Jump to content


Lert's problems with Hood


  • Please log in to reply
159 replies to this topic

Lert #1 Posted 18 May 2017 - 11:34 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,549
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Semi-clickbait title, but a serious subject.

 

I have a problem with Hood. And now that she's been released and is in my port (thanks to a very generous friend of mine - seriously, thank you SO much!) I can finally talk about her in public. NDAs getting in the way and all that ... I'm not talking about how she performs and plays - that's perfectly fine, to me. She's not OP, and that's a good thing. She's comfortable and even fun to drive and in the hands of a good BB driver can be a terror.

 

No, my problem with Hood is what choices Wargaming made to balance her, and what she represends for the game, and all possible future premiums and tech tree ships. You see, what we have in game isn't really Hood. Sure, it looks like Hood and has a few characteristics of Hood, but it is a bastardization of what Hood actually was like.

 

- Item the first: her guns. Yeah they can do work, but they're roughly 7% less powerful than Warspites. This in and of itself is a problem, and it didn't have to be this way. Hood used the same guns as Warspite (and other QEs) in a more modern turret. I see no reason why Hood would need to have 7% worse pen on her guns.

 

"But she didn't carry the same ballistic nose cap that the QE's did!"

 

True, the ammo hoists on Hood could not handle the longer shells the QEs could, but that's why Hood was given shells with a shorter AP cap, that influenced the wind drag. I don't see why these shells would have 7% lower Krupp (key factor in calculating penetration) than the shells on Warspite. Lose more velocity over range, yes. Be softer, no.

 

Second point about the guns is that WG took the velocity values of testing done with worn barrels. WG used values listed on NavWeaps.com for velocity. Now I'm not claiming that NavWeaps.com is where WG got their velocities, but they are still using the same values as listed on that webpage. However, the values listed on NavWeaps are from trials with worn barrels and are lower than they would be with new barrels. The same problem affects Warspite: her shell velocities are based on worn barrels too and would be higher if WG used values for new barrels.

 

- Item the second: the speed. Yes, Hood historically reached 32 knots. Before refits. With brand new machinery. By the time WWII broke out and she set sail for her fateful encounter with Bismarck, she could do about 28 knots, downhill, with the wind in her back. Now, I'm not arguing that her speed should be lowered - let the in-game ship keep the long legs she has now. It's part of her charm, and a nod to history.

 

Why bring this up? Why is this an issue? Well, WG likes to present ships with 'best case scenario' stats. You can see that with all their (well researched and well modeled) paper ships, all are given stats very close to the design specification. However, anyone who knows anything about ship manufacture will be able to tell you that design specifications on paper do not equate to ship performance in steel. Actual steel-in-water ship performance is always a compromise and never reaches all design specifications put on paper.

 

WG chose 'best case scenario' for her speed, pre-refit, new machinery, 32 knot top speed. But they chose to use the shell velocity numbers for worn barrels instead of 'best case scenario'. This is a problem that affects Warspite as well. Why did WG do this? I'll come back to this later.

 

- Item the third: the Unrotated Projectile rocket launchers. These killed more of Hood's crewmen than enemy pilots. There is AFAIK no record of them ever taking down a single German plane, but they are on record to getting tangled in Hood's own wiring and exploding on Hood's decks, injuring and killing British sailors. Now, it's not the fact that lives were lost to these why I disapprove of them - after all, they're a weapon and we all use weapons in this game - it's the fact that WG took what was basically an unmitigated disaster of a failed experiment, and turned it into a trump feature. Maybe this has to do with 'best case scenario' as outlined above, but the fact remains that for some reason WG has turned abysmal and dangerous deck clutter into a 'flavor' for Hood.

 

The Unrotated Projectiles (UPs) were a horrible idea, and the Brits knew it. The only reason they were mounted on Hood when she sunk is because they hadn't had time to remove them, yet. And WG saw fit to give them a starring role. Why did they do this? Probably just 'because they're there'. Certainly not to gamify their historical performance.

 

It all adds up to:

 

Now though we come to the meat of the tale, of my problems with Hood. From where I'm sitting, WG artificially nerfed Hood's guns (and Warspites as well though perhaps to a lesser degree) to below what they 'should' perform like, and then proceeded to drop gimmicks on her (DFAA, functional UPs, short-fuse AP shells, better autobounce angles on the AP, improved heal) to balance her out. For reasons that elude me, they chose 'best case scenario' for her speed, while accepting and implementing known sub-par values for shell velocity, and giving Hood weaker shells 'because reasons'. Even if we accept that Hood couldn't carry the 6crh shells that Warspite did, WG didn't have to implement that into the in-game Hood. We already see with the UPs that WG is not above pushing weapon performance into fantasy land.

 

From where I'm sitting it looks very much like WG chose to start off with Hood in a nerfed state with arbitrarily limited gun performance, and using gimmicks to balance her.

 

I've talked before about balancing ship lines by gimmicks rather than giving us ships balanced on a base line and then adding gimmicks, and I'm not the only one. And Hood, to me, is the perfect example of exactly this happening. I hope this isn't an indication of the direction WG is going in.

 

YMMV.

 

Still, despite all the problems I have with what Hood represents, I think she's balanced as is, enjoy driving her and I do not consider her presence in my port a waste of (someone else's) money.


(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


Sventex #2 Posted 18 May 2017 - 11:39 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,689
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

I agree with much of this.  The historical Hood wasn't suited for tier 7 so they had to muck around with her.  I'm just glad they didn't give her the refit she never got, then she'd really would not be the Hood.


"The world is not beautiful; and that, in a way, lends it a sort of beauty."
 


Lert #3 Posted 18 May 2017 - 11:43 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,549
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSventex, on 18 May 2017 - 11:39 PM, said:

I agree with much of this.  The historical Hood wasn't suited for tier 7 so they had to muck around with her. 

 

With current nerfed shell velocity, standard shells (no short fuse and autobounce benefit) no DFAA and 28 knot speed she would make a very decent T6 IMO. Maybe even shave a few k HP off.

 

Alternatively, buff her shell Krupp and velocity to symbolize 'as new' barrels with SC shells, give her a bit more DPS and range on the AA, massage her ROF and bump her up to T8.The increase in bow / stern armor thickness would work wonders for her tankiness.

 

View PostSventex, on 18 May 2017 - 11:39 PM, said:

I'm just glad they didn't give her the refit she never got, then she'd really would not be the Hood.

 

Amen.


(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


starksrevenge #4 Posted 18 May 2017 - 11:44 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 318
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013
The most confusing thing to me is the shells. I really don't understand why being a tire up she need worse pen than Warspite. 

silverdahc #5 Posted 18 May 2017 - 11:46 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 146
  • Member since:
    09-25-2015

All good points

 


"It is very hard to swim up hill."         

Mark Schlereth


mofton #6 Posted 18 May 2017 - 11:48 PM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,045
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

View PostLert, on 18 May 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

Second point about the guns is that WG took the velocity values of testing done with worn barrels.

 

My supposition, and I think Carl agrees is that somehow WG only have access to worn barrel penetration numbers. It being all they have they're also not able to just increase it a bit.

 

The RN might have only been interested in somewhat worn barrels, you'll always do test fires and practice shoots before combat.

 

Even if the MV is pushed back up from worn to new it's a 3% increase, so shouldn't make enough of a difference to offset the 7% inferior penetration.

 

 

Changing the sigma to 2.0 in line with Warspite on the logic that the guns and barrels are the same, while the human is the FCS (so having an older Dreyer rather than Admiralty system is irrelevant) would be a reasonable improvement. Given Hoods long service crew decreasing reload to 28s, better but still not treading on German BB would be reasonable as well IMO.

 

Agreed entirely on the AA gimmick. I'm not sure what to make of the fuse/autobounce change, no one seems to be reporting anything significant different resulting from it.

 

Speed I'm ok with, they're pretty consistent with that and it equalizes things.


light.png

Iowanna be a rockstar - Salmon - Ctrl-Click-Schiffe - Le Dunkerque - Grand Old Lady - ~5 Mil in IJN Scrap

Gearings of Poor - Trashcan - Biscuit-tweaker - Tachi-Ali-Baba - Not-quite-Minekaze - Zit-23 - Shinbone - Your-a-gnome

Dakka Moines - AbSchorring - Dakka-Dakka-taur


lemekillmister #7 Posted 18 May 2017 - 11:50 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,401
  • Member since:
    07-30-2016
I'm still buying the Hood.

I'm a spudman, I got eyes all around.

 

 

 


HMS_Formidable #8 Posted 18 May 2017 - 11:53 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,016
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

I 100pc agree with this.

 

In reality, RN cruisers carried SAP and HE. 

So Wargaming give them a souped-up AP only fit? wth?

 

Hood was a battlecruiser of the line. Not an AA battlecruiser

HMS Renown was the AA battlecruiser.

What are they going to do for HMS Renown now? Buff her 15in guns to be able to citadel Yamato?

 

Seriously, these 'balance/flavour' decisions are ... incomprehensible.

 

Whatever the case, this is not Hood.
It is something masquerading as Hood.

A fraud?


Edited by HMS_Formidable, 18 May 2017 - 11:54 PM.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 


Lert #9 Posted 18 May 2017 - 11:55 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,549
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostHMS_Formidable, on 18 May 2017 - 11:53 PM, said:

What are they going to do for HMS Renown now? Buff her 15in guns to be able to citadel Yamato?

 

To be fair, I believe Hood to be capable of this in controlled environments.

(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


Zim_Xero #10 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:03 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 712
  • Member since:
    04-13-2016
I wont buy it until it shows over a a 51% Win Rate.

Tier V -   Konig   Kongo   Furutaka   Zuiho   Texas   Marbelhead   Okhotnik   Kamikaze   

Tier VI -  Budyonny   Aoba   Leander   Arizona   Anshan   Dunkerque   Graf Spee   Warspite

Tier VII - Algerie   Shiratsuyu   Fiji   Saipan   Leningrad   Scharnhorst   Atlanta   Hood   Belfast   Blyskawica

Tier VIII+  Z-46   Grozovoi   Khabarovsk   Shokaku   Bismarck   Missouri   Atago   Alabama   Tirpitz   Lo Yang   Mikhail Kutuzov


goldeagle1123 #11 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:06 AM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,333
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015
I was pretty shocked when I found out Hood would be a tier 7. And we got no less than I expected, a subpar ship that they tried to make fit into a tier it doesn't belong in with a few gimmicks.

 

 

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you"


LittleWhiteMouse #12 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:08 AM

    Captain

  • WoWS Community Contributors
  • Members
    Beta Testers

  • 5,832
  • Member since:
    01-04-2013

Yay, a belated Lertbox!  All good points, my friend.  Your summary is pretty much how I felt during week one of Hood-testing (version 1, not version 2).  Version 2 just ramped up the gimmick.


Q♥  Most Recent Review: HMS Hood
  


minor_correction #13 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:12 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 86
  • Member since:
    07-20-2015

 

Wonder if it could be a case of WG giving themselves future wiggle room? These are the first RN BBs, and they may not have set the RN "flavor," yet, in addition to the "premiums don't get nerfed" practice.

 

Looking forward to future adjustments.



Bill_Halsey #14 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:15 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 621
  • Member since:
    01-01-2016
The end result is that she will struggle to be in the top 5 in the leader board. Someone would have a good day if she can do over 80k damage. I tried IFHE and that seems to work. I couldn't kill a GN with AP at 10 km range. Change my CO skills to IHFE and used HE on a GN and sunk that ship by burning it down. She couldn't win a duel with another T7 BB, save maybe a Colorado. And forget dueling @T8/T9 BB's. Not a ship for the beginner.

Seraphil #15 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:19 AM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester
  • Beta Testers

  • 4,163
  • Member since:
    01-10-2013
With the rockets, they didn't even give a specific animation for them either, so what's the point of having them?  The range is so short it's a filler gimmick with the way the Hood's DFAA works; it's even worse of a problem as certain US ships being balanced around AA, something that's not really used universally.

Edited by Seraphil, 19 May 2017 - 12:22 AM.


KaptainKaybe #16 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:21 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,801
  • Member since:
    08-14-2012

Agreed. Completely.

Yet, I still bought her. 'Cause history.

 

EDIT: It should be noted that Wargaming *always* seems to put best possible tested speed into their ships. I think they do that on purpose to encourage players to get into the fight as quickly as possible.


Edited by KaptainKaybe, 19 May 2017 - 12:58 AM.


Cruxdei #17 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:27 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 543
  • Member since:
    08-04-2014

View PostLert, on 18 May 2017 - 11:55 PM, said:

 

To be fair, I believe Hood to be capable of this in controlled environments.

 

i might be wrong,but most BBs can do that in controlled enviroments.

Battlecruiser_Tiger #18 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:32 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,357
  • Member since:
    08-10-2016
Simple answer - and the answer I always have defaulted to from the start: Wargaming hates the British.

[KNMSU] is seeking new members. Please PM me before applying! Thank you!

"Semi-notorious forum twit"


crzyhawk #19 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:34 AM

    Admiral

  • Members
  • Beta Testers

  • 10,866
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015

View PostLert, on 18 May 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

Semi-clickbait title, but a serious subject.

 

I have a problem with Hood. And now that she's been released and is in my port (thanks to a very generous friend of mine - seriously, thank you SO much!) I can finally talk about her in public. NDAs getting in the way and all that ... I'm not talking about how she performs and plays - that's perfectly fine, to me. She's not OP, and that's a good thing. She's comfortable and even fun to drive and in the hands of a good BB driver can be a terror.

 

No, my problem with Hood is what choices Wargaming made to balance her, and what she represends for the game, and all possible future premiums and tech tree ships. You see, what we have in game isn't really Hood. Sure, it looks like Hood and has a few characteristics of Hood, but it is a bastardization of what Hood actually was like.

 

- Item the first: her guns. Yeah they can do work, but they're roughly 7% less powerful than Warspites. This in and of itself is a problem, and it didn't have to be this way. Hood used the same guns as Warspite (and other QEs) in a more modern turret. I see no reason why Hood would need to have 7% worse pen on her guns.

 

"But she didn't carry the same ballistic nose cap that the QE's did!"

 

True, the ammo hoists on Hood could not handle the longer shells the QEs could, but that's why Hood was given shells with a shorter AP cap, that influenced the wind drag. I don't see why these shells would have 7% lower Krupp (key factor in calculating penetration) than the shells on Warspite. Lose more velocity over range, yes. Be softer, no.

 

Second point about the guns is that WG took the velocity values of testing done with worn barrels. WG used values listed on NavWeaps.com for velocity. Now I'm not claiming that NavWeaps.com is where WG got their velocities, but they are still using the same values as listed on that webpage. However, the values listed on NavWeaps are from trials with worn barrels and are lower than they would be with new barrels. The same problem affects Warspite: her shell velocities are based on worn barrels too and would be higher if WG used values for new barrels.

 

- Item the second: the speed. Yes, Hood historically reached 32 knots. Before refits. With brand new machinery. By the time WWII broke out and she set sail for her fateful encounter with Bismarck, she could do about 28 knots, downhill, with the wind in her back. Now, I'm not arguing that her speed should be lowered - let the in-game ship keep the long legs she has now. It's part of her charm, and a nod to history.

 

Why bring this up? Why is this an issue? Well, WG likes to present ships with 'best case scenario' stats. You can see that with all their (well researched and well modeled) paper ships, all are given stats very close to the design specification. However, anyone who knows anything about ship manufacture will be able to tell you that design specifications on paper do not equate to ship performance in steel. Actual steel-in-water ship performance is always a compromise and never reaches all design specifications put on paper.

 

WG chose 'best case scenario' for her speed, pre-refit, new machinery, 32 knot top speed. But they chose to use the shell velocity numbers for worn barrels instead of 'best case scenario'. This is a problem that affects Warspite as well. Why did WG do this? I'll come back to this later.

 

- Item the third: the Unrotated Projectile rocket launchers. These killed more of Hood's crewmen than enemy pilots. There is AFAIK no record of them ever taking down a single German plane, but they are on record to getting tangled in Hood's own wiring and exploding on Hood's decks, injuring and killing British sailors. Now, it's not the fact that lives were lost to these why I disapprove of them - after all, they're a weapon and we all use weapons in this game - it's the fact that WG took what was basically an unmitigated disaster of a failed experiment, and turned it into a trump feature. Maybe this has to do with 'best case scenario' as outlined above, but the fact remains that for some reason WG has turned abysmal and dangerous deck clutter into a 'flavor' for Hood.

 

The Unrotated Projectiles (UPs) were a horrible idea, and the Brits knew it. The only reason they were mounted on Hood when she sunk is because they hadn't had time to remove them, yet. And WG saw fit to give them a starring role. Why did they do this? Probably just 'because they're there'. Certainly not to gamify their historical performance.

 

It all adds up to:

 

Now though we come to the meat of the tale, of my problems with Hood. From where I'm sitting, WG artificially nerfed Hood's guns (and Warspites as well though perhaps to a lesser degree) to below what they 'should' perform like, and then proceeded to drop gimmicks on her (DFAA, functional UPs, short-fuse AP shells, better autobounce angles on the AP, improved heal) to balance her out. For reasons that elude me, they chose 'best case scenario' for her speed, while accepting and implementing known sub-par values for shell velocity, and giving Hood weaker shells 'because reasons'. Even if we accept that Hood couldn't carry the 6crh shells that Warspite did, WG didn't have to implement that into the in-game Hood. We already see with the UPs that WG is not above pushing weapon performance into fantasy land.

 

From where I'm sitting it looks very much like WG chose to start off with Hood in a nerfed state with arbitrarily limited gun performance, and using gimmicks to balance her.

 

I've talked before about balancing ship lines by gimmicks rather than giving us ships balanced on a base line and then adding gimmicks, and I'm not the only one. And Hood, to me, is the perfect example of exactly this happening. I hope this isn't an indication of the direction WG is going in.

 

YMMV.

 

Still, despite all the problems I have with what Hood represents, I think she's balanced as is, enjoy driving her and I do not consider her presence in my port a waste of (someone else's) money.

 

Excellent post, I agree with you 100%.


Kapitanleutnant_Ford #20 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:35 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,013
  • Member since:
    07-15-2016
Yea, a solid ship is better than a ship with a gimmick or "flavor" which WG seems instant on right now. Great write up.
Stats




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users