Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About StormOfRazors

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Tasmania, Australia
  1. Will be equipping the C hull now, yes. I hope they do buff the traverse a bit. That would go a long way to make the change better. I must disagree with the logic that if we like a ship's particular setup, and it doesnt happen to be the 'upgraded' setup, we should toughen up. When wargaming is balancing ships they will surely take into account stock hulls from all nations and classes, because the fact of the matter is most players play them stock for a period of time and they cant be utter trash - they still need to be competitive. I'm not saying mogami 155 isnt competitive either - but the point of my post was that mogami, having 2 calibres, was unique. It is not the traditional upgrade path (to some players) and both layouts should be balanced and desirable. I fear you may be right on the latter point, I wouldn't be surprised if they removed the 155s and made her a premium. Didnt they do something similar with the Mutsu? (it being the A hull of Nagato or something)? But this is a terrible thing to hope for/expect though - locking something that was previosuly a user choice behind a paywall? That is not okay.
  2. Vaporisor, on 29 March 2017 - 05:34 PM, said: There is one advantage to the 155s. Higher rate of fire (rounds per minute) and a higher shell velocity if I am not mistaken. Would be great for hunting faster ships. True, higher ROF and velocity is something i value about it, i realise i should have mentioned those. thanks (Though, as Sventex mentions below, I agree that the slow turret traverse does kinda take away from this advantage and the DD hunter role) I was not familiar they said that, but if true that is a real shame. I understand the stock v upgrade argument, and agree that yes, it should be consistent among ships (so mogami being the odd one out is weird) Maybe the better solution would have been having a split in the tree with two ships - Mogami had sister ships - and one have the 155 and the other the 203. In any case, though this patch isnt an intended nerf to the mogami 155, due to this and the effects of previous nerfs, it does feel like they really dont want this setup to be played at all. Do you think the advantages of that make it worth playing after this patch though? I feel that even with it, I would be more use to the team upgrading to the 203 now.
  3. So I've recently been playing and enjoying the Mogami and was going to continue using the 155s until i got to the Ibuki. I have my Takao for 203mm gameplay, and Ill admit, I liked the difference in playstyle (despite the nerfs that have been made against this setup in previous patches, such as reduced turret rotation and the removed of AFT) As you may be aware, as of 0.6.2, concealment for Mogami was unique in that it was tied to the hull, so by using the A hull with the 155s you would have the advantage of 1.4km more concealment when firing the main guns than a C hull with the 203mm setup. With Concealment expert, the Concealment mod module, and the A hull with the 155s, Mogami was a cruiser that with a base detection of 9.3km, a range of 15.7km (upgraded) and a 13.9 detectibility after firing. However, come 0.6.3, when detectibility is tied to firing range, there is no longer any incentive to pick the 155 setup. It no longer gains the previously mentioned advantage, but the 155 setup is still saddled with the rest of its negative aspects (turret rotation etc) The quote above is a little confusing for me, but considering stealth fire is being removed, and that detectibility is tied to range, I presume that it includes a 'bottom' mogami hull (A Hull) with the 155mm guns - (it wouldn't make sense for Mogami to be the only ship that can stealth fire under the new rules. Therefore, Mogami is losing its A hull advantage. I want to ask the community, will anyone else be using 155 after the patch? I mean, the 203 setup already had advantages in the other areas, better AA, better rudder shift, better fire chance, better AP etc etc. I knew this. However, I feel that the effect of this patch is essentially WG disregarding their players and their choice of setup - That was the purpose of having two gun calibres to pick from... right? I dont want this to be a stealth fire rant thread - I've expressed my opinions on that elsewhere. But regardless, unless there is a buff or a correction to make Mogami 155 more enjoyable to play, I feel like WG is abandoning this setup and the players who enjoy it, and that is a shame. PS: I know I will be able to equip the gun fire control system 1 instead of the upgrade to reduce the max range and thus detectability, but this should not be required. I also feel sorry for other players who will lose enjoyment for a ship class after this patch. This and the Blyska will hurt me, but for US and IJN DD mains, I have no words...
  4. A: Yes they didn't advertise it. They didn't need to, they are utilising the community to hype sales instead. People buy ships after checking out reviews. The impact of the community contributors and reviewers in selling ships should not be understated, and I believe many ships would not have made as much bank for WG as they did were it not for reviews that emphasises positives such as stealth fire. They are indirectly responsible. B: And i am in my rights not to purchase another premium ship if i feel I am hard done by. If many people feel the same way refunds will be the last of WGs problems (this being a game that requires support from paying players and all). Im not going to say Blyska is unplayable after the change yet, as i dont know what they will add to it to balance the loss of stealth firing. Maybe they will buff it in other areas and all will be well. But i dont know that yet. All i know is, if the change goes ahead with no buffs, Blys becomes just a worse gunboat than the Russian line and I'll have no desire to play it anymore, and hence, Ill be hesitant to buy a premium again. Hurlbut, on 22 March 2017 - 03:24 AM, said: Honestly, they should have gone with a system where smaller and faster ships take less time to get back into concealment after firing (but have stopped firing) than bigger and slower ships. I agree. the change wouldn't be so bad if detection wasn't as long once you stopped firing. Maybe they could change the module for destroyers or the captains skill to have this role? (reduce detection time). I haven't seen this mentioned before yet, but I want to add that I feel CVs (specifically, the lack of them in many matches) are a huge factor for this change. A team that has a CV can request them to fly planes over an area to spot the invisible destroyer thats lighting you up. Of course, some times youll have a potato CV driver and this doesn't work, but on the whole teamwork was an effective counter for stealth firing DDs. Back in the days where carriers were more prevalent, I honestly felt stealth firing wasnt as much of an issue. But now there is fewer planes, there is less spotting going on. Hence, a large portion of matches have no real counter to invisi firing.
  5. The Udaloi and Khab dont need smoke to be effective, they are very powerful without it. Sure, they benefit from it, but its not going to say be as severe for them as the other destroyers losing it. Might this require changes to other Destroyers? yep. but I wouldn't be overly concerned for the Khab. I agree, having run into a situation yesterday where I couldn't help my teammate. We had a Kurfurst trying to push a cap and he asked for a smoke. If I was in another DD I would have given it to them happily, but I didnt have it, and he got focused and burnt down. The other BBs were being lemmings near the back and of course were no help either. Your point is 100% spot on, and because of this I'm still debating whether the selfish choice of taking heal is worth it. Is my survivability and potential to carry the game more beneficial than helping the team? Sure, I can manage a 200k game with witherer and high caliber achievements etc and farm damage, but the Khab is not a ship to contest caps (especially without smoke), so you need your teammates alive for the win. Im leaning towards going back to smoke, so we shall see. I think because the patch just hit a lot of people are playing Russian DDs though, so in a while it will balance out and other DDs will be there to provide smoke as well. Time will tell. It doesn't happen to be my playstyle, but it is a perfectly valid one. I'm glad it wasn't taken away and you have the choice to equip smoke still.
  6. Best Secondaries on Battleships.

    To use secondaries to full effect in any BB brawl you need to give more broadside than I am comfortable with. This is true for the Nagato especially, which is much easier to citadel than comparable German BB. You left the possibility of being citadelled out of your test. With main battery in use, and factoring in armor, German BB has the edge. Also, situations against cruisers coming point blank (where the AP of IJN will be effective) is very rare, as cruisers dont tend to rush battleships in this way. I mean, as a BB main one can dream right?... Agree, secondaries wont save any potato thats giving full broadside, but they give an advantage. IMO, I agree with others in this thread that German secondaries are superior because of the extra range and HE fire starting ability.
  7. Vigilance + Hydro, stackable?

    They stack. This was confirmed in the latest patch Q&A on twitch, where they were talking about which of the new skills would suit RN cruisers. See here (38 mins, 45 seconds in): https://www.twitch.tv/wargaming/v/116062668
  8. This person gets it. In a F2P game, premium ships are an important source of income for Wargaming. They know that any 'nerf' to an existing ship can decrease people's confidence in buying future ships, and that if confidence is eroded this has a direct impact on their bottom line. People can claim that owners of premiums are 'entitled' as to the performance of their ships as much as they want. They might be right. I may be spoiled having grown up with the consumer guarantees in Australia, but anyone here can at least agree that we, as consumers, have a reasonable expectation that goods bought meet the description/performance that was advertised, and continue to do so. I recognise that this being an online game, the enjoyment of others and balance can be an -- equally-- important consideration to make the game fun and fair for everyone. You want to know why? the other thing that kills a game is lack of population, and WG also knows they cant alienate F2P players by OP premiums. Just like how World of Warships cannot survive without premium players, I'd also argue it couldn't survive without F2P players. Whether it is an indirect nerf (like the firing range nerf to the Murmansk mentioned above) or a direct nerf, there is the potential to reduce the effectiveness and 'fun' of a ship to the point people stop playing it. Notice I said 'potential'. As a contrast, consider a change that reduces a ships effectiveness but not to the extent that it isnt fun or viable. Consider, for example, the Saipan. Will I be mad if they removed the 5th captain skill that makes my ship OP against a ranger? No, I would still have fun and be effective. But the Blyskawica and stealth fire? thats a tougher question. The removal of stealth fire alone would make the ship was less effective and less viable, thats for sure. Whilst being a challenge, I think it could still be fun. In any case, we don't know for sure how the change is going to work, what other mechanics will be tweaked alongside the change, and whether ships will receive some other buff to compensate. I propose we wait for an announcement and details before taking up the pitchforks.
  9. Glad to see this is getting a bit of attention on the forums, hopefully the devs see it. I'm glad they are offering the ships again so new players who missed out last time can get them. No problems here. Im also glad they are making it easier to get them - I would not wish the grind for Kongou on anyone. Ive also had the privilege/exclusivity of playing and enjoying them for months, so i don't find that a reason to prevent new people getting them now. I do, however, find it insulting that they are offered all in one month, for less work, with a 10 point captain, compared to the captains we were given when we earnt them last time with no apparent compensation. That makes me salty. All They need to do is make it so we get the 10 point captains to replace ours if they are less than 10 to ensure parity, and maybe additionally some bonus credits for each ship we already have. For those who aren't into Arpeggio or who say that they are 'just free ships' - you are missing the point that this will undermine people's confidence in doing future missions, arpeggio or not, if the rewards could just be earnt later quicker, for less work, and with a better captain. (Edited to add spaces for readability)
  10. I disagree, I played the Blys a lot in the last ranked season and felt competitive knife fighting for caps against Mahans. But yes, she is primarily a longer range gunboat, you dont want to decrease the range too far as the closer to US DDs you get the better their chance of hitting you. Play to their shell ark weakness and dodge like crazy at greater than 10k range. Overall I've had fun with her and shes a solid performer. Like others said, not OP, but solid. With concealment expert she will have a solid invisi fire window, allowing you to re spec the tier 4 skill from AFT to demo expert if you wish. And unlike the soviet DDs, her torps are actually usable in more situations, even for mere area denial or sending into enemy smokescreens to flush an enemy out.
  11. Yeah, they stated on a QandA session last week (posted on YoutTube) that they will be fixing the UI eventually, and they are going to eventually add a reward for spotting enemy ships I believe (they recently added statistics to the post battle screen for this, but no rewards yet.) Ideally, they need to move CVs to a place where captains find it equally viable to play a support role (spotting destroyers etc), rather than strike being the only way to make money. This makes everyone, especially BB drivers happy. Yeah exactly, they wont nerf a premium too badly. She is good now though even without an air superiority captain. Once I get that, and in addition to the 30% extra ammo for US fighters next patch, I feel sorry for Rangers. The only consumable they could add to Saipan is defensive fire like the tier 8-10 CVs, but it doesnt need it. Sometimes there is fun in the challenge of just having to defend your own CV (even against higher tier CVs) and the Saipan is well equipped to do so, having at minimum 2 fighter squads.
  12. I will also weigh in OP, like you I was not a CV player primarily but decided to try the Saipan. Was very happy with it, I primarily use the 2-0-2 layout and can recommend. One thing to be aware of is that its main problem (for me) is getting addressed in the next patch - more ammo for US fighters. I found often that because of the 3 plane squads you often run out of ammo, leaving you locked in combat unable to do anything. I dealt with this by using the other fighter to strafe both your planes and the enemy though and it usually works. This is viable because i found the amount of spare fighters/bombers is good; unless you keep sending planes against Atlantas or Iowas you dont need to worry about running out of planes. Like SgtBeltfed said, be aware that there are (hopefully) going to be massive changes to the CV lines and gameplay *soon*.
  13. A question about Tirpitz

    For some footage of a plane launch: https://youtu.be/np3Dwzl2_5A?t=1m44s Found this whilst looking up the Scharnhorst. Im no expert so it might not be the same on the Tirpitz, but it shows how they can get it in the air in such a small space.
  14. North Carolina or Iowa?

    I love my Iowa and prefer her. My Tirpitz is my tier 8 go-to ship, but the NC isnt bad at all and some would argue better. Both are solid ships. It depends on how you play and whether you make the extra to cover the higher repair costs in the Iowa. But i know that when i get a tier 10 battle, i feel much more competitive in my Iowa.
  15. Viper069, on 14 August 2016 - 01:36 PM, said: Good, bad, or indifferent, it's going to mostly depend on who's driving So much this ^. Also, it will take more than a few plays to definitively determine how the ship stands up. Both the Dunkerque and Scharnhorst also have different play styles than the current meta is focused around. It is easier for Wargaming to buff a premium post release (see Atlanta radar addition) than to take something away or nerf it (in which case people lose their minds). Therefore, I wouldnt be surprised if they erred on the side of caution and buffed later.