Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

29 Neutral

About masterfish

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. masterfish

    Yamato Stealth Nerf is Not Cool

    First off, my opposition is not to Yamato getting a nerf, as I said. My opposition is to Wargaming nerfing the ship without saying a single thing about it beforehand or after applying the nerf. Secondly, you can't see the place where things were changed with the plating off. The difference is in the size of the torpedo bulges; in order to see them, you have to have the plating visible. Thirdly, WG has released that they don't think halving the coverage of Yamato's torpedo bulges was a serious detriment to the ship, but since a lot of people have disagreed, in the next patch they'll change the torpedo protection system to match Musashi again, while otherwise keeping the new model. So a fix is incoming and Yamato will be performing like her old self by 8.4. Or so we all hope.
  2. I logged into World of Warships this morning and was astounded to see that Yamato, the venerable and beloved T10, was nerfed. I posted a request for clarification in the bug reports forum; no nerfs had been announced for Yamato, and as far as I can tell she was not in a dominating state compared to other T10 ships. The model rework of Yamato was in fact a serious stealth nerf that seems to have largely slipped under the radar. Yamato's new armor scheme, based on the model update Wargaming recently announced to be coming out with this patch, has almost halved her torpedo belt, leaving huge portions of her citadel including both forward turret barbettes and the magazines within, completely undefended by her excellent 55% damage reduction. You can see the difference in their armor schemes by comparing her to Musashi in port, as Yamato's sister ship did not receive this nerf despite arguably being the more oppressive of the two ships by far. A fellow user, SireneRacker, confirmed this nerf to be far more than cosmetic with a training room test. The new torpedo belt is far smaller than the old, leaving huge vulnerabilities. It also makes her more likely to detonate than any other battleship in the game, as she's the only one with all of her magazines completely outside her torpedo protection system. It also increases the vulnerability of Yamato's citadel, already the easiest to hit of all T10 battleships, by removing the spaced armor provided by the old torpedo bulges that made her infamous "cheek" slightly harder to penetrate. Having confirmed that this is in fact not my eyes playing tricks on me, I've decided to cross post this notification into the general forum in hopes of more people protesting this stealth nerf, and of Wargaming staff becoming aware that this is not cool and requires a response. We all appreciate the effort Wargaming puts into maintaining historical accuracy on the ships in World of Warships, but nerfing Yamato's defenses without a single hint that this nerf was coming, or any apparent reason for doing so, is not okay. Yamato was not an overpowered ship in her old state. Adding 100 more DPS to her AA does not compensate for worsening an armor scheme that already required more skill than any other battleship to avoid receiving devastating damage. If this had been done to Musashi, I would not have batted an eye, and I don't think many players would have fussed much. Musashi is widely considered overpowered for a Tier 9 ship, and can seem nearly indestructible when fighting tier 7 vessels. Greater vulnerability to torpedoes and citadel hits would do a lot to make her a more enjoyable ship to face in battle, while retaining the features that make her unique at her tier. But to my knowledge, Yamato did not need this substantial nerf at all. Honestly, I'd love to hear that I'm wrong, WG. I'd like to hear that this was just a scheduling mix-up, and that Yamato was in fact slated for nerfs due to extreme over-performance, or that this is a programming error that will be patched out soon. The alternative is knowledge that any Tier 10 tech tree ship, the vessels in the game that we all put huge amounts of time and effort towards unlocking and becoming skilled at playing, could be severely nerfed at any time, without so much as a hint that they've been neutered without a premium sister ship or old screenshot to compare them to. This is not cool. It's not right. And it needs to be addressed post haste.
  3. masterfish

    Yamato Nerf? Why?

    Thank you for confirming that, SireneRacker. So why, WG? Why nerf Yamato for no apparent reason?
  4. masterfish

    Yamato Nerf? Why?

    Magazines are located in the turret barbettes, those big cylinders covered in heavy armor that the turrets rest on. Musashi's are covered by her 32mm torpedo belt and a second layer of 32mm plating under that, giving them the protection of 55% torpedo damage reduction to defend them from detonation and citadel damage and a modest amount of troll armor that will occasionally give you 0 damage penetrations. Yamato used to have the same protection. Yamato's two forward barbettes are now protected only by her citadel armor and a single layer of 32mm schnozz with going off of armor mechanics 0% torpedo damage reduction. But at least Yamato also has a 50mm funnel that can arm AP aimed at her superstructure now! Yay!
  5. Feel free to explain to me that I'm wrong. I would love to be wrong about this. But it looks a whole lot like Yamato, the venerable and beloved T10 which has been in the game essentially unchanged since the very beginning, just ate a massive nerf. Her model update seems to have extended her bow plating to cover huge portions of the ship that used to be torpedo belt. Comparing her new model to Musashi, which didn't get the model update (Why? They're sister ships and should have the same model.), Yamato seems to only have 2/3 of the torpedo belt she used to. It no longer covers her entire citadel; her turrets are also left uncovered by the belt. Going off of armor mechanics, this means that one of Yamato's great strengths, her excellent torpedo protection, has just been stripped away, giving enemy torpedoes a direct route to her citadel the size of some lower-tier destroyers. It also leaves her citadel even more vulnerable to incoming AP, and makes her a lot more likely to detonate when torpedoed. Why? Was Yamato overperforming? Was she overwhelmingly powerful compared to other T10 battleships in too many situations? I really don't think so. Yamato wasn't weak before 8.3, but she certainly wasn't making Montana, Republique, or Conqueror unappealing, nor was she hot competition for Kreml's likely crown as the new king of brawlers. Yamato was already the easiest T10 battleships to citadel, which was compensated for by an armor scheme that greatly rewarded careful angling and a torpedo belt that would protect you exceptionally well from incoming metal fish. And now, based on her new armor scheme, it looks a lot like torpedoes have a free path right to her magazines, while incoming shells will have even less between them and her infamous citadel 'cheek' than they did before. And for what? A hundred more close range AA DPS and some superstructure on her stern for destroyers to farm? It looks like Izumo might actually perform better than the line's T10 now, just because her armor and torpedo belt will protect her far more effectively. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong here. I'd love to be wrong. But from where I'm sitting it looks a lot like Yamato just ate a substantial and completely unnecessary nerf.
  6. masterfish

    We want IJN Tone in the game. Change my mind...

    I will point out that the Italians of all navies had fighters on their battleships. The Littorio class battleships, including Roma, carried Falco 1s on their catapults. They weren't float planes; they had to land on an airstrip once their fuel ran low. But they were fighters, and battleships carried them.
  7. masterfish

    Special Testing - Public CV Rework

    Having played CVs more now, I have revised my prior opinions. I still like the overall direction of the new carriers though. I just think they need some adjustment, and maybe a few changes. 1. Rocket planes are pretty useless. Their high speed does make them the best scouts and tools for setting fighters, but that's all they do. The rockets seem to do absolutely nothing, even when you get loads of hits on an unarmored destroyer. You use them once at the very start of a game, and then never again. If that often. They need something to make them genuinely useful. 2. Dive bombers are in a good place. It's not easy to land bombs with them, but attacks being skill shots is not a bad thing. The damage can be frustratingly low at times, but I understand that one of the points of this rework is to make carriers have less damage output. And it isn't like shells from ships don't troll you with dispersion or seemingly random shatters either. Considering that carriers get fewer attacks per minute but also get unlimited range on those attacks and extra utility from spotting, I can't complain too much. A better crosshairs to make it easier to see where the bombs are going to go before I initiate a drop would be nice though. 3. Torpedo bombers are in need of buffs. Especially the USN ones. All USN planes are frustratingly slow, but the torpedo bombers are particularly bad, and their 35 knot torpedoes make evading the things very easy. Historically, USN torpedoes were pretty terrible, especially air dropped ones, but these torpedo planes are borderline useless. Combined with the uselessness of rocket planes, this gives USN carriers exactly one good kind of attack plane. IJN torpedo bombers are somewhat better thanks to their faster torpedoes and outright superior planes, but the damage output of these isn't great either. They land more hits, but each hit doesn't seem to do much, and I saw exactly two floodings over the course of ten or so games. 4. Fighters are extremely clunky and counter-intuitive. It makes no sense to have them as a consumable tracked separately for each attack plane squadron. Instead, I'd suggest having them on the deck like other planes. If you have enough fighters on deck, you can call them as in the current test build (or if I had my preference, assign them to patrol over an ally), using the same mechanics as before. I think this would be way more user-friendly than the current method. It doesn't make sense to me to have one kind of plane work completely differently from all the others. Especially in as clunky and unintuitive a fashion as they currently do. Or that you can run out of fighters and yet still have the exact same kind of plane in endless numbers for pointless rocket runs. 5. Ryujo is by far the better carrier at her tier. Her planes are fast and agile, her dive bombers are reliable, and her torpedo bombers are superior in nearly every way to what Ranger has. The torpedo damage isn't great, but it's relevant. She has trouble engaging destroyers and often loses modules when fired upon, but these are weaknesses that can be easily played around unless your team is packed with potatoes. However, her rocket planes are so bad that I never really felt the need to use them. I only launched them when I was desperate and didn't have any other planes on deck, and even then they'd always disappoint. 6. Ranger needs some love. Ranger's relatively armored flight deck and higher HP makes her tankier than Ryujo, which you're going to need. USN planes are so sluggish that Ranger must stay near the action in order to have any impact at all, placing her at great risk. The HE dive bombers are the only really useful things she has. Even Fuso and New Mexico, not exactly agile or fast ships, can evade her sluggish, short-ranged torpedoes unless they're distracted, and her rockets while in theory superior to the IJN versions still don't do much to anything. It makes me wonder how Ranger was ever considered viable at tier 7 if she feels this underpowered at tier 6. Ranger needs better torpedoes, or (my preferred option) better rockets. Part of the national flavor seems to be that the USN gets better rockets and the IJN gets better torpedoes, but rockets need a buff to make that matter. 7. AA guns feel both over and underpowered. As a CV, they either fill the sky with so much flak you can't possibly dodge it or do basically nothing to deter you. I was under the impression that the new AA mechanics were supposed to make it more useful to have mediocre AA, and I haven't seen that. As a surface ship, AA felt uninteractive and ineffective. AA guns seemed to do very little to deter a drop, but would occasionally knock an entire squadron out of the sky, with no way to influence which result you were getting. I'd like to see manual aa fire control (and ideally secondary fire control) which the captain skill would make better instead of just possible. Yes, I propose that AA and secondary guns be actually aimable. If planes vs surface ships is supposed to be the focus, surface ships should have more ability to interact with planes, and I think this would help do that. Also, it would remove the current, derpy state of dual purpose guns, which can for some reason fire at aircraft and surface ships at the same time right now. 8. For the next test, can we get more ships with middling AA like German and French battleships? It seemed like the test was full of only ships with amazing (Worcester, Pensacola, Montana, Midway, Hakuryu) or awful AA guns (everybody else). And also captain skills? Lots of ships need AA boosting captain skills to be a credible threat to planes, and nothing I saw in the test dissuades me of this notion. 9. As long as I'm dreaming, I'd like to see split lines for the USN and IJN carriers. Both keep their fleet carriers of course. But the USN also gets escort carriers, which have more limited attack plane options, less HP, but better AA guns, better concealment, and more maneuverability. The IJN also gets carrier conversions, which again have weaker attack planes, but make up for it with heavy armor and secondaries from their battleship hulls. 10. I'd also like to see more things be air droppable. Planes could definitely drop smoke bombs during WWII. Firefighting foam drops would both shut up all the people complaining about HE spam and give carriers who got it a more supportive role. Sonar buoy drops would also help with the supporting, by giving carrier players back some of their spotting power (though I might restrict these to the escort carriers I mentioned in 9). Maybe even drop ammo crates to replenish consumables? That last one would probably need careful balancing though. I think having options for planes beyond bombs would go a long way toward making carriers more fun and interesting. Every other ship type has at least some versions that do more than spotting and damage; I think carriers should get that too.
  8. masterfish

    Special Testing - Public CV Rework

    Well, time to voice an unpopular opinion! I like the new CV mechanics! I like them a lot! I've spent most of my time playing Ryujo and USS Pensacola, but I also tried Ranger and here's what I thought: 1. The rocket planes are going to take getting used to. Their ability to damage enemies or disable modules is for the IJN basically 0, and only marginally better for the USN. However, they do have the best agility and speed, making for the perfect scouts to spot for your team and set up fighter interceptions. Perhaps the people who think of them as useless should be considering for what they seem to be designed to do, which is spotting, scouting, setting up fighters in good spots to intercept enemy attack planes, and sometimes doing a bit of chip damage. These aren't heavy hitters, and trying to use them as such is an exercise in frustration. 2. The fighter consumable works very well for setting up interceptions, especially with the rocket planes. However, it was very much not clear to me how it's determined whether and how many fighter consumables you get per match. Are they being tracked separately per squadron? Do they regenerate over time? They probably should regenerate over time like other planes do, if this is not currently the case. 3. I also couldn't figure out how the engine boost consumable is tracked, similarly to the fighters. How many do you get? How is it distributed? Does it regenerate? 4. The dive bombers are great. They do take considerable practice and a bit of luck, but the damage is excellent and if you set up a good drop they feel responsive and effective. No real complaints here. 5. The torpedo bombers. Oh the torpedo bombers. Ranger's torpedo bombers are hilariously bad. It's actually kind of sad. Only a slow battleship is ever going to get hit by these things unless they're so distracted that they derp into the MEHTAL FISHIES. Ryujo's are a bit better in that fast battleships, carriers, and unaware cruisers might also have to worry sometimes. However, it was very much not obvious or well-labelled that they were deep water torpedoes. This should be fixed with more obvious labeling for the torpedoes and the AP dive bombs, so new players aren't frustrated wasting drops on destroyers. The damage also feels underwhelming at best, which combined with the pathetic range and laughable speed makes these weapons in general feel like a placeholder you use while you wait for your dive bombers to rearm. 6. There should be a captain skill that tells you which side of an enemy ship their AA is concentrated on. Maybe at T3, or T1 if it only works while you're inside the bubble. 7. I can't really comment on how AA guns changes worked for surface combatants, because for some reason no enemy carrier wanted to send a strike against my Pensacola. It didn't really feel any different from playing in the old server, except that I got less plane kills. 8. I would like to try the new captain skills sometime.
  9. Hello. I've found a bug in the new carrier test build, and I can't figure out where else to report it. Sometimes, when flying over a mountain in attack planes while on an attack run, the planes will spaz out and the targeting recticle will dance all over the screen while the planes clip through the map repeatedly without moving forward, exposing themselves to more AA fire and then usually exploding. Also, if you launch planes while close enough to an island, they'll clip through it on their way up to cruising altitude. 20181018_235906.zip