Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[HaachamaShipping]

5 minutes ago, SparvieroVV said:

When are you actually going to be showing enough broadside to fire all 15 rifles? Venezia sacrifices a lot of sustained DPM for a possible large alpha strike.

That is not the point, because while the ship might be absolute garbage in every other way, if it had not that 10% restriction, it would potentially oneshot DDs. It'd be the scariest T10 to meet for a DD, because there's absolutely no reason to not give enough broadside to a DD to fire one surprise salvo and then turn out to avoid any BB return fire lobbed your way in reaction. 

2 minutes ago, Chaos_Umbra said:

I have worked out the DPS values for both... and well it doesn't look very good, also where do you get your 20k salvo from cause each shell on a DD only does 520 damage making it 7,800 per full salvo max.

If it did not have a 10% restriction.

2 minutes ago, Chaos_Umbra said:

So the Italian T10 has a 20 second reload base and the Yoshino a 18.5 second reload, next the Italian fires 15 shells to the Yoshino's 9 so when this is taken into account you get a DPS of 390 for the Italian and 819 for the Yoshino which is more than double so even if we include hull saturation into the equation you still end up with the Yoshino doing 409 DPS which is still higher. This is all assuming that all shells land, however do note that SAP can Ricochet and 203mm shells do not overmatch 19mm of armour which all tier 8-10 DDs have so it can be mitigated by going bow in, then there is also the lack of fires and the fact that unless the SAP shell hits a module then it can't knock them out as there is no blast radius so you are less likely to knock out a DDs weapons, engine or rudder.

As stated above, this is not about sustained dpm.

 

Both of you miss the point I'm making. The thing is, the incredibly high alpha/low dpm is basically one of the dumbest ways to balance the ships. In most cases it is crap, but it is hard to argue that it would not be absolutely insane if a DD gets surprised once and absolutely gets demolished with a combination of damage and accuracy that we have not yet seen before to this degree. So the 10% restriction with those stats makes some sense. And while, yes, it'd not make the ships OP, because they are otherwise crap, it should not be that one harsh disadvantage is countered by an equally insane advantage. That is the point I'm making and that is in no way related to goddamn dpm, which, yes, is crap. Thus I compared it to Yoshino, which together with Zao is the closest we got to such a ship currently. And there's a great difference between what a Zao can do and what a Venezia would be able to do.

[Chaos_Umbra]

8 minutes ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

If it did not have a 10% restriction.

Yes but it does have this restriction and it is not just on the tier 10 the tier 2 has it also,  which means the most damage it can do to a DD in 1 Salvo is 1,425 and that is a full broadside of 5 Guns as it can't get all of them off on the same target then you have a 13 second reload on top of that... Also an Umikaze would do 1,683 damage to the Nino Bixio per salvo with HE and also has a 10 second reload... yeah sounds great... Oh yeah and the Nino Bixio only has 6.3k more HP than a Umikaze that also has torps...

 

You will esentially not be able to fight DDs at all unless you torp them which the tier 2 doesn't have.

[HaachamaShipping]

2 minutes ago, Chaos_Umbra said:

Yes but it does have this restriction and it is not just on the tier 10 the tier 2 has it also,  which means the most damage it can do to a DD in 1 Salvo is 1,425 and that is a full broadside of 5 Guns as it can't get all of them off on the same target then you have a 13 second reload on top of that... Also an Umikaze would do 1,683 damage to the Nino Bixio per salvo with HE and also has a 10 second reload... yeah sounds great... Oh yeah and the Nino Bixio only has 6.3k more HP than a Umikaze that also has torps...

 

You will esentially not be able to fight DDs at all unless you torp them which the tier 2 doesn't have.

Yes, but you are arguing this with me now, after my original post was just an attempt to explain as to what very likely was the reason behind the restriction. That's just needlessly dragging it out.

[Chaos_Umbra]

Just now, Cagliostro_chan said:

Yes, but you are arguing this with me now, after my original post was just an attempt to explain as to what very likely was the reason behind the restriction. That's just needlessly dragging it out.

And I was just pointing out why the SAP ammunition was so bad against DDs... so what are you meant to use AP and pray for a full pen? I can see SAP working on a large gunned ship like a BB but on cruisers, especially with the 10% damage to DDs gimmick it will be entirely useless and you would probably be better off just firing the AP instead.

 

Okay lets put the SAP against a broadsiding Ship that is not a DD and has armour thin enough that all the shells will penetrate, also consider that they cannot citadel any ships of tier 8-10, for the Tier 10 it would do a full salvo of 25,740 Damage with just pens this is completely ridiculous against any ship that it can penetrate so basically most Cruiser plating and BB extremities this goes completely the other direction, but then again if it was a broadsiding ship that you can citadel you could just use the 73.5k Alpha strike that the AP has which would 1 shot any cruiser, obviously you would not get 15 citadels but even just getting 3/15 shells is 14.7k then you have the other shells that just pen or overpen...

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

This post from the main thread irritates me (WARGAMING not the poster)

IMPORTANT STUFF SUCH AS THIS SHOULD BE POSTED ON WARGAMINGS OWN WEB PAGES - AND NOT CONTEMPTIBLE THIRD PARTY SITES.

[ColonelPete]

It is posted in this forum...

 

 

[El2aZeR]

WG finally realized their AA-plane progression model is garbage.

Just 2 years too late. 

[Toivia]

Yeah, what they're proposing to test on PTS almost sounds like a full new CV rework, honestly.

 

We were so long joking about "year of the carrier" that we ended up with an actual year with barely anything else than constant CV related mess, updates, patches, reworks, ... Kinda bit us in the [edited]there.

[El2aZeR]

15 minutes ago, Toivia said:

Kinda bit us in the [edited]there.

On 2/1/2019 at 4:06 PM, _DeathWing_ said:

 

[invicta2012]

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

WG finally realized their AA-plane progression model is garbage.

They need to look at it in Tier group stages. What works at Tier X is not what works at Tier VI, and no-one is going to thank them for banjaxing Tier VI / VII / VIII ships sold as having unusually strong AA because the Grozovoi is OP.

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, invicta2012 said:

They need to look at it in Tier group stages.

 

Except it is an impossibility anyway to balance AA across 5 tiers unless you compress everything to something so similar it'd become a borefest.

[invicta2012]

1 minute ago, El2aZeR said:

unless you compress everything to something so similar it'd become a borefest.

That looks like what they're doing.

[mariouus]

5 hours ago, Toivia said:

We were so long joking about "year of the carrier" that we ended up with an actual year with barely anything else than constant CV related mess, updates, patches, reworks, ... Kinda bit us in the [edited]there.

Do not worry. Soon they will start "IFHE" rework, what allready has all the "promise" of being just has large of a screw-up.

[BruceRKF]

Overlapping auras, finally! It being intuitive that auras would overlap and all that, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Now just reworking all the damage numbers on AA again for every ship which means we will get balance very soon(tm).

[Panocek]

9 minutes ago, BruceRKF said:

Overlapping auras, finally! It being intuitive that auras would overlap and all that, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Now just reworking all the damage numbers on AA again for every ship which means we will get balance very soon(tm).

Dun worry, WG always can add or substract 5hp from Survivability Expert

[NothingButTheRain]

14 hours ago, Toivia said:

Yeah, what they're proposing to test on PTS almost sounds like a full new CV rework, honestly.

I tried it on PTS yesterday and even if it's only changing the way that sectoring your AA works, I think this is a good change 

11 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Except it is an impossibility anyway to balance AA across 5 tiers unless you compress everything to something so similar it'd become a borefest.

It's not just black or white or right and wrong.

Right now the changes in tier are too vast when it comes to this. Making AA do the same damage across all tiers is obviously the other end of an extreme, but finding a middle ground is almost guaranteed to be an improvement over what we have right now.

 

And it does come down to compressing across the tiers. The question is how much it's gonna need to be compressed at compared to how it is now.

 

A friend of mine is grinding several carrier lines right now and he also noticed that when he is bottom tier, his planes just get vaporised. And he also plays surface ships so also experienced the situation as a bottom tiered surface combatant. Making these extremes a bit less extreme makes sense.

[HaachamaShipping]

Looking over all the info on AA changes coming out, we'll be in for a few funny months. Reducing defAA to be even more useless, reducing base values on AA due to new overlapping AA and reducing the modifier is making the whole thing quite questionable. But good thing WG were quite transparant as to how they balance AA with their latest statements.

Quote

The continuous damage bonus is now decreased due to the new air defense mechanics and due to the summing of one ship's damage zones - considering old values this gain would be extremely effective and leave no chance for the squadron to break through to the target or escape from AA zones. The values of consumable for destroyers is now equated to other classes because after progression changings, the characteristics of AA in ships with a weak configuration was strengthened and the effectiveness of destroyers with good air defense under "Defensive AA Fire" exceeded the power of cruisers and battleships. For example, the AA effectiveness of Grozovoi with activated consumable exceeded the effectiveness of the air defense of the battleship Kremlin.

The implications of this sentence are pretty telling imo. Taken from here.

[thiextar]

1 hour ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

Looking over all the info on AA changes coming out, we'll be in for a few funny months. Reducing defAA to be even more useless, reducing base values on AA due to new overlapping AA and reducing the modifier is making the whole thing quite questionable. But good thing WG were quite transparant as to how they balance AA with their latest statements.

The implications of this sentence are pretty telling imo. Taken from here.

Yeah, i also reacted to that. So an aa-specced destroyer with its limited consumable active, shouldnt have stronger aa than a soviet battleship has as standard all the time? Absolutely stupid.

[CptBarney]

21 minutes ago, thiextar said:

Yeah, i also reacted to that. So an aa-specced destroyer with its limited consumable active, shouldnt have stronger aa than a soviet battleship has as standard all the time? Absolutely stupid.

so they changed it because kremlin won't be top plane killer?

 

lol.

[Lootboxer]

17 minutes ago, thiextar said:

Yeah, i also reacted to that. So an aa-specced destroyer with its limited consumable active, shouldnt have stronger aa than a soviet battleship has as standard all the time? Absolutely stupid.

Not stupid at all, remember that every DD has heals and 5x more HP then a BB

[Panocek]

42 minutes ago, DariusJacek said:

Not stupid at all, remember that every DD has heals and 5x more HP then a BB

Don't forget concealment. After all, if you're not shot at, it means you have infinite hp and thats overpowered

[Lootboxer]

1 minute ago, Panocek said:

Don't forget concealment. After all, if you're not shot at, it means you have infinite hp and thats overpowered

You are also smaller target and you camp the whole battle safely hidden in the center of the blob far away from the caps in a DD. 

[Toivia]

People, you do realise they will take that last page of comments seriously, right?

 

(Nonetheless, I had quite a few laughs.)

[Panocek]

34 minutes ago, Toivia said:

People, you do realise they will take that last page of comments seriously, right?

 

(Nonetheless, I had quite a few laughs.)

After all these years of interacting with Wargaming, with full confidence I can say devs are not even aware of existence of this topic, they barely acknowledge existence of EU forum

[SparvieroVV]

On 8/3/2019 at 4:22 PM, Panocek said:

After all these years of interacting with Wargaming, with full confidence I can say devs are not even aware of existence of this topic, they barely acknowledge existence of EU forum

They just want you to spend time with friends and family.