British Battleship line for 2017?

[1MajorKoenig]

Chipmunk_of_Vengeance, on 15 June 2017 - 05:46 PM, said:

 

The Harsh surprise here is how stupid your statement sounds. A gun is still a gun, doesn't matter if is real or inside a virtual game, it is still categorically a gun. They may have properties attached to them yes, but they are at the end of the day, still guns.

 

And yes, using a speed boat is still being on a boat, seriously a speed boat is still a boat though I'm sure you can find some flawed explanation and say otherwise, but it gives the basic idea of the physics involved with being on a craft that travels across water, one of these is water resistance.

 

Haha the amount of *edited* you shell out here is pathetic. A speedboat is a joke - try sailing boats or real ships. You have clearly no clue what you are talking about hahaha!

 

Everyone here seems to have lots of patience to explain things to you but you justkeep on going on like a little child who wants to have the last word in a conversation. And even better you start insulting if you are running out of weird explanations. Pathetic.

 

I am not wasting my time arguing with someone like you.

 

VC381, on 15 June 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

Here we go. Plausible and I dare say quite attractive:

 

 

Compared to what WG did to the DE BBs it doesn't look half bad. Did you create this yourself or did you find it somewhere?

 

[piritskenyer]

Can't read half this thread, chipmunk has spammed it to *edited*  and I just see blocklines.

 

König, you got that upvote for pointing out the bullcrap.

 

Also, I'm a bit occupied right now, what's the imaginary rebuild of?

[SeaMonsterUK]

1MajorKoenig, on 15 June 2017 - 07:19 PM, said:

 

Haha the amount of *edited* you shell out here is pathetic. A speedboat is a joke - try sailing boats or real ships. You have clearly no clue what you are talking about hahaha!

 

Everyone here seems to have lots of patience to explain things to you but you justkeep on going on like a little child who wants to have the last word in a conversation. And even better you start insulting if you are running out of weird explanations. Pathetic.

 

I am not wasting my time arguing with someone like you.

 

I do know what I'm talking about thanks, speed boats may not be anything like a sailing boat or a ship, but they still give you an idea what they are like, something called water resistance, so I know full well the physics when it comes to water based craft and I know full well what I am talking about.
 

piritskenyer, on 15 June 2017 - 07:26 PM, said:

Can't read half this thread, chipmunk has spammed it to sh1t and I just see blocklines.

 

König, you got that upvote for pointing out the bullcrap.

 

Also, I'm a bit occupied right now, what's the imaginary rebuild of?

 

The only bullcrap is coming from Konig bud.
 

[piritskenyer]

How does he spawn two blocklines? That's double posting, even I can see that. I mean it shows how *edited*  this guy is even through the block.

[SeaMonsterUK]

How does he spawn two blocklines? That's double posting, even I can see that. I mean it shows how *edited*  this guy is even through the block.

Too used to War Thunder forums which automatically merges the posts. But it really does show your level of arrogance.

[VC381]

 

Compared to what WG did to the DE BBs it doesn't look half bad. Did you create this yourself or did you find it somewhere?

 

I found it quite quickly with a google. I was going to make one but this is so close to what I imagined anyway I didn't bother. Knowing WG though, this will be seen as "boring" and they will do something stupid with it anyway.

 

Also, the full Warspite bridge isn't necessary, they could trunk the funnels into one and just beef up the tripod a bit like the R class. That would leave them closer to that elegant as-built look.

 

Genuinely more worried about Orion though. Given all the other T4s also have 1930s hulls (of which only one is real), she would change the most from her historic appearance.

 

Can't read half this thread, chipmunk has spammed it to sh1t and I just see blocklines.

 

König, you got that upvote for pointing out the bullcrap.

 

Also, I'm a bit occupied right now, what's the imaginary rebuild of?

 

Do you really need to be stupid as well and make a fuss about reading blocklines? Just cut it out.

 

We're talking about possible rebuilds for Iron Duke so that she's got a 1930s vibe like WG want in their T5s.

[piritskenyer]

 

I found it quite quickly with a google. I was going to make one but this is so close to what I imagined anyway I didn't bother. Knowing WG though, this will be seen as "boring" and they will do something stupid with it anyway.

 

Also, the full Warspite bridge isn't necessary, they could trunk the funnels into one and just beef up the tripod a bit like the R class. That would leave them closer to that elegant as-built look.

 

Genuinely more worried about Orion though. Given all the other T4s also have 1930s hulls (of which only one is real), she would change the most from her historic appearance.

 

 

Do you really need to be stupid as well and make a fuss about reading blocklines? Just cut it out.

 

We're talking about possible rebuilds for Iron Duke so that she's got a 1930s vibe like WG want in their T5s.

 

Okay, thanks for the info. The sketch does look interesting, believable even. I was thinking Iron duke (or other 13.5"-armed) ships more along the lines of T4 originally, with Revenge class being T5, but then again, Iron Duke would also be viable (as demonstrated by König).

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Okay, thanks for the info. The sketch does look interesting, believable even. I was thinking Iron duke (or other 13.5"-armed) ships more along the lines of T4 originally, with Revenge class being T5, but then again, Iron Duke would also be viable (as demonstrated by König).

 

Revenge class is more viable as Tier 6 considering it is a smaller QE class essentially.

[EUmofton]

 

Okay, thanks for the info. The sketch does look interesting, believable even. I was thinking Iron duke (or other 13.5"-armed) ships more along the lines of T4 originally, with Revenge class being T5, but then again, Iron Duke would also be viable (as demonstrated by König).

 

Well, we could end up with this insanity: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/21099/HMS-Iron-Duke-Fast-Battleship-rebuild-proposal#.WULpSNy1vcs   which always makes me chuckle.

 

 

[shockinhockin]

Holy hell this CoV guys is still going on about guns not fitting in turrets.

 

1MajorKoenig don't even waste anymore of your time or breath with this guy. There's as been several topics before around this subject and it doesn't matter who or what is said chipmunk blindly believes that he and only he is corret on this matter and that's that.

 

I going to try one more time and that's it so here goes

 

It's simple if you CoV want realisam then KGV has 14" 2x4 1x2.

 

THE END

 

You can't sit there saying you want 3x3 15 for balance, stating realism problems as 15 quads won't fit in a turrrts. when the sodding ship never carried 15 in the first place! In either 3x3 or 2x4 format. both never happened!

 

It's utterly daft to be aguring this all because of overmatch mechanics (also not a real thing by the way) i mean for god sake your aguring based on turret internal space and wanting realism, based on the fact that you can't accept that 14" shells won't overmatch bow armour, So therefore they should be 3x3 15 for balance and realism.

 

News flash the bow armour isn't realistic either anyway! It's a made up number to make a made up overmatch mechanic work as WG want it to. In fact the ships looking like they should visually is the only really realistic part of this game and you want to take that away for balance and realism? ?

 

I literally don't understand you CoV you make 0 sense at all

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

Holy hell this CoV guys is still going on about guns not fitting in turrets.

 

1MajorKoenig don't even waste anymore of your time or breath with this guy. There's as been several topics before around this subject and it doesn't matter who or what is said chipmunk blindly believes that he and only he is corret on this matter and that's that.

 

I going to try one more time and that's it so here goes

 

It's simple if you CoV want realisam then KGV has 14" 2x4 1x2.

 

THE END

 

You can't sit there saying you want 3x3 15 for balance, stating realism problems as 15 quads won't fit in a turrrts. when the sodding ship never carried 15 in the first place! In either 3x3 or 2x4 format. both never happened!

 

It's utterly daft to be aguring this all because of overmatch mechanics (also not a real thing by the way) i mean for god sake your aguring based on turret internal space and wanting realism, based on the fact that you can't accept that 14" shells won't overmatch bow armour, So therefore they should be 3x3 15 for balance and realism.

 

News flash the bow armour isn't realistic either anyway! It's a made up number to make a made up overmatch mechanic work as WG want it to. In fact the ships looking like they should visually is the only really realistic part of this game and you want to take that away for balance and realism? ?

 

I literally don't understand you CoV you make 0 sense at all

Technically with Hull B it uses 15"/45 Mk II shells, so doesn't matter how you look at it, it isn't never will be realistic. Again you can sugar coat it all you like, you can say I make 0 sense all you like, but it won't change facts that the guns on KGV simply are not realistic in any sense of the word.

 

Also, I can sit here and talk about 3x3 15" guns on the KGV, no it may not be historically accurate, but it is far more realistic than 15" guns in 2x4, 1x2 set up that are dressed up as 14" guns.

 

And I'm certainly not going to end this argument here as I know what is right (that doesn't necessarily mean it is correct or wrong), you want to continue it, be my guest, I'll be waiting here.

[piritskenyer]

 

Well, we could end up with this insanity: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/21099/HMS-Iron-Duke-Fast-Battleship-rebuild-proposal#.WULpSNy1vcs   which always makes me chuckle.

 

 

 

That made me crack up, thanks Poor Pinafore got a thourough beating

[1MajorKoenig]

 

I found it quite quickly with a google. I was going to make one but this is so close to what I imagined anyway I didn't bother. Knowing WG though, this will be seen as "boring" and they will do something stupid with it anyway.

 

Also, the full Warspite bridge isn't necessary, they could trunk the funnels into one and just beef up the tripod a bit like the R class. That would leave them closer to that elegant as-built look.

 

Genuinely more worried about Orion though. Given all the other T4s also have 1930s hulls (of which only one is real), she would change the most from her historic appearance.

 

 

Do you really need to be stupid as well and make a fuss about reading blocklines? Just cut it out.

 

We're talking about possible rebuilds for Iron Duke so that she's got a 1930s vibe like WG want in their T5s.

 

I am not a huge fan of these fantasy refits but it is unlikely that WG will ever go back on this.

 

I could see WG doing something along these lines to Iron Duke but I tend to agree with VC that it might be too plausible and they want to go full yolo again.

 

Orion is one of those designs nobody would have ever bothered to fully modernize. Keep them as long as they work as Convoy escort, shore bombardment and other second line duties but don't spend truckloads of money on them. Like the Kaisers. That being said I am a little worried what WG creation we will see for her ... :-(

[Gnomus]

 

Technically it isn't fictional, 3x3 15" guns were one of the few proposed designs of what would become the King George V class. A soft stat tweak which which turns the 356mm guns into 381mm guns is in my opinion much worse than putting in a completely fictional ship in the game, it is like turning the 2-Pounder on a Churchill into a 17-Pounder just because it's a soft start.

 

Edit: And yes I know it is a game, but I still expect a certain level of realism from an Arcade game based on historical Warships.

 

 

Realism is also a very important part, not because of how the battleship looks, that is secondary in my views, it is about the realism which adds up to immersion, and 15" guns dressed up as 14" guns breaks both realism and immersion. For 1, the 15"/45 Mk II was too big to the Quadruple Turret mountings, the recoil being too big for the guns it was originally designed for.

 

 

The game still has realism, realism is still required to be able to create an immersive environment, this being an arcade game means some of the realism, such as speed, range of guns etc. are upscaled or downscaled but ship designs remain 100% realistic, that should also remain to the King George V, having 15" guns dressed as 14" guns breaks that realism, which breaks the immersion. Keeping that immersion doesn't mean keeping to 100% historical accuracy.

 

 

a. Adding 15"/45 Mk II guns in 3x3 turrets isn't removing realism from the ship, yes it won't historically accurate, but the ship will remain realistic, and more so than adding 15" guns dressed as 14" guns.

b. Not completely wasted at all, it still remains more realistic in terms of dressing something up as one thing when it is something entirely different.

 

I bolded the relevant part.

 

For me, and I believe most others, it is much worse to but completely fictional ship in the game and call it KGV than just tweak some numbers that do not even show to players and make ships function as it should. 

 

Other than main armor armor plates on bow/stern/superstructure are pretty much made up by WG. Over match system is somewhat historical, but rule used in game is arbitrary WG decision. If they decide to use fictional 381mm value to check for over match agains WG made up threshold and against WG mystically decided armor thightness, then by all mean they can use 381 vs 365.

 

If you want realism go look for ship speeds. There's plenty of ships that go too fast and some that go too slow.

If you want realism go look for turret turn speed. There's plenty of ships with too high turret speeds and ships that suffer a lot because low turret speed, but that is only because speeds and ranges have been scaled.

If you want realism go look at ships RoF which are many times picked out of nowhere.

If you look at the ships rudder times they are mostly made up.

Whole hit point/damage system is out of WG's head and have very little resembles to realism.

Others already pointed out that sea is not working as it should be.

 

All those "unrealistic" changes have been done for game balance. Then suddenly changing one numerical value from 356 to 381 somewhere where it doesn't show to anyone unless you go snooping around in internal files is so horrible that well known classical ships should be totally altered because it is "unrealistic". If you demand that level of realism I think there is very few ships that you accept.

 

I accept that there are game play and balance changes on things to make this playable. Having RoF of 2 instaed of 1.5 is ok. Having speed of 38 knots instead of 35 is ok. Having guns perform as 381 instead of 356 is not a big deal.

 

Taking a way whole ship and replacing it with something it isn't is much more radical change. Otherwise we could just play with Ship A fighting Ship B and have everything made up by WG. They have decided to use (mostly) historical ships and that is the reason many players play this. Changing hidden numbers here and there has nothing to do with it, we even expect it from patch to patch to keep ships somewhat balanced.

 

Why this number just in this ship is so important that it surpasses hundreds if not thousands similar "unrealistic" values already used and is reason enough to use fantasy ship instead of historical ship?

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

 

 

 

I bolded the relevant part.

 

For me, and I believe most others, it is much worse to but completely fictional ship in the game and call it KGV than just tweak some numbers that do not even show to players and make ships function as it should. 

 

Other than main armor armor plates on bow/stern/superstructure are pretty much made up by WG. Over match system is somewhat historical, but rule used in game is arbitrary WG decision. If they decide to use fictional 381mm value to check for over match agains WG made up threshold and against WG mystically decided armor thightness, then by all mean they can use 381 vs 365.

 

If you want realism go look for ship speeds. There's plenty of ships that go too fast and some that go too slow.

If you want realism go look for turret turn speed. There's plenty of ships with too high turret speeds and ships that suffer a lot because low turret speed, but that is only because speeds and ranges have been scaled.

If you want realism go look at ships RoF which are many times picked out of nowhere.

If you look at the ships rudder times they are mostly made up.

Whole hit point/damage system is out of WG's head and have very little resembles to realism.

Others already pointed out that sea is not working as it should be.

 

All those "unrealistic" changes have been done for game balance. Then suddenly changing one numerical value from 356 to 381 somewhere where it doesn't show to anyone unless you go snooping around in internal files is so horrible that well known classical ships should be totally altered because it is "unrealistic". If you demand that level of realism I think there is very few ships that you accept.

 

I accept that there are game play and balance changes on things to make this playable. Having RoF of 2 instaed of 1.5 is ok. Having speed of 38 knots instead of 35 is ok. Having guns perform as 381 instead of 356 is not a big deal.

 

Taking a way whole ship and replacing it with something it isn't is much more radical change. Otherwise we could just play with Ship A fighting Ship B and have everything made up by WG. They have decided to use (mostly) historical ships and that is the reason many players play this. Changing hidden numbers here and there has nothing to do with it, we even expect it from patch to patch to keep ships somewhat balanced.

 

Why this number just in this ship is so important that it surpasses hundreds if not thousands similar "unrealistic" values already used and is reason enough to use fantasy ship instead of historical ship?

 

 

You seem to pretty much be repeating what I already said on what part, and that is that some of the realism in the game have either been upscaled or downscaled, so I'll bold that part so you know which I am talking about, as for how the sea behaves, despite the lack of rough sea conditions it does work how water should do, the physics are still there.

 

As for changing 356mm to 381mm, that is a completely unrealistic change on all levels, it is much better, and yes I don't care if it an unpopular opinion, to change the layout to 3x3 15" guns on a Hull C or the option to upgrade to 381mm in 3x3 from Hull B, at least you still get a choice between the 356mm and 381mm which is exactly what I'm suggesting, though you probably failed to read that since you are too busy trying to defend WGs unrealistic decision on the turrets and guns.

 

And having guns perform as 381mm instead of 356mm.... they are 381mm once you upgrade to Hull B, 15" shells, 15" muzzle velocity, they are literally 15" guns dressed as 14" guns. And no, giving the option to upgrade to 3x3 381mm guns and allowing you to chose between the historical set up or one of the proposed set ups is not that radical compared to making a 15" gun and dressing it up as a 14" gun in terms of how it impacts realism in the game. And considering the 3x3 15" gun set up was one of the proposed designs it can't be fantasy at all, fantasy means it is completely fictional.

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

Just as I was beginning to think, at last, we have moved on from the KGV. Here we go again. We are never going to see eye to eye on this subject. So why are we repeating what has been said for the past year and a half??????? Just leave the subject alone and respect each others opinion. Because you are now starting to look like children in a playground, who wants their opinion to be the last heard.

 

The Orion, its the first to have the 13.5" guns. How are they going to compare to the German 12" at tier 4? How does the Orion compare, armour wise, to the Kaiser? Is it a good match up? Because its the tier 5 and under that I am really looking forward to playing, as I know little about them.

[SeaMonsterUK]

The Orion, its the first to have the 13.5" guns. How are they going to compare to the German 12" at tier 4? How does the Orion compare, armour wise, to the Kaiser? Is it a good match up? Because its the tier 5 and under that I am really looking forward to playing, as I know little about them.

I'm more looking forward to seeing how Bellerophon will perform compared to her rivals, Kawachii, South Carolina and Nassau.

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

Well usually I don't hang around in the first BB. But I would like to stay with each BB in the line longer this time. Get a proper feel for each one.

[Princess_Kitty_]

I'm more looking forward to seeing how Bellerophon will perform compared to her rivals, Kawachii, South Carolina and Nassau.

 

It was a powerful ship and also more modern than the other three, no reason to think she'd be any worse than them in game I guess. I would assume at this point she may be stronger possibly? U'know...British HE and all...

[SeaMonsterUK]

She is definitely stronger than South Carolina, 4x2 305mm and 20x1 3" guns vs 5x2 305mm (still 4 per broadside) and 16x1 4" guns, but she is going to be pretty even with Nassau which has better secondaries but worse main armament.

[Close_Quarters_Expert]

Bellerophon was indeed a beast, but I don't see her outclassing Nassau anytime soon. Historically, she reloaded like a slug whereas in-game Nassau reloads like it's stern is on fire; the difference in calibre makes such little difference at this tier too, as any BB gun can pen any other BB's bow etc. Let's not also forget that Nassau trumps her on belt armour and sheer number of secondaries. Perhaps less about DPM, then, and more about flexibility? That would certainly hold true to the role RN BBs served historically.  I do agree however that she deserves to be a tank with her lineage. 

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

Her secondary armament was reduced to 12 at some point (around Jutland iirc), but had more deck armour, so might be a possible Hull C, better armour for less secondaries.

[1MajorKoenig]

The Orion, its the first to have the 13.5" guns. How are they going to compare to the German 12" at tier 4? How does the Orion compare, armour wise, to the Kaiser? Is it a good match up? Because its the tier 5 and under that I am really looking forward to playing, as I know little about them.

 

Orion is pretty much at WG's merci tbh. Her armour is about Nassau/Kawachi level but certainly significantly worse than Kaiser but better than Myogi. The guns are comparable to Kaiser's guns but with lower muzzle velocity which is favourable in the game (not necessarily always in real life but certainly in WOWS). Her historical FCS was abysmal (straight above the fore funnel covered almost fully in smoke in normal operations) showing in poor gunnery results however that is also up to WG's interpretation. Long story short WG has the option from poor to OP with her. My guess is that they will portray her favourably and far beyond her historical capabilities.

 

I wouldn't  hold my breat about Bellerophon though. She has Ishizuchi's guns and a 4 turret broadside. Less armour (25cm belt) coupled with typical dreadnought speed and the unreliable Ishizuchi AP doesn't sound like a monster. But she is kind of pretty and has a new turret layout that is not yet in the game.

[SeaMonsterUK]

Really I think the British Battleships up to tier 6 are going to be a Jack of All Trades, master of none type of vehicles.

[Gnomus]

 

You seem to pretty much be repeating what I already said on what part, and that is that some of the realism in the game have either been upscaled or downscaled, so I'll bold that part so you know which I am talking about, as for how the sea behaves, despite the lack of rough sea conditions it does work how water should do, the physics are still there.

 

As for changing 356mm to 381mm, that is a completely unrealistic change on all levels, it is much better, and yes I don't care if it an unpopular opinion, to change the layout to 3x3 15" guns on a Hull C or the option to upgrade to 381mm in 3x3 from Hull B, at least you still get a choice between the 356mm and 381mm which is exactly what I'm suggesting, though you probably failed to read that since you are too busy trying to defend WGs unrealistic decision on the turrets and guns.

 

And having guns perform as 381mm instead of 356mm.... they are 381mm once you upgrade to Hull B, 15" shells, 15" muzzle velocity, they are literally 15" guns dressed as 14" guns. And no, giving the option to upgrade to 3x3 381mm guns and allowing you to chose between the historical set up or one of the proposed set ups is not that radical compared to making a 15" gun and dressing it up as a 14" gun in terms of how it impacts realism in the game. And considering the 3x3 15" gun set up was one of the proposed designs it can't be fantasy at all, fantasy means it is completely fictional.

 

It's not about scaling of time, speed and distances. Those work uniformly on all ships. It's about picking which unrealistic things on which ships is wrong and which are just balancing and totally ok. Either you accept all those changes and "wrong" values as part of general balancing or you should be as abhorrent of them all as much as you seem to be about KGV guns. 

 

According to you it is very bad that 14" guns have little better performance numbers than they should or that such guns would not fit to historical turret. Having such a change would be unrealistic and break immersion. We get it.

 

 

Same time having guns loading over 100% faster is ok, because is it just upscaled or downscaled? It is not not immersion breaking, because suddenly reloading system has become automated? For example look at Kirov guns going from 2 RoF to 4 RoF. How did they manage that? Did they make turrets bigger and less cramped? Perhaps they added some extra dimensional interior, but then KGV could use similar method to fit 15" guns on historical turrets.

 

Then we have ship like Leningrad that have enough power in engines to speed it up to 40 knots, is suddenly pushing out enough power to speed it up to 43 knots, and after adding speed boost and flag up to 49 knots. Did they suddenly get some fusion reactor or how did they add all those extra boilers inside the ships hull? No unrealistic at all because increasing speed from 40 to 49 knots doesn't take that much more shp's? Of course same time Iowa which actually have power to go up to 33 knots, or even 35.2 knots on light load, is magically restricted to 28.8 (30.2 with flag). Did someone steal their boilers? Must have been that Leningrads captain, as that could explain where he got all that power to his own ship.

 

Of course we have also this nice example of Graf Spee and Scharnhorst. Graf Spee AP shell weight's 300kg and does 8400 damage. Scharnhorst's AP shells weight 330kg (10% more) and do 7600 damage (9,52% less). How is that realistic? It doesn't break your immersion?

 

Too lazy to look numbers of turret rotations for you, but there also some ships have gone beyond what was physically possible for their turrets and equipment.

 

 

You have not ever explained, even when asked several times, why having a KGV gun have differing performance or being fitted in smaller turret is so unrealistic and immersion breaking while weaker guns doing more damage or turrets becoming magically uncramped and doubling RoF or doubling engine power (or even more to go from 40 to 49 knots) is just upscaling or downscaling and not at all unrealistic or immersion breaking? 

 

Why this minor difference is so much more important than all the other unrealistic values game already have? Why it can't be just part of normal upscaling and downscaling like Kirov's RoF, GS/Horst damage or several ships speed? If you are not bothered by all the other unrealistic things why KGV guns bother you so much? If all other unrealistic things are as horrible to you as KGV guns seem to be how you can even play this game?

 

 

You say that fitting 15" guns on 14" turrets is impossible and this unrealistic taking away immersion. Why it is so difficult to understand that changing 4-2-4 14" BB to 3x3 15" BB is also physically impossible and it is unrealistic because KGV is historical setup with well known setup? It would take away many players immersion. After all we are talking about difference on hidden never seen numbers or changing whole setup of well known ship. Even if I could sail my KGV in 4-2-4 setup it would take way lot of realism and immersion to shoot at 3x3 "KGV" and that would be visible every time I meet one in battle. 

 

As I have said earlier, there is nothing wrong having 3x3 15" T8 British BB in game, but that ship is not and should never be KGV. KGV is 4-2-4 14" setup and that was defining character of the whole class. Changing some gun parameters is upscaling and downscaling, similar changes have already been done a lot of times and KGV is no different in that manner. Changing a whole class to another class on the other hand is not upscaling or downscaling and should not happen.