World of Warships

[Thanas]

That's like, the exact opposite of what they should do.

It is WG.

People hated bundles? MORE BUNDLES.

People hated unequal treatment of servers? SEA AND RU GETS A FREE SHIP, EVERYBODY ELSE HAS TO GRIND FOUR WEEKS FOR A TICKET TO ENTER A LOTTERY AND ONLY 6% OF PLAYERS WILL GET IT. OH AND NA GETS 5 MIL CREDITS WHILE GRINDING, EU GETS 400k.

People hate CVs that can wipe out entire squadrons without any threat to themselves? BUFF THEM.


I wonder if they are actively trying to drive people away. Right now I'd jump ship so fast if there were a decent competitor...

[Jub]

People hated bundles? MORE BUNDLES.

Bundles make them money, but at least the tanks side of WG are looking at ways to sell content without bundles while still making a good profit. The few of us who care enough to buy things are paying for the 90-95% who'll never give them a cent.

People hated unequal treatment of servers? SEA AND RU GETS A FREE SHIP, EVERYBODY ELSE HAS TO GRIND FOUR WEEKS FOR A TICKET TO ENTER A LOTTERY AND ONLY 6% OF PLAYERS WILL GET IT. OH AND NA GETS 5 MIL CREDITS WHILE GRINDING, EU GETS 400k.

The different servers are handled by different teams. The SEA servers aren't even run by WG. For the rest they market based on what people seem willing to stomach. This is why you'll see different prices between servers, different rewards, and different handling of various promotions.

People hate CVs that can wipe out entire squadrons without any threat to themselves? BUFF THEM.

CVs at mid tiers are fine, and that's what this change was meant to address. There isn't anything like clan wars out yet to make WG care about tier 10's, so get used to endgame balance being shit until that changes. This is the case with most of this style of game if you think that Gaijin or Obsidian are that much better you might want to check again.

[Jub]

Ghetto Edit: I'm not defending WG here, this is just the reality within the military arena shooter model. Companies like Riot do this to a lesser, or sometimes greater, extent in the MOBA, market.

[Thanas]

The different servers are handled by different teams. The SEA servers aren't even run by WG. For the rest they market based on what people seem willing to stomach. This is why you'll see different prices between servers, different rewards, and different handling of various promotions.

That is BS. They handle those things at a much higher level, as evidenced by Arpeggio. There is nothing that stops them except that they think they can get away with this shit.

CVs at mid tiers are fine, and that's what this change was meant to address.

If CVs at mid tiers are fine they do not need any further buffs, especially not one that primarily impacts high tiers. Do you even know how that change will impact high tier play? I guess not, because what you say makes no sense whatsoever.

[Jub]

That is BS. They handle those things at a much higher level, as evidenced by Arpeggio. There is nothing that stops them except that they think they can get away with this shit.

They sometimes do a company-wide event, but that's only for the largest things. Beyond that, they let each region market and set prices mostly on their own. Watch the videos Jingles is putting up about the WG tanks side of things and you'll get a look at how WG runs.

If CVs at mid tiers are fine they do not need any further buffs, especially not one that primarily impacts high tiers. Do you even know how that change will impact high tier play? I guess not, because what you say makes no sense whatsoever.

This was never designed as a buff for CVs. You just see it that way because you play at tier 10 and got the shit end of the stick. The change was most likely made to bring consistency to AA ranges and damage values. I would bet that in the next balance patch we see those damage numbers start to get tweaked a bit.

There's also the fact that CV numbers are low on the servers, so maybe starting it out as a nerf was their way of trying to coax people back into the class. The game would benefit from a healthy mix of all four classes instead of 4-of-5 games having no CVs.

[Imperial528]

That's like, the exact opposite of what they should do.

It is WG.

People hated bundles? MORE BUNDLES.

People hated unequal treatment of servers? SEA AND RU GETS A FREE SHIP, EVERYBODY ELSE HAS TO GRIND FOUR WEEKS FOR A TICKET TO ENTER A LOTTERY AND ONLY 6% OF PLAYERS WILL GET IT. OH AND NA GETS 5 MIL CREDITS WHILE GRINDING, EU GETS 400k.

People hate CVs that can wipe out entire squadrons without any threat to themselves? BUFF THEM.


I wonder if they are actively trying to drive people away. Right now I'd jump ship so fast if there were a decent competitor...

You forgot one: High explosive near-universally better than armor piercing? Better make AP worse.

From WoT I was used to WG's general ineptitude, but post-beta WoWS has shown some astounding idiocy, even compared to WoT's development. Where in WoT a problem would be solved badly or ignored, it's been made worse in WoWS. The sad part is that in the CBT and the OBT the game was in a much better state. What the hell changed?

Oh, and I noticed something interesting in a recent match. If you bump a torpedo from behind, it still detonates. It's 2016 WG, projectiles can be more complex than a single hitbox.

[Thanas]

That is BS. They handle those things at a much higher level, as evidenced by Arpeggio. There is nothing that stops them except that they think they can get away with this shit.

They sometimes do a company-wide event, but that's only for the largest things. Beyond that, they let each region market and set prices mostly on their own. Watch the videos Jingles is putting up about the WG tanks side of things and you'll get a look at how WG runs.

Which video?

This was never designed as a buff for CVs.

HOW THE FUCK IS DECREASING AA RANGE NOT A MASSIVE BUFF FOR CVs? The issue was never shooting planes down. It was always them dropping their load before getting shot down. Without them not limiting drop range at the same time it will always be a buff for CVs because they will cross to drop range much more unmolested. Sure, they will take more losses after they dropped and strayed deeper into the AA envelopes. AFTER causing much more damage.

I cannot even understand how somebody would not consider this a massive buff for CVs. Probably somebody who never played BB or CV before.

You just see it that way because you play at tier 10 and got the shit end of the stick. The change was most likely made to bring consistency to AA ranges and damage values.

The fuck? Consistency was there before. You knew exactly what guns did what damage. The system was consistent. I don't understand what you are talking about at all.

There's also the fact that CV numbers are low on the servers, so maybe starting it out as a nerf was their way of trying to coax people back into the class. The game would benefit from a healthy mix of all four classes instead of 4-of-5 games having no CVs.

No, it would not, not if we go back to the time where a Tier VIII+ CV was guaranteed 4-6 kills a game simply for showing up. CVs are ridiculously easy to play already. They do not need any more incentive. FFS. I had no knowledge of CV play before I started playing them three days ago. I got 27 battles so far. With a 64% winrate in them. 64%. With no training, no prior CV play and without watching any tutorials. I do not get people who complain about CVs being hard.

[Jub]

Which video?

Videos! Here's the first in the series of which 5 are currently up.

HOW THE FUCK IS DECREASING AA RANGE NOT A MASSIVE BUFF FOR CVs? The issue was never shooting planes down. It was always them dropping their load before getting shot down. Without them not limiting drop range at the same time it will always be a buff for CVs because they will cross to drop range much more unmolested. Sure, they will take more losses after they dropped and strayed deeper into the AA envelopes. AFTER causing much more damage.

I cannot even understand how somebody would not consider this a massive buff for CVs. Probably somebody who never played BB or CV before.

The fuck? Consistency was there before. You knew exactly what guns did what damage. The system was consistent. I don't understand what you are talking about at all.

I'm not finding a patch where they decreased AA range across the board. What 5.2 did was make it so that a specific gun had the same performance regardless of the ship it was mounted on. This probably did nerf AA performance on some high tier ships, but I doubt that was the intent.

If you're talking about another patch please go ahead and post the notes.

No, it would not, not if we go back to the time where a Tier VIII+ CV was guaranteed 4-6 kills a game simply for showing up. CVs are ridiculously easy to play already. They do not need any more incentive. FFS. I had no knowledge of CV play before I started playing them three days ago. I got 27 battles so far. With a 64% winrate in them. 64%. With no training, no prior CV play and without watching any tutorials. I do not get people who complain about CVs being hard.

It's not about people thinking CVs are hard. It's about CV play being boring and unrewarding. Either you get your planes through without opposition and nuke players with no threat (boring), or you run into a fighter specialized CV in your strike loadout and hit a point where, if the other player is skilled, you may as well not even play that game (unrewarding). The tier 4 CVs are also shit, so a new player trying a Langley for the first time probably won't continue down the line. I used free experience to get to the Independence when I needed a carrier to get air kills with because the Bogue and Langley are just awful to play.

Until you get to tier 8 or so CVs aren't just point and click killing machines and have a bit of a learning curve for players that aren't used to them. Not everybody has unicum level skills like you do and WG has to accommodate those players too.

[Thanas]

Which video?

Videos! Here's the first in the series of which 5 are currently up.

I am not watching 5 hours of video for a point you make. Timestamps are a thing.

I'm not finding a patch where they decreased AA range across the board. What 5.2 did was make it so that a specific gun had the same performance regardless of the ship it was mounted on. This probably did nerf AA performance on some high tier ships, but I doubt that was the intent.

If you're talking about another patch please go ahead and post the notes.

Like I said it is the upcoming one.

Focus fire for AA now gives a 25% bonus instead of 50%, range for AA auras has been decreased, but damage has been slightly increased to compensate.

http://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/01/17/ ... test-info/

No, it would not, not if we go back to the time where a Tier VIII+ CV was guaranteed 4-6 kills a game simply for showing up. CVs are ridiculously easy to play already. They do not need any more incentive. FFS. I had no knowledge of CV play before I started playing them three days ago. I got 27 battles so far. With a 64% winrate in them. 64%. With no training, no prior CV play and without watching any tutorials. I do not get people who complain about CVs being hard.

It's not about people thinking CVs are hard. It's about CV play being boring and unrewarding. Either you get your planes through without opposition and nuke players with no threat (boring), or you run into a fighter specialized CV in your strike loadout and hit a point where, if the other player is skilled, you may as well not even play that game (unrewarding). The tier 4 CVs are also shit, so a new player trying a Langley for the first time probably won't continue down the line. I used free experience to get to the Independence when I needed a carrier to get air kills with because the Bogue and Langley are just awful to play.

Hooray. You manage to ignore every point made.

That CV play is boring? Guess how much less of a challenge it will be when AA gets nerfed. Meanwhile it fixes not a single problem you mention. Not the loadouts. Not the problems with the T4 CVs. Nothing.

Until you get to tier 8 or so CVs aren't just point and click killing machines and have a bit of a learning curve for players that aren't used to them. Not everybody has unicum level skills like you do and WG has to accommodate those players too.

In my opinion, nobody deserves free kills just for showing up, especially not in High Tier play. I cannot see the benefit of buffing CVs. Yes, they are hard. They are meant to be hard, for they are the only class in the game which counters everything and has no counter itself. If there are more CVs, here is what is going to happen:

- German cruisers become nonviable
- DDs who are not Japanese will be extinct in high tier plays.
- US CA get a buff by being able to exist a few seconds longer before being exploded, because this does not fix the deficiencies.
- IJN CA - especially Atago - will suck a lot more.

Meanwhile, more unskilled players running around with CVs. Yay.


You should not screw over six ship classes because of shitty design. Fix the design. Do not make it easier for people to club others with CVs.

[Jub]

I am not watching 5 hours of video for a point you make. Timestamps are a thing.

The first two videos are to do with marketing, packaging of premium vehicles, time limited premiums, and why things are different across the major regions. From the third video on is a discussion on mechanics and where WoT is headed and what issues the invited guests have noticed themselves and gotten fan complaints about. Each of these topics has multiple questions, answers, and explanations for each point so simply time-stamping things is ineffective. Hence, I can't really time-stamp anything but instead recommend you watch the series to gain some insight into how WG operates.

Like I said it is the upcoming one.

Focus fire for AA now gives a 25% bonus instead of 50%, range for AA auras has been decreased, but damage has been slightly increased to compensate.

http://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/01/17/ ... test-info/

If you're going to ask me for timestamps in what is an unedited Q&A session between multiple youtube personalities and WG staff you should, at least, have the sense to post the patch notes that have you up in arms. If you had this conversation probably would have ended far sooner.

That's a dumb nerf, it's not going to fix the issues with carriers while making people dislike playing against them even more.

Hooray. You manage to ignore every point made.

That CV play is boring? Guess how much less of a challenge it will be when AA gets nerfed. Meanwhile it fixes not a single problem you mention. Not the loadouts. Not the problems with the T4 CVs. Nothing.

I hadn't seen the patch note that you just posted about the straight up AA nerf in an upcoming patch. I was under the impression that you were upset by the changes made to AA in 5.2.

This upcoming nerf to focus fire and AA ranges is stupid across the board and should be scraped before the patch ever goes live.

In my opinion, nobody deserves free kills just for showing up, especially not in High Tier play.

Neither do I, I've stated that high tier CVs are improperly balanced and explained why it's probably not going to change, but that doesn't mean I like it.

I cannot see the benefit of buffing CVs. Yes, they are hard. They are meant to be hard, for they are the only class in the game which counters everything and has no counter itself.

CVs are sort of like WoT artillery back between the light tank nerfs but before they removed tracers, they're supposed to counter one another. Strike loaded CVs are supposed to kill the other CV first and fighter load out CVs are supposed to defend the fleet. This doesn't always happen and in 2 CV per side matches, coordination between those two players will spell a win or loss for your team, but that's the theory WG is working with.

They also expect that in the mid game destroyers should be able to get loose and hunt down the CVs. This ignores where CVs hide, the fact that DDs aren't actually that much faster than CVs and can take ages to get within effective range, and that by the mid game a high tier CV has probably already swung the game, but that's how they think it should work.

That said, they could soften out the curve for early game CVs while toning down the power of late game CVs. I'm not sure how I'd approach making CVs more inviting at low tiers, but I have some ideas about higher tier play.

First, give planes a detonation risk. Any given shot can kill something as lightly armored as a plane so add a chance determined by damage done, to simply kill a plane. Give ships who've popped their AA ability a greater chance to one hit planes. This means that going into heavy AA is playing against the odds. Balance things around this new mechanic as well as the ones to follow.

Second, give planes a run-up time before they can arm weapons. For torpedo bombers, an attack run often meant flying straight low and slow under the threat of incoming AA fire. For dive bomber, this means gaining altitude and going into a dive. This would help to make distinctions between the two classes of bomber and buff the nigh useless dive bomber. Also, given that new AA is going to be far more threatening, give fighters a suppression ability where they can strafe ships, this could temporarily knock out entire banks of AA guns while disrupting the remaining guns as crews dive for cover.

Third, make planes more stealthy but give CVs a flight or two of high view range scouts to help spot both ships and planes. People forget just how much of a role scout planes played in WW2, but by allowing planes to stay hidden longer and forcing players to us scouts it creates more for a CV player to do between attack runs. In that vein, I'd also give these scouts a cooldown that disperses them and reveals an area under them that shows all ships that aren't in smoke and cuts the effectiveness of smoke by half.

These changes would obviously need balance, but the aim would be to make planes die faster, and be harder to use while giving greater rewards to players that do use their planes well.

If there are more CVs, here is what is going to happen:

- German cruisers become nonviable
- DDs who are not Japanese will be extinct in high tier plays.
- US CA get a buff by being able to exist a few seconds longer before being exploded, because this does not fix the deficiencies.
- IJN CA - especially Atago - will suck a lot more.

Meanwhile, more unskilled players running around with CVs. Yay.

It would give the USN CAs a buff because one of their focuses would become relevant again. Right now the USN CAs are paying for their AA even though they either don't see any CVs or the CVs they do see don't fear their AA. This is weakening them because AA is meant to be their thing and that role isn't exactly relevant right now.

You should not screw over six ship classes because of shitty design. Fix the design. Do not make it easier for people to club others with CVs.

I never said that CVs should just suddenly explode onto the scene and dominate everything, I said that they game would benefit from a healthy balance between classes. This means that they should be balanced in terms of effectiveness, but also numbers played.

[Thanas]

I am not watching 5 hours of video for a point you make. Timestamps are a thing.

The first two videos are to do with marketing, packaging of premium vehicles, time limited premiums, and why things are different across the major regions. From the third video on is a discussion on mechanics and where WoT is headed and what issues the invited guests have noticed themselves and gotten fan complaints about. Each of these topics has multiple questions, answers, and explanations for each point so simply time-stamping things is ineffective. Hence, I can't really time-stamp anything but instead recommend you watch the series to gain some insight into how WG operates.

Yeah, no. At least transcribe their explanations.

If you're going to ask me for timestamps in what is an unedited Q&A session between multiple youtube personalities and WG staff you should, at least, have the sense to post the patch notes that have you up in arms. If you had this conversation probably would have ended far sooner.

I fucking quoted them in my post. What I quoted is exactly the same as I quoted now.

That said, they could soften out the curve for early game CVs while toning down the power of late game CVs. I'm not sure how I'd approach making CVs more inviting at low tiers, but I have some ideas about higher tier play.

I'd split the CV lines into escort and strike carriers. That way people don't have to play the guessing game as to what setup the enemy is running and can thus plan accordingly.

I would remove CVs at T4. Everybody hates them there. They are stupid to play there and mainly used by sealclubbers who love having no AA opposition. Instead I would do the following:

1. Bump Langley to T5. Make it a strike carrier with two Bombers, 1 torp and 1 fighter squadron. Squadron size should be limited to 4 planes each to give AA a achance.
2. Keep the Bogue there at T5 with its current loadout and squadron size.

Obviously in a one to one fight the strike carrier loadout would lose. Instead, with more squadrons, make it so that the AS CV cannot fight all the attacks at once. Use Independence / Wasp as T6 AS/strike CVs. Obviously players would be able to research both strike and AS versions from one of the two at the previous tier. Then T7, both lines get merged with the Ranger.

First, give planes a detonation risk. Any given shot can kill something as lightly armored as a plane so add a chance determined by damage done, to simply kill a plane. Give ships who've popped their AA ability a greater chance to one hit planes. This means that going into heavy AA is playing against the odds. Balance things around this new mechanic as well as the ones to follow.

I am not sure if adding even more RNG to the game is a good idea.

Second, give planes a run-up time before they can arm weapons. For torpedo bombers, an attack run often meant flying straight low and slow under the threat of incoming AA fire. For dive bomber, this means gaining altitude and going into a dive. This would help to make distinctions between the two classes of bomber and buff the nigh useless dive bomber. Also, given that new AA is going to be far more threatening, give fighters a suppression ability where they can strafe ships, this could temporarily knock out entire banks of AA guns while disrupting the remaining guns as crews dive for cover.

Good idea.

Third, make planes more stealthy but give CVs a flight or two of high view range scouts to help spot both ships and planes. People forget just how much of a role scout planes played in WW2, but by allowing planes to stay hidden longer and forcing players to us scouts it creates more for a CV player to do between attack runs. In that vein, I'd also give these scouts a cooldown that disperses them and reveals an area under them that shows all ships that aren't in smoke and cuts the effectiveness of smoke by half.

RIP US DDs if it ever becomes a reality.

It would give the USN CAs a buff because one of their focuses would become relevant again. Right now the USN CAs are paying for their AA even though they either don't see any CVs or the CVs they do see don't fear their AA. This is weakening them because AA is meant to be their thing and that role isn't exactly relevant right now.

I do not think US CA's really need that much of a buff. If you play them correctly - meaning popping in and out of concealment, switch targets, always wait if enemy has repaired and then fire HE at them again - you can do massive damage.

I for one really love the New Orleans. It was a bitch to upgrade her, but she is awesome when fully upgraded. sub-10km detection range, great armor if you angle and superb HE. She is fantastic.

Granted the Atago is better but the NO is a very capable ship.

I never said that CVs should just suddenly explode onto the scene and dominate everything, I said that they game would benefit from a healthy balance between classes. This means that they should be balanced in terms of effectiveness, but also numbers played.

Why? You will never achieve that kind of balance. You do not have it in terms of BBs either.

[Jub]

Yeah, no. At least transcribe their explanations.

It's kind of a mess to transcribe, to be honest, it's questions and long answers sometimes interrupted by another question.

Also, keep in mind that this is the WoT team, not the WoWS team.

In video 1 around 5:10 they start talking about the pricing model for WoT EU and how they're forced to balance it around the high-income countries even though it screws over places with a weaker economy. This due to the ease of using a proxy to fake being from another nation and thus buying your premium ships/gold/whatever at a cheaper price and while being in a high-income region. They also talk about how this makes the EU a much greater challenge to price for than NA or Russia with only SEA being equal in terms of income disparity. This part of the discussion ends around 9:10.

From 9:10 to 15:30 they talk about how they're wanting to change the EU pricing model to sell both bundled and non-bundled premiums. They say that they're keeping timed sales of new premiums because it drives up demand, but they want to move away from bundling things like premium time and instead just bundle more gold in with their packages. This because bundling premium time with a time exclusive offer can make that premium time a wasted buy for some players. They also talk about throwing in vehicle specific exp/credit boosters into these packages say 10 wins at 3x experience or the like, this as a way to help boost new players up and to create value for long time players.

The rest of the video mainly talks about premium crews in WoT and the new player experience and the pace of the game.

Video 2 starts off talking about missions/specials from 1:10 to 7:40. They talk about giving player's choices, WoT missions versus WoWS missions etc. At 7:40 the issue of rewards comes up and this is where we hear about different regions having different teams. At 9:10 is where you hear Markus Schill, Wargaming EU's General Manager talk about how they have the added challenge of regions being run separately. This discussion runs to around 11:45 where it tails into something else.

Now you could have watched both videos in the time it took me to do this, so if you want anything else from these videos watch the things yourself. I mentioned them to give insight into how WG does things, not to win some tryhard debate. I wouldn't have even done this much if I wasn't worried about pissing off a mod.

I fucking quoted them in my post. What I quoted is exactly the same as I quoted now.

I guess I missed that, it also probably would have helped if you'd quoted the change in full rather than cutting things off the way you did. Still, my bad.

I'd split the CV lines into escort and strike carriers. That way people don't have to play the guessing game as to what setup the enemy is running and can thus plan accordingly.

I would remove CVs at T4. Everybody hates them there. They are stupid to play there and mainly used by sealclubbers who love having no AA opposition. Instead I would do the following:

1. Bump Langley to T5. Make it a strike carrier with two Bombers, 1 torp and 1 fighter squadron. Squadron size should be limited to 4 planes each to give AA a achance.
2. Keep the Bogue there at T5 with its current loadout and squadron size.

Obviously in a one to one fight the strike carrier loadout would lose. Instead, with more squadrons, make it so that the AS CV cannot fight all the attacks at once. Use Independence / Wasp as T6 AS/strike CVs. Obviously players would be able to research both strike and AS versions from one of the two at the previous tier. Then T7, both lines get merged with the Ranger.

That could work, but I doubt they pull away from having a tier 4 carrier. I'd imagine they wouldn't want to mess up the one new class unlocked per tier scheme they have going on right now. Even without changing tiers the strike carrier and fighter carrier idea would probably help, hell even a little symbol next to the plane showing fight, balanced, or strike loadout would be a massive help and cut down on strike carriers holding planes for the first few minutes of a match looking for fighters.

I am not sure if adding even more RNG to the game is a good idea.

Neither am I, but I think that just nerfing plane HP makes balancing even harder. The issue, as I see it, is that long range guns basically can't kill a plane right now, which means that the only effective AA starts well within the launch window of a strike CVs torps. Buffing long range fire damage won't work because it will lead to cases where planes at long range are at greater risk than planes close in, this also goes for nerfing plane HP down into two shot range from long range guns. Plus, AA is already RNG as hell with each damage tick being randomly allocated amongst a flight and planes having an HP system where 1% HP is as good as 100% HP in terms of their flight speed and damage.

I suppose that adding damage effects to planes at certain HP percentages could also help things, but that is likely harder to implement than a chance of catastrophic damage.

Good idea.

Thanks, but that one's not mine. I saw it on the forums ages ago and am still boggled at how it hasn't been implemented.

RIP US DDs if it ever becomes a reality.

Yeah, that's a hard one to balance, but I'd like to give CVs something to do between bombing runs. CVs can already ruin DDs by simply flying a fighter squad near them anyway, this just gives them a plane dedicated to scouting.

You could always just cut the active and make them larger planes with a bonus to spotting range and have them do basically the same thing.

I do not think US CA's really need that much of a buff. If you play them correctly - meaning popping in and out of concealment, switch targets, always wait if enemy has repaired and then fire HE at them again - you can do massive damage.

I for one really love the New Orleans. It was a bitch to upgrade her, but she is awesome when fully upgraded. sub-10km detection range, great armor if you angle and superb HE. She is fantastic.

Granted the Atago is better but the NO is a very capable ship.

If the US CAs are that good that probably means they're over tuned or the other nations aren't as tuned as they could be. They have the best AA by far, good guns, and decent detection ranges. Sure they don't have torpedos, but outside of area denial, I don't really setup for torpedo runs with my cruisers.

Why? You will never achieve that kind of balance. You do not have it in terms of BBs either.

I know getting exact balance is bad, and that carriers just won't be that popular unless they're even more buffed than they are now, but not having carriers to spot DDs is unbalancing DD stats. It's also taking away one of the main roles of cruisers, and buffing BBs who don't need to look to the skys for threats. The current lack of CV play is causing balance headaches and WG either needs to nerf CVs more so they can be safely ignored and balance around DDs, CL/CAs, and BBs or fix carriers while finding away to get people to play them so they can balance around that. This half way thing hurts every class.

[Nephtys]

US CAs at tier 8 and 9 are some of the worst ships in the game. The AA is irrelevant. Their guns are downgrades from the tier 7 version, while their competition has superior guns. No torpedos. Poor survivability vs battleships.

Honestly, I see zero reason to 'upgrade' out of a 10-gun Pensacola with great maneuverability to a 9-gun New Orleans with poorer maneuverability and not much more survivability. And that's even with the Pensacola's horrific other downsides such as battleship-level visibility.

[Thanas]

I strongly urge you to reconsider. The New Orleans has awesome stealth.

Use her this way: Sneak up on enemy BB. When you are within 12-14km, go broadside and fire. Immediately turn away. This gives you two broadsides, so around 8k damage. And fires. If you maneuvered right, he will have to turn his ship and guns, so there is not much fire heading your way. And he will have to use his repair.

Once you have completed your angle, fire two salvos (if you angled properly, you will be able to fire all three turrets still).

Then stop firing, run away. After twenty seconds you are stealthed again. And he burns down to 2-3 fires. I have yet to meet a BB that was still standing after doing this twice.

If you are more apprehensive you can do the same thing from 14k out. And with concealment expert you can stealth fire.

[Nephtys]

But... again, the Atago could do the same. While being stealthier. While having more cannons, torpedoes, and the heal potion. And Faster. She's got a better stealth stat.

[Jub]

But... again, the Atago could do the same. While being stealthier. While having more cannons, torpedoes, and the heal potion. And Faster. She's got a better stealth stat.

The New Orleans is by every measure the worst tier 8 cruiser in the game. Here are the stats for every tier 8 cruiser in the game, excluding the Mikhail Kutuzov due to it's newness:

NA Server:

Mogami - Tier: 8 - Class: CA - Win Rate: 53.5% - Exp: 1,386 - Average Damage: 47,318 - Survival Rate: 40.90%
Admiral Hipper - Tier: 8 - Class: CA - Win Rate: 51.2% - Exp: 1,190 - Average Damage: 38,343 - Survival Rate: 35.80%
Atago - Tier: 8 - Class: CA - Win Rate: 49.5% - Exp: 1,277 - Average Damage: 36,450 - Survival Rate: 33.40%
New Orleans - Tier: 8 - Class: CA - Win Rate: 48.4% - Exp: 1,227 - Average Damage: 32,404 - Survival Rate: 43.60%

EU Server:

Mogami - Tier: 8 - Class: CA - Win Rate: 52.8% - Exp: 1,478 - Average Damage: 47,202 - Survival Rate: 40.20%
Admiral Hipper - Tier: 8 - Class: CA - Win Rate: 51.6% - Exp: 1,299 - Average Damage: 37,560 - Survival Rate: 37.40%
New Orleans - Tier: 8 - Class: CA - Win Rate: 48.3% - Exp: 1,363 - Average Damage: 33,442 - Survival Rate: 42.40%
Atago - Tier: 8 - Class: CA - Win Rate: 47.3% - Exp: 1,313 - Average Damage: 35,169 - Survival Rate: 33.20%

RU Server:

Admiral Hipper - Tier: 8 - Class: CA - Win Rate: 59.5% - Exp: 1,594 - Average Damage: 48,028 - Survival Rate: 35.30%
Mogami - Tier: 8 - Class: CA - Win Rate: 56.5% - Exp: 1,765 - Average Damage: 55,876 - Survival Rate: 50.10%
Atago - Tier: 8 - Class: CA - Win Rate: 52.7% - Exp: 1,650 - Average Damage: 43,733 - Survival Rate: 34.50%
New Orleans - Tier: 8 - Class: CA - Win Rate: 52.0% - Exp: 1,694 - Average Damage: 38,958 - Survival Rate: 47.30%

SEA Server:

Admiral Hipper - Tier: 8 - Class: CA - Win Rate: 53.7% - Exp: 1,337 - Average Damage: 38,916 - Survival Rate: 15.80%
Mogami - Tier: 8 - Class: CA - Win Rate: 52.1% - Exp: 1,408 - Average Damage: 46,002 - Survival Rate: 45.50%
New Orleans - Tier: 8 - Class: CA - Win Rate: 47.1% - Exp: 1,328 - Average Damage: 31,935 - Survival Rate: 42.80%
Atago - Tier: 8 - Class: CA - Win Rate: 47.0% - Exp: 1,273 - Average Damage: 34,345 - Survival Rate: 33.60%

On every server the New Orleans comes last in terms of damage dealt. On two servers the New Orleans has the worst win rate, on the other two it is second worst in one case it only escapes being last by 0.1%.

Consider the fact that the Atago, the next worst ship in terms of stats, pays the premium tax in terms of stats because a new player could very easily buy that ship and play his very first battles in it, also given the average tiers people reach before quiting the Atago may very well be the highest tier ship most people who own it play. This doesn't paint the New Orleans in a very good light.

-----

Comparing her specifications with other ships the New Orleans isn't anything special either.

She has the worst hit points of any tier 8 cruiser with 35,400, the next worst ship the Mogami has 39,100 and the others are all above 40,000 HP. Her armor is average, save for her maximum deck thickness of 83 mm, the next best ship only has 50 mm of maximum deck armor. I doubt the deck armor is going to make up for her 3,700 missing HP.

By the overall rating that WG assigns to ship stats her artillery is average for the tier at 63, the highest is 68 on the Admiral Hipper and the worst is 50 for the 155 mm armed Mogami. Her secondaries are also very average, not really standing out from the pack. Unlike these other ships, she doesn't get torpedos to add to her offensive potential.

Her AA rating is second best in her class and tier at 50, behind only the Mikhail Kutuzov which has a rating of 59, the lowest rating is the 34 on the Atago. Against tier 9 and 10 aircraft, none of these ships will show much of a difference either with normal AA or when popping their AA cooldown. There will also be games where no CV are present. These two issues drastically decrease the value of a high AA stat.

In terms of maneuverability, the New Orleans is the second slowest ship with a 32.5 knot top speed, though it is worth noting that the spread between highest and lowest speed is only 3.5 knots. The fastest ship is the 25.5 knot Atago and the slowest is the 32.0 knot Admiral Hipper. Her rudder shift and turning radius, when taken together, make her the most nimble ship in this group by a fair margin. I'm not going to bother listing WGs rating for maneuverability because I don't think it properly accounts for nimbleness.

For concealment, the New Orleans is solidly middle of the pack in surface detectability with a 12.4 km detection range. The best is the Atago with her 11.9 km range and the worst is the Mikhail Kutuzov at 14.5 km. The New Orleans is best in class with a 7.5 km air detection range, whereas the worst is the Mikhail Kutuzov at 9.3 km. This combination makes the New Orleans slightly above average in her detectability when planes are factored in.

Looking over these stats, we can see that the New Orleans is a very average ship. She doesn't excel outside of her nimbleness and her AA rating, and one of these areas is of dubious value in terms of carrying a team. Her lack of torpedos explains why she's the worst performing cruiser at tier 8 in terms of damage done. Taken as a whole it's not hard to see why the New Orleans is the worst cruiser at tier 8.

-----

If anybody would like the tables of collected stats for these ships to compare for themselves just ask and I can send you the file. I would post the table here, but this site doesn't support the table section of the BB code.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I suppose that adding damage effects to planes at certain HP percentages could also help things, but that is likely harder to implement than a chance of catastrophic damage.

What I would do is this

1. Extend the range of the dedicated AA guns to their historic ranges. The 40 mm L60 bofors had a range of 7 km, while the L70s had a range of 12.
2. Accuracy gets better the closer in they get, obviously. They already have an efficiency rating behind the scenes, I see no reason why this could not be implemented.
3. Let us take direct control of our secondary guns, give us a lead indicator of some sort, and let us start blasting planes at range. RNG as fuck, otherwise it would not be fair at all, but I think a lot of the problem comes from players having very little control over their AAA, and thus feel cheated when they or a team mate gets hit by a torp drop.
4. Up the Xp and Credit rewards for fighter kills to incentivize us to do just that.
5. Self-defense guns on strike craft need to not be totally worthless.

Second, give planes a run-up time before they can arm weapons. For torpedo bombers, an attack run often meant flying straight low and slow under the threat of incoming AA fire. For dive bomber, this means gaining altitude and going into a dive. This would help to make distinctions between the two classes of bomber and buff the nigh useless dive bomber. Also, given that new AA is going to be far more threatening, give fighters a suppression ability where they can strafe ships, this could temporarily knock out entire banks of AA guns while disrupting the remaining guns as crews dive for cover.

I fully endorse this suggestion. As well as distinct strike and AS tracks for CVs

I would add the following modification

Dive bomber direct damage or accuracy needs a buff (my preference would be for damage, but dont do both), and when at altitude prepping to dive, they should not be subject to automatic AA fire (but will be vulnerable to planes and player directed AAA). They are out of range until they actually dive, at which point they become vulnerable, and psychotically vulnerable when they pull out of it. This way, most bomber kills happen on the back-end, which reduces subsequent strike power of the CV but they are not useless.

If the US CAs are that good that probably means they're over tuned or the other nations aren't as tuned as they could be. They have the best AA by far, good guns, and decent detection ranges. Sure they don't have torpedos, but outside of area denial, I don't really setup for torpedo runs with my cruisers.

I actually do find them pretty damned useful, and not for area denial. I really appreciate having a strike option against BBs in my german cruisers. So many situations in my Pensacola where I round a corner and see a battleship and am just... totally screwed, when in my Yorck, I would not be.

[Thanas]

The New Orleans of course is average. She still is not in need of any buff. Not every ship is the Mogami nor needs to be.

I actually do find them pretty damned useful, and not for area denial. I really appreciate having a strike option against BBs in my german cruisers. So many situations in my Pensacola where I round a corner and see a battleship and am just... totally screwed, when in my Yorck, I would not be.

Then you are playing too aggressively. You can't do that with US cruisers.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The New Orleans of course is average. She still is not in need of any buff. Not every ship is the Mogami nor needs to be.

I actually do find them pretty damned useful, and not for area denial. I really appreciate having a strike option against BBs in my german cruisers. So many situations in my Pensacola where I round a corner and see a battleship and am just... totally screwed, when in my Yorck, I would not be.

Then you are playing too aggressively. You can't do that with US cruisers.

I do have that tendency. And I have gotten better. The point is not to give US CAs torps, because they did not have them historically, but rather, that US cruisers pay too high a price for the lack thereof in terms of other areas where balance could be tweaked. Hell, I would be happy with a flattening of the shot trajectories or something like that.

[Thanas]

I hated the high arcs at first, but now I love them in US cruisers. Why?

Well, two reasons.
1.) You can fire HE over mountains that other ships cannot. This is especially useful on Maps like North. It is a hard skill to master because you do not see the hull of the enemy ships, but if you do, you can rain 2-5k salvos of HE on ships that cannot shoot back.

2.) IJN cruisers are scary good at bouncing your AP anyway, only at sub 7km distances can you really penetrate. So you fire HE anyway and fire arcs do not matter that much.

[Jub]

The New Orleans of course is average. She still is not in need of any buff. Not every ship is the Mogami nor needs to be.

So the other two tech trees should just be head and shoulders above the US from tier 8 onwards? Nobody is saying that the US line is trash, just that it lacks the options that the other lines get and that the best aspect of those ships. The AA, tends to be wasted points when compared to torpedos, or better AP rounds, or better fire chance for HE...

[Sea Skimmer]

What I would do is this

1. Extend the range of the dedicated AA guns to their historic ranges. The 40 mm L60 bofors had a range of 7 km, while the L70s had a range of 12.

I'm not sure where you are getting those ranges from. The maximum ballistic ranges were much higher, but the effective range of the 40/60 was not more then about 4,000m because of tracer burnout, which was also where the ammo generally self destructed, and while not all navies used SD ammo most navies also had rather worse AA guns then the 40/60 from the get go. Once the tracer is done for other means exists to direct the gunfire, and ballistics were less then inspiring by that point anyway.

The L70 was a distinctly postwar weapon and even its improved performance did not keep equal with improvements in aircraft speed, thus the post 57mm Bofors as well as various wartime 6pdr and 50/55mm guns which never actually worked. Though the Germans get one for their top tier cruiser. The types of weapons really needed for the war never got built in large part (such as a proposed director controlled combination of three quad 20mm mounts for the USN) because they were quickly surpassed by missile systems postwar.

If anything the ranges for automatic weapons in the game are already exaggerated, because while the 40mm effective ranges are a little understated they treat the 20mm class guns as having the same range when in reality such a weapon could not possibly hit past 1,500m and usually much less. Only heavy AA guns had seriously more range, but only with VT shells and full radar laid control could such weapons ever shoot down a significant number of enemy aircraft. The Des Monies in the game should annihilate every non jet aircraft in sight with her 3/50 twins and everything else should be pretty damn comically vulnerable to any form of coordinated air attacks.

If AA gun ranges were really high in game meanwhile we'd end up with half the damn map covered in constant magic unlimited ammo no barrel overheating AA fire which is just a dumb way to deal with the problem.

3. Let us take direct control of our secondary guns, give us a lead indicator of some sort, and let us start blasting planes at range. RNG as fuck, otherwise it would not be fair at all, but I think a lot of the problem comes from players having very little control over their AAA, and thus feel cheated when they or a team mate gets hit by a torp drop.

You can designate a target, my feeling is most people never do this and it collectively makes carriers a lot more effective then they should be. Certainly I've seen unending cases of people allowing guns to shoot at dive bombers when torpedo planes are in range.

What they should really do is just take that fighter mechanic that makes torpedo planes under attack have a wider range of spread and apply it to the AA guns too. Because that was always the main value and point of AA fire. Simply by opening fire hit probabilities plunged. But people tend to hate probabilistic based game play, and yet that is the only damn way WW2 naval combat actually makes sense.

Also just make aerial torpedoes have more realistic speeds and actual acceleration and they'd be much less of a problem out of hand. They are extremely fast right now, and while that makes sense for the lol up to 68 knot surface fired torpedoes it doesn't for aerial torpedoes.

[Jub]

You can designate a target, my feeling is most people never do this and it collectively makes carriers a lot more effective then they should be. Certainly I've seen unending cases of people allowing guns to shoot at dive bombers when torpedo planes are in range.

What they should really do is just take that fighter mechanic that makes torpedo planes under attack have a wider range of spread and apply it to the AA guns too. Because that was always the main value and point of AA fire. Simply by opening fire hit probabilities plunged. But people tend to hate probabilistic based game play, and yet that is the only damn way WW2 naval combat actually makes sense.

Also just make aerial torpedoes have more realistic speeds and actual acceleration and they'd be much less of a problem out of hand. They are extremely fast right now, and while that makes sense for the lol up to 68 knot surface fired torpedoes it doesn't for aerial torpedoes.

I wonder if the torpedo speeds match the in-game ship speeds?

Take for instance the Chikuma, with her 27.3 knot maximum speed with the speed signal flag-equipped. In 5m 52s of battle, I managed to travel 22.03 km, for an average speed of 121.7 knots. Does that mean that a 68-knot lolpedo is actually travelling at ~306 knots, or are the scales different?

[Thanas]

The New Orleans of course is average. She still is not in need of any buff. Not every ship is the Mogami nor needs to be.

So the other two tech trees should just be head and shoulders above the US from tier 8 onwards? Nobody is saying that the US line is trash, just that it lacks the options that the other lines get and that the best aspect of those ships. The AA, tends to be wasted points when compared to torpedos, or better AP rounds, or better fire chance for HE...

They are not head and shoulders above. There is a difference, but I do not lack confidence engaging an Atago in my NO. It is a fun ship to play IMO.

BTW, those torps? Meh. 10 km range. And you have to expose broadside. Which is usually when I smile and citadel the bastard with AP. Honestly, the only good they are is if you got a 15 point captain and can stealth torp. Or when the enemy BBs are a bunch of potatoes.

I get more damage in my Atago but that is because I got the heal ability which allows me to be more aggressive.


BTW, average damage of NO and Atago on USA server is the same - only a few hundreds of difference.

[Jub]

They are not head and shoulders above. There is a difference, but I do not lack confidence engaging an Atago in my NO. It is a fun ship to play IMO.

The stats sure show a massive difference between the non-premium tier 8 cruisers.

NA Server:

Mogami: +5.1% W/R | +159 exp | +14,914 damage | -2.7% survival rate
Admiral Hipper: +2.8% W/R | -37 exp | +5,939 damage | -7.8% survival rate

EU Server:

Mogami: +4.5% W/R | +115 exp | +13,760 damage | -2.2% survival rate
Admiral Hipper: +3.3% W/R | -64 exp | +4,118 damage | -5.0% survival rate

RU Server:

Mogami: +4.5% W/R | +71 exp | +16,918 damage | +2.8% survival rate
Admiral Hipper: +7.5% W/R | -100 exp | +9,070 damage | -12.0% survival rate

SEA Server:

Mogami: +5.0% W/R | +80 exp | +14,067 damage | -2.7% survival rate
Admiral Hipper: +6.6% W/R | +9 exp | +6,981 damage | -27.0% survival rate

Care to explain the large win rate and damage differences between the New Orleans and her non-premium counterparts the Mogami and Admiral Hipper? If the New Orleans is comparable to these ships why is her best W/R differential 2.8% and her best damage differential 4,118?

If we include that Atago, known to be played be people who haven't and never will earn their own tier 8+ ships, the New Orleans which must be earned through play, still struggles to pull away in terms of stats. Why might this be?

BTW, those torps? Meh. 10 km range. And you have to expose broadside. Which is usually when I smile and citadel the bastard with AP. Honestly, the only good they are is if you got a 15 point captain and can stealth torp. Or when the enemy BBs are a bunch of potatoes.

You can fire at least one spread by turning your ship a few degrees of center and if you're inclined to wiggle on your way in you can use the other set of forward tubes as well. The same is true if something is giving chase. Now these torpedos probably won't hit, but even missed torpedos can wind up forcing a course change which can cause ships to expose a broadside to you or your allies, make them run aground, or even make them break off the chase entirely. This is all something the Atago and Mogami can do that the New Orleans can't hope to accomplish. Even the Hipper can panic torpedo something that surprises them coming around a corner, or set ambushes for the less skilled players on the enemy team. What does the New Orleans get to replace this added level of tactical flexibility?

BTW, average damage of NO and Atago on USA server is the same - only a few hundreds of difference.

You're ignoring the widely known fact that premium vehicles in WGs games always have depressed stats in a desperate attempt to win this debate. This is lower than calling me out for exact time stamps in a video series and then ignoring the post where I do exactly that.

You can go fuck yourself Thanas.