Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Ryouzanpakku

LWM review of Duke of York is up on US forums

49 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
350 posts
3,426 battles

Well, since it's free, we should not complain.

 

Also, all reviews are important but have to be taken with a grain of salt, they're always subjective.

 

For example, little white mouse disliked duca d'aosta, while i like Duca a lot (when is top or middle tier tbh).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
7,871 posts
11,295 battles
5 minutes ago, Boris_MNE said:

TL:DR: crap.

 

Come on now, let's be a bit more informative shall we?

 

LMW says this: At its core, Duke of York is a battleship where Wargaming asks the question: How much can we nerf a King George V-class battleship in order to pretend that having access to a Hydroacoustic Search consumable is worth the exchange?  The answer is:  A lot.

 

:Smile-_tongue:

 

I actually feel a little bad for her as she's forced to review some "suspect" ships as well as the better ones!

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,555 posts
9,080 battles

One thing I don't get is when she talks about turret traverse, and calls it bad...

No it's not. It's perfectly average compared to other T7 BBs
In fact, the Myoko shares the same turret traverse, and the upgraded pensacola barely does better with its 40 seconds.


Can we collectively agree that for triple or even quad high caliber turrets with over 400mm of armor all over, a turret traverse of only 10 seconds over average cruiser  turret traverse is absolutely not bad at all?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
1,388 posts
9,577 battles

Question:

In order to have hydro you nerf ship so much... but for what you need hydro when you gonna spam HE form 15km at least on tier 7? Basically none ship can reach you with torps at that tier...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CPC]
[CPC]
Quality Poster
2,078 posts
3,751 battles

Just a remark : aren't the different nerfs on DoY just a test bed for upcoming nerfs on RN BBs ??

 

If so, DoY may seem really inferior to KGV now but it could change in a few months ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,023 posts
13,560 battles
9 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

One thing I don't get is when she talks about turret traverse, and calls it bad...

No it's not. It's perfectly average compared to other T7 BBs
In fact, the Myoko shares the same turret traverse, and the upgraded pensacola barely does better with its 40 degrees/s


Can we collectively agree that for triple or even quad high caliber turrets with over 400mm of armor all over, a turret traverse of only 10 seconds over average cruiser  turret traverse is absolutely not bad at all?

 

No no no. Don't you know, if a class is better than a battleship at anything then that ship is unbalanced and overpoweredTM? No, battleships must all have 30 seconds or less turret rotation speed, the top speed of at least 35 knots, the RoF of a cruiser, and the same armor and health pool they have now for balanceTM! No torpedoes though, because torpedoes are bourgeois. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W_I_G]
Players
3,168 posts
9,352 battles
24 minutes ago, NoirLotus said:

Just a remark : aren't the different nerfs on DoY just a test bed for upcoming nerfs on RN BBs ??

 

If so, DoY may seem really inferior to KGV now but it could change in a few months ...

 

watched stream from mrconway where he said that RN in generally perform averagely and that they dont plan to nerf RN BB in any way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POMF]
Beta Tester
1,831 posts
3,714 battles
1 hour ago, Negativvv said:

 

Come on now, let's be a bit more informative shall we?

 

LMW says this: At its core, Duke of York is a battleship where Wargaming asks the question: How much can we nerf a King George V-class battleship in order to pretend that having access to a Hydroacoustic Search consumable is worth the exchange?  The answer is:  A lot.

 

 

To be fair I am not convinced KGV itself is well balanced either on the other end of the spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,555 posts
9,080 battles
22 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

 

No no no. Don't you know, if a class is better than a battleship at anything then that ship is unbalanced and overpoweredTM? No, battleships must all have 30 seconds or less turret rotation speed, the top speed of at least 35 knots, the RoF of a cruiser, and the same armor and health pool they have now for balanceTM! No torpedoes though, because torpedoes are bourgeois. 

 

It's pretty much feeling that way more and more yeah...

Seriously, 45 seconds might be bad on a cruiser that moves a lot, or god forbid on a DD, but on a BB?
Come on, I would agree to calling 72 seconds bad, even 60 seconds to be pretty bad.

But 45?
Christ, at least pretend not to want to have your hand held on every single aspect of your ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,445 posts
7,226 battles
1 hour ago, Negativvv said:

LMW says this: At its core, Duke of York is a battleship where Wargaming asks the question: How much can we nerf a King George V-class battleship in order to pretend that having access to a Hydroacoustic Search consumable is worth the exchange?  The answer is:  A lot.

 

Looks like a rushed balancing job to me, with the cruiser fire and DCP rules but without a heal it would've been an interesting ship and probably okay, but WG decided it must have a repair consumable so started swinging away with the nerf-bat until it becomes just a bad KGV clone.

 

Hopefully WG will think again, because at the moment the only thing this ship is good for is playing one game to activate the NYR mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PLAN]
Beta Tester
232 posts
11,913 battles

DoY was controversial but interesting before. So I decided to buy it to save some time. After WG's hard work I have changed my mind because this ship is just an overnerfed crap now.

 

Please don't remind me DoY is "free". People have to spend much time on earning it if they don't pay. Time is never free. And if you wanna play such a ship, why not choose KGV, which is significant better than "Duck of York"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
7,871 posts
11,295 battles
8 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

Looks like a rushed balancing job to me, with the cruiser fire and DCP rules but without a heal it would've been an interesting ship and probably okay, but WG decided it must have a repair consumable so started swinging away with the nerf-bat until it becomes just a bad KGV clone.

 

Hopefully WG will think again, because at the moment the only thing this ship is good for is playing one game to activate the NYR mission.

Think it's too late now, looks like it'll be released in days.

 

 

DoY sums up 2017 for WoWS in a self enclosed Xmas gift. Year of the MEH BB.

 

:Smile_bajan2::Smile_child::cap_old:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
4,201 posts
13,924 battles

Ok -1 consummables mmmm  not sure about that.

Turret Traverse is the same as HMS Nelson and the same as king George the V so no issue.

ROF is 4.5 secs slower than KGV Rage Horror disgust.. Ow wait a sec Average damage on KGV is Way Higher than any other BB apart from HMS Nelson. Maybe KGV will be nerfed to 29.5 secs . AA looks truly Epic Way better the KGV and an AA specked commander on KGV douse rely well

 

Will she be uber powerful No will she be UP and be the worst tier 7 BB not sure.. 

 

LETS WAIT AND SEE she is free after all 

 

Better for the game for her to be released UP and she gets a Buff than released OP and cant be changed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
Players
2,012 posts

If I get the campaign done I'll probably keep it in port, I certainly won't be buying it as it stands. I didn't much like playing KGV and a weakened clone + Hydro doesn't have any wow or even meh interest factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
4,201 posts
13,924 battles
7 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

If I get the campaign done I'll probably keep it in port, I certainly won't be buying it as it stands. I didn't much like playing KGV and a weakened clone + Hydro doesn't have any wow or even meh interest factor.

Until they Nerf the KGV. If you Look at the stats she is pretty OP at the moment 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,929 posts
7,756 battles

Wargaming could at least have given the DoY 32mm plating, 2.05 sigma and 22-24 km range so it could make plunging shots with AP. I had planned on buying the ship outright but I am not going to pay for what is essentially a port queen.

WP Wargaming WP indeed.:cap_book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
Players
2,012 posts
3 minutes ago, T0byJug said:

Until they Nerf the KGV. If you Look at the stats she is pretty OP at the moment 

OP or not I didn't much like playing the ship. Personal taste, I just found it a grind and I've barely played the Monarch I have in port. I doubt they will nerf the KGV, but that's a guess on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,039 posts
8,166 battles

I really liked the unique heavy-cruiser-style DoY they tested before. 

 

But obviously such ships are "too good in the hands of better players"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
4,201 posts
13,924 battles
Just now, BeauNidl3 said:

OP or not I didn't much like playing the ship. Personal taste, I just found it a grind and I've barely played the Monarch I have in port.

Cant disagree.. but I am a DD player... Already passed the RN BBs in the tech tree with the Pan Asian DDs

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×