Iowa class guns- upgrade sigma?

[gerula81]

First of all, this is not only about the Iowa class bbs, the idea could be applied to most ships in the game.

I recently got the Missouri, and it's a nice ship to play as many say it is, but kinda feel it lacks in gun accuracy in some cases.

I mean c'mon.. had numerous broadsides that I shot at and got minor damage, bad dispersion, etc

Back to what I started with now: every ship had historically its strengths.

This is what the game should focus on (my opinion of course) and nerf other aspects to balance the game (if needed to).

As far as I know the Iowa class had the best firing capabilities of any bbs ever built, the best speed and probably the best AA. Ok, the Iowa is the fastest battleship in the game, it has the best AA, but it hasn't the best guns, which are the exact thing you need the most as a bb..

Now I really enjoy my Yamato as well and I'm not saying the Iowa should have a sigma of 2,2 or smth, it would do just fine with 2,1.

I know it would become quite a bit more powerful in this case but it can be nerfed in other ways to compensate. Raise the citadel a bit, make it weaker to fires, slow down the turret traverse, or a combination of above or some other stuff combined.

It feels so good when you get that nice dispersion in the Yamato, it is silly if you ask me not having this in the ship that had actually better aiming capabilities.

And in general, when playing a battleship and you have that 30 or so sec reloading, the guns should be reliable if you do actually aim well.

There are other ships that need improvement of this manner, this is just an example.

Izumo... that was a hell of a struggle to fight in, couldn't tell what to do about it as it was a paper ship and I personally don't know enough about it, but then just give it some strengths of it's own because as it is it just doesn't seem to have smth to put your finger on.

Anyway, these were two examples that I did experience with and can give a better feedback, there are many others as you may know.

Cheers!

 

[Allied_Winter]

Iowa/Missouri and Montana have the best short to medium range accuracy among BBs and you want further buffing?

 

 

 

Greetings.

[SV_Kompresor]

1 minute ago, Allied_Winter said:

Iowa/Missouri and Montana have the best short to medium range accuracy among BBs and you want further buffing?

 

 

 

Greetings.

This...

Try playing izumo or FDG

Iowa and missouri most certainly do not need this buff

[gerula81]

They don't feel like they have that accuracy. Izumo is clearly the most in need for a rework, that's clear. 

It's just odd for someone that knows some historical facts to play this game and find out things are not as expected. 

And as said, you could nerf it in other ways to balance , I would accept this compromise and get the best guns in the game

[Turin7]

Believe me mate, you don't want WG to start balancing you BBs based on historically accurate info. Unless you enjoy your shells having a 2 min travel time and a 5% hit ratio.

 

This is an arcade game, not a simulator. Historical accuracy, if present, is just a bonus and is always sacrificed in favour of game balance, as it should.

 

That said, the Iowa & Montana are some of the more solid performers in their tiers, really don't think they need any further buffs.

[Excavatus]

11 minutes ago, gerula81 said:

They don't feel like they have that accuracy. Izumo is clearly the most in need for a rework, that's clear. 

It's just odd for someone that knows some historical facts to play this game and find out things are not as expected. 

And as said, you could nerf it in other ways to balance , I would accept this compromise and get the best guns in the game

If you dont put the penetration values in to the account,

You already have the best guns in the game...

[piritskenyer]

Hmmmm, let me think

 

No. 

[Panocek]

8 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

If you dont put the penetration values in to the account,

You already have the best guns in the game...

Not having best-in-tier penetration is actually a boon, you don't overpen as much with these slow-ish superheavy shells.

[Exocet6951]

23 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Not having best-in-tier penetration is actually a boon, you don't overpen as much with these slow-ish superheavy shells.

 

That being said, let's be honest, the difference between having 620mm and 650mm of pen at 10km is not exactly game changing.

You're still going through the thickest belt armor in the game, and still going straight through everything else at over 20km

 

[Infiriel]

If you can`t aim you won`t hit *poopie* regardless of dispersion.
And trust me if you can`t hit people in NC/Iowa/Montana, then it`s not the ship`s fault.
Also no.

[elblancogringo]

Certainly not.

They're already the most accurate BBs in game with Yamato and Republique.

Playing BBs inherently means dealing with big dispersion at range, and whatever the BB, you will have to accept RNG makes you miss a lot of shells.

[Excavatus]

1 hour ago, Panocek said:

Not having best-in-tier penetration is actually a boon, you don't overpen as much with these slow-ish superheavy shells.

so you have THE BEST and MOST POWERFUL broadside, with the best accuracy,

and you want to able to overpen more which means you practically want to overpen 32mm bow armor of enemy BBs.. which only 2 of 10 tier IX and X battleships can do?

 

did I understand correctly?

[deadly_if_swallowed]

On 11.3.2018 at 10:49 PM, gerula81 said:

I recently got the Missouri, and it's a nice ship to play as many say it is, but kinda feel it lacks in gun accuracy in some cases.

I mean c'mon.. had numerous broadsides that I shot at and got minor damage, bad dispersion, etc

Ever played Richelieu? 

[wilkatis_LV]

Here's a fun fact: you can click your W button, and - take a seat, this will be mind blowing - your ship will move closer to the enemy!

 

When you're not being a useless windowlicker spamming from max range your accuracy is more than good enough.

Of course, RNG will make some shots miss, or some hit when they shouldn't have. But those are exceptions not the rule.

[nooberg]

I seems to be unpopular oppinion, but I also find Missouri to be inaccurate.

 

And I have gone trough Izumo and FdG, so I know what Inaccurate means. With them the dispersion, while bad, seems to be consistent and usualy I can hit at least 1 shell per salvo.

With Missouri its like throwing a coin.

You get a head ?  Laser preccision with shells flying so tight they overlap eachother.

You get a tail ?  Shells go BLEEEUGGGHHGGHG all across the screen (except your target).

On average you may get OK-ish accuracy, but that incosistency is really, really  irritating. Often for the whole match you get ONE really good chance to do serious damage, a big satisfying volley,  and in that very moment dispersion is like  - Naah Mate.

Like you finaly caught that pesky Minotaur in the radar, 8 km perfect broadside and then you miss ALL THE FREAKING SHELLS GO WHATEVER. And then Minotaur scurries behind an island, that was your moment of glory, you worked hard and clever to surprise him like that.  You know, these are the moments when you close the game. Missouri provides alot of them.

 

[Tyrendian89]

6 hours ago, gerula81 said:

They don't feel like they have that accuracy. Izumo is clearly the most in need for a rework, that's clear. 

It's just odd for someone that knows some historical facts to play this game and find out things are not as expected. 

And as said, you could nerf it in other ways to balance , I would accept this compromise and get the best guns in the game

The Iowa already has the most accurate guns at T9 together with the Izumo - and beaten pretty much only by the Yamato, which is a T10 so it doesnt really count (the T10s all have to be ridiculous at something just to be balanced^^).

[lup3s]

Iowa and Missouri already have a unique increased accuracy module..

[Allied_Winter]

7 hours ago, gerula81 said:

They don't feel like they have that accuracy. Izumo is clearly the most in need for a rework, that's clear. 

It's just odd for someone that knows some historical facts to play this game and find out things are not as expected. 

And as said, you could nerf it in other ways to balance , I would accept this compromise and get the best guns in the game

 

Well, there's a reason why 'I feel X has an impact on Y' isn't a scientifically accurate method to determine things. If you have probelms hitting stuff, that's one thing (and something that can be worked on), but by the very definition of accuracy, dispersion and sigma of this game, USN BBs have the best (read: narrowest) 'Target Aeras' at short and mid-ranges among all BBs.

 

If you want I can explain a bit more on that. However it's a bit mathematical/technical.

 

2 hours ago, nooberg said:

I seems to be unpopular oppinion, but I also find Missouri to be inaccurate.

 

And I have gone trough Izumo and FdG, so I know what Inaccurate means. With them the dispersion, while bad, seems to be consistent and usualy I can hit at least 1 shell per salvo.

With Missouri its like throwing a coin.

You get a head ?  Laser preccision with shells flying so tight they overlap eachother.

You get a tail ?  Shells go BLEEEUGGGHHGGHG all across the screen (except your target).

On average you may get OK-ish accuracy, but that incosistency is really, really  irritating. Often for the whole match you get ONE really good chance to do serious damage, a big satisfying volley,  and in that very moment dispersion is like  - Naah Mate.

Like you finaly caught that pesky Minotaur in the radar, 8 km perfect broadside and then you miss ALL THE FREAKING SHELLS GO WHATEVER. And then Minotaur scurries behind an island, that was your moment of glory, you worked hard and clever to surprise him like that.  You know, these are the moments when you close the game. Missouri provides alot of them.

 

 

 

Too bad, apparently RNG trolls you hard. Happens to all ships alike, but it's always funny when 'inaccurate' ships feel to get more DMG done (due to the random [edited]citadel they dish out) compared to accurate guns that are sometimes trolled when they hit where you aim.

 

 

Greetings

[gerula81]

4 hours ago, nooberg said:

I seems to be unpopular oppinion, but I also find Missouri to be inaccurate.

 

And I have gone trough Izumo and FdG, so I know what Inaccurate means. With them the dispersion, while bad, seems to be consistent and usualy I can hit at least 1 shell per salvo.

With Missouri its like throwing a coin.

You get a head ?  Laser preccision with shells flying so tight they overlap eachother.

You get a tail ?  Shells go BLEEEUGGGHHGGHG all across the screen (except your target).

On average you may get OK-ish accuracy, but that incosistency is really, really  irritating. Often for the whole match you get ONE really good chance to do serious damage, a big satisfying volley,  and in that very moment dispersion is like  - Naah Mate.

Like you finaly caught that pesky Minotaur in the radar, 8 km perfect broadside and then you miss ALL THE FREAKING SHELLS GO WHATEVER. And then Minotaur scurries behind an island, that was your moment of glory, you worked hard and clever to surprise him like that.  You know, these are the moments when you close the game. Missouri provides alot of them.

 

This is very very close to my experience with the ship. Indeed very frustrating to catch a cruiser in smoke, you burn your radar, hoping for a devastating strike or at least a citadel and you are like "did that really happen wtf??"

Or it might be the case that I'm trolled by rng quite often so nothing to do about it.

Montana feels better but it does have more guns so chances to get good hits increase quite a lot. 

Still believe that it could do with a better sigma and weakened somewhere else for balance. This upsets cruiser and dd players of course but you can't make everybody happy. Like I said, I'd rather have the previous raised citadel but better guns. But that's just me apparently 

[El2aZeR]

Just now, gerula81 said:

Still believe that it could do with a better sigma

 

Sigma won't change that, because sigma = RNG.

Better sigma = better chance of your shells landing close to where you're aiming, but it's still just that, a chance.

[Allied_Winter]

4 minutes ago, gerula81 said:

 

Or it might be the case that I'm trolled by rng quite often so nothing to do about it.

 

 

I just checked because I was curious: After 52 battles in the Iowa I have a MBM of 33%

 

Sure 52 is a bit on the low side statistically, but it's at least an indication: Iowa is accurate at short to medium ranges.

 

Supporting the maths that's behind the implemented dispersion formula.

 

 

 

 

Grettings

[gerula81]

15 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Sigma won't change that, because sigma = RNG.

Better sigma = better chance of your shells landing close to where you're aiming, but it's still just that, a chance.

Still, there is a difference vs the yamato. Chances are higher in the yama and it shows. So sigma does make a difference 

[gerula81]

Off topic, I noticed that the iowa guns sound a bit different vs montana, although they should be the same, have they always been like that? 

[RUSSIANBlAS]

Missouri/Iowa need a bit of re-adjustment.

 

Once you get used to them, they are very reliable guns...

[El2aZeR]

14 minutes ago, gerula81 said:

Still, there is a difference vs the yamato

 

Because Yamato has tighter dispersion, falling behind Iowa/Monty only at shorter ranges.