enemy CV captain.

I'm just saying that ship is not something like "OMG, THAT SHIP IS BROKEN... IT WILL BE THE END OF THE GAME!"

Is it broken as much as Atlanta..

 

and as you suggested I don't know how to play that, or slava for that matter.

I only have 120K-ish average damage on colbert.. which looks average, and If you ask me,

some of that average is that because people still don't know that ship.

 

[Kartoffelmos]

9 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

ok If you think, you can have a solid opinion about a ship without playing it.. I have no comment on this. But thats me..

 

Solid? No. Reasonable? Yes.

Compare the ship stats of Shima to Gearing and you will understand what I mean. Does the 0,4 km concealment make up for all the other disadvantages? In the hands of the best Shima players, sure, but for everyone else?

 

19 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

On the other hand, NDA does not cover forum, we are allowed to talk about test ships. 

 

Really? Because that was not the case previously.

 

19 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

again, I'm sorry but you haven't played the first version neither the second version.

 

What happened to "not trying to be a jerk"? You don't have to play the ships to see if something clearly isn't working with regards to balance. In any case:

 

23 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

That ship only had 1 good thing about her which was the guns, and with armor scheme and limited repair party,

 

And concealment and great AA. Good guns and good concealment on a BB is downright broken if you know what you are doing which is why I think the proposed buffs are laughable and the nerfs only made her less comfortable to play.

 

27 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

But again, thats my opinion, and almost all other testers I've spoken with..

 

Maybe that's the problem? 

If you ask me, it seems like a lot of people are trying to play Slava like a conventional BB but that's actually hurting the ship's performance (as I wrote, I find the entire concept to be a bad addition). 

 

27 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

she was not really better than kremlin at long ranges

 

That's untrue:

Range [km]	Slava, horizontal/vertical disp. [m]	Kremlin, horizontal/vertical disp. [m]
6	120/23	50/15
10	144/36	105/34
15	173/51	173/63
20	201/68	242/97

 

For citadel hits/broadsides, they are roughly equal at ~12 km since the vertical dispersion is much more important for that purpose.

56 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

so she has to go around 15 km to be really effective

 

Which is way more convenient in Slava because she can retreat even further and still be effective while Kremlin cannot do the same.

 

1 hour ago, Excavatus said:

I'm just saying that ship is not something like "OMG, THAT SHIP IS BROKEN... IT WILL BE THE END OF THE GAME!"

Is it broken as much as Atlanta..

 

I actually have the same opinion regarding the Colbert, but I find the survivability buff to be silly considering the strengths of the ship. It's a bit like giving a heal to Atlanta because she is (overly) fragile.

1 hour ago, Excavatus said:

you don't have short range AA at all so when they slingshot on you with DBs, they are practically free to feast on you, you really don't wanna know how much damage you eat from them.. just let me say that, 1 squadron of DBs means death If you have your defAA on cooldown..

 

To be fair though, not even close range AA would help against slingshot dive bombers which is why I don't find it to be an especially bad disadvantage. The rest of the AA values are solid and flak will only help against bad CV players.

 

1 hour ago, Excavatus said:

and as you suggested I don't know how to play that, or slava for that matter.

 

I actually have no idea if you know how to play these ships or not. I just doubt that Slava's guns are supposedly worse than those of Kremlin at longer ranges given the available information.

 

And then we have the Yudachi. IJN torps are already bad except for when a player is caught doing a turn or sailing completely straight (alternatively if you launch enough torpedoes to saturate an area) and Yudachi has even worse ones. Oh well...

 

I'll agree that arguing about unreleased ships is slightly silly but I just cannot agree with the direction WG is going with these changes.

[Excavatus]

4 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

 

Solid? No. Reasonable? Yes.

Compare the ship stats of Shima to Gearing and you will understand what I mean. Does the 0,4 km concealment make up for all the other disadvantages? In the hands of the best Shima players, sure, but for everyone else?

 

 

Really? Because that was not the case previously.

 

 

What happened to "not trying to be a jerk"? You don't have to play the ships to see if something clearly isn't working with regards to balance. In any case:

 

 

And concealment and great AA. Good guns and good concealment on a BB is downright broken if you know what you are doing which is why I think the proposed buffs are laughable and the nerfs only made her less comfortable to play.

 

 

Maybe that's the problem? 

If you ask me, it seems like a lot of people are trying to play Slava like a conventional BB but that's actually hurting the ship's performance (as I wrote, I find the entire concept to be a bad addition). 

 

 

That's untrue:

Range [km]	Slava, horizontal/vertical disp. [m]	Kremlin, horizontal/vertical disp. [m]
6	120/23	50/15
10	144/36	105/34
15	173/51	173/63
20	201/68	242/97

 

For citadel hits/broadsides, they are roughly equal at ~12 km since the vertical dispersion is much more important for that purpose.

 

Which is way more convenient in Slava because she can retreat even further and still be effective while Kremlin cannot do the same.

 

 

I actually have the same opinion regarding the Colbert, but I find the survivability buff to be silly considering the strengths of the ship. It's a bit like giving a heal to Atlanta because she is (overly) fragile.

 

To be fair though, not even close range AA would help against slingshot dive bombers which is why I don't find it to be an especially bad disadvantage. The rest of the AA values are solid and flak will only help against bad CV players.

 

 

I actually have no idea if you know how to play these ships or not. I just doubt that Slava's guns are supposedly worse than those of Kremlin at longer ranges given the available information.

 

And then we have the Yudachi. IJN torps are already bad except for when a player is caught doing a turn or sailing completely straight (alternatively if you launch enough torpedoes to saturate an area) and Yudachi has even worse ones. Oh well...

 

I'll agree that arguing about unreleased ships is slightly silly but I just cannot agree with the direction WG is going with these changes.

So in general, We will see what happens after the supposed buffs or nerfs on test ships.

About the slava, that ships performance drastically dropped after first phase nerfs. I'm just trying to say that.

But it was extremely over performing before them. and on the last note, it will be a silver ship.. so there will always be chances to balance it again.

 

On colbert, we actually think same, strong but not OP, but they are buffing survivability because that ships average life was so short as I understood.

but again, we'll see what happens after it..

[SparvieroVV]

A question for our French experts. Does anyone know the historical torpedoes that Lesta keeps flip flopping back and forth from for the destroyer line of the French tech tree? Thanks! Navweaps doesn't have detailed information on the oxygen torpedo. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_Main.php

 

 

[fumtu]

Quote

French cruiser Colbert, tier X:

• Improved acceleration dynamics at the start of the movement;

• "Repair party" consumable number of charges increased from 2 to 3.

Colbert is designed to play at medium distances with the help of covers. For this playstyle to be successful, the ship must be able to gain speed quickly.

Recent changes to test ships have increased the recovery of Colbert's hit points with "Repair party" equipment to compensate ship's low amount of hit points. The old number of "Repair party" charges did not allow this change to be sufficiently realized.

 

They are still buffing Colbert? Without single nerf? And no changes to Smolensk? WTF WG

[SparvieroVV]

2 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

They are still buffing Colbert? Without single nerf? And no changes to Smolensk? WTF WG

I believe they decreased the range of Smolensk's rifles a little bit on the last pass?