Jump to content

Keiki_Haniyasushin

Members
  • Content Сount

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6271

Community Reputation

24 Neutral

About Keiki_Haniyasushin

Recent Profile Visitors

660 profile views
  1. Keiki_Haniyasushin

    Saw that the Conq is getting a citadel.

    I mean... you're not wrong... Conq is still inherently broken, however, and I think the citadel change is a step in the right direction.
  2. Keiki_Haniyasushin

    Saw that the Conq is getting a citadel.

    1.7 sigma means that the shells will land pretty much everywhere in your dispersion circle. Hell, even Yuro says, granted in a Musashi vid, that lower sigma = lower skill required to land stupid shots. HE starts fires, making it more reliable. Dmg farming is easier this way. You really just point and click at their center of mass and see all 12 of your shells land all over the enemy BB, setting 3 fires, and knocking out 50 AA modules. AP is more inconsistent, since you actually have to aim, unless they're literally broadsiding 90 degrees like a [edited]. The same argument for turrets/barbettes applies here, you could easily bounce AP off the enemy ship's turrets. I get angry when BBs use HE since the HE is just damage farming and BBs aren't the right ship to use it on anyways.
  3. Keiki_Haniyasushin

    Saw that the Conq is getting a citadel.

    Great argument, it does serve as a BB hunter. However, I would still argue that the Conq really doesn't punish poor aim since it does have 1.7 sigma. This realistically means that where you shoot doesn't matter as long as it is somewhere on the enemy BB. Granted a good player can take advantage of AP well, but the short fuse leaves little room for error here, and makes HE often the better choice "just to be safe." If a CA angles turns in or out, you will almost always bounce. I'm not trying to start a fight here, just making an argument on why I think the Conq doesn't require intense aiming skillz.
  4. Keiki_Haniyasushin

    Premium Ship Review #111: Jean Bart

    Aigle: I honestly can't speak for myself, since I don't own it. I've only seen div mates and other players use it, so I can see how it can be interpreted as weak or strong based on player to player. Baltimore: The Balti is objectively extremely strong. What WG did was take a T9, knock off the heal, and call it a day. It still retains the amazing penetration of the 203mm guns, the strong 27 mm bow that bounches <381mm guns, and the radar. It is still strong, at least compared to the other T8 tech tree CAs. I really can't name any other T8 tech tree cruiser that has all of the tools the Balti has. DoY: Calling the DoY weak because it is a worse KGV in most scenarios is like calling a BMW bad because it isn't a Lamborghini. It still has that Royal Navy HE, the short fuse AP that dev strikes cruisers, and the hydro makes it good at dodging torpedoes if the captain is smart. It really doesn't lose much besides a small DPM nerf, that isn't going to come into play much anyways, since HE fires are more effective ways of dealing damage, and a heal charge, which is partially mitigated by the hydro that allows you to take less damage from torpedoes, and the fact that T7 games are shorter on average compared to higher tiers. It also has pretty great concealment. Lastly, it doesn't have a citadel. Kidd: LWM's thing is pictures and graphics. When she concluded with the picture, the average reader (that LWM thinks reads it anyways) is going to walk away with what the picture said, not the review. Most players don't pick through reviews and read every detail, so the concluding image is important. KGV: Strong, if not OP. It has all of the benefits of the DoY minus the hydro, an extra heal, slightly more DPM, and it's on the tech tree. I can elaborate on this, but I have a lot of comments to respond to and not a lot of time. Alaska: Vid related. I get an impression that Flamu thinks it is really good. I do appreciate the actual responses on this post, however. The lack of ad hominem attacks was certainly refreshing. Sure. I'll answer this. I compare myself to Mouse to show that people are busy. She has stuff to do, and I understand that. It's less of a comparison and more of just saying that peole have stuff to do, and it's perfectly fine to quit for a while to deal with real life stuff. She doesn't have to respond to my arguments, or even be here at all. She can post her reviews and move along. But she made the concious decision to respond, and now we have this. CBT is a different game. There were waay less ships, less ships for killing DDs, the Shima had better torps in all aspects, and there was no radar. Mouse saying her experience in the Shima from Winter 2015 is valid is simply not true. The Shima might have played similarly back then, but the game as a whole has changed. Radar was implemented in much later patches, the Shima's torps had their concealment nerfed, and the guns were nerfed in alpha damage. This isn't even considering the new ships, like the YY, with stealth radar, Gearing guns able to absolutely demolish a Shima, and the DWTs that powercreep the Japanese even further. LWM simply has not played enough high tier games in recent times, at least as far as we can view, to be able to really know how the game plays up there. I don't know though, she might have access to press accounts and alts that I am not aware of. I am not talking down to her, but I am arguing with her. If anything, she's talking down to ME, by telling me to "eat worms". I don't honestly think that her "funny graphics" or "dispersion model" are super important factors. I know that I would be willing to sacrifice both of those to see a more comprehensive review of the ship at hand, with more time invested into the gameplay, which is a true test of a ship's potential. I understand that real life exists, and I also stated that I don't expect her to put out these reviews with any regularity or time table or schedule. This isn't a job, this is a hobby. I get that. But time and effort should be spent, making sure that the ship review engrosses all of the topic at hand, not just one side. This review only showcased the situations where the ship is good. It didn't talk about the three minute reload on the consumable, where you turn into an uptiered Richelieu, nor did it discuss the 32 mm plating all around, and how you see even more Yamasushi's at T9 than T8. When you talk about how she spends 27.4 hours per ship on reviews, you talk about the total time to make all this happen. She said it herself; she spends four games on a ship, most of the time, and moves on. Four games isn't enough to judge a ship in anywhere near it's entirety. I didn't insult her, I in fact stepped in trying to rationalize Saru's arguments, and to try to soften them. But then, this debate took a life of it's own. I ended up arguing against a CC, not a scenario one wants to be in. If you feel like I insulted her, then PM me the offending comment, and I'll try to see your argument for what it's worth. To conclude, I didn't want to bear bait, or argue with a CC. It just kinda happened as I kept my flapping hole that I call a mouth open. But I stand by the spirit, if not the letter of my arguments. I think LWM needs to take a step back, look at the high tier gameplay once again, and maybe see how people play there. Sorry for any toes I stepped on along the way. I thank you, because I think you said some important things, and it's important for other people to criticize me as well. I need to learn to take criticism, if I want to give it. I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that I am "ego-centric." This isn't passive aggressive or anything, just curious on what of my style comes off as rude or condescending. LWM's actual experience in the JB is rather lacking. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: four games is not enough to know how a ship performs. I think that I have a right to defend myself, especially when attacked in such a personal manner. I think she doesn't put in enough time on the SHIP, not the review as a whole. There is an important and tangible difference here. She puts in a lot of time into the data, but the actual experience isn't there. I can be a medical student, know every procedure in the book, everything there is to know about my field on study, but until I actually perform hundreds of surgery, I am not considered an "expert." My username is an ironic reference to "them weeaboos", which is compounded by the fact that I, too, enjoy anime. I suppose I will then.
  5. Keiki_Haniyasushin

    Premium Ship Review #111: Jean Bart

    The root of the issue isn't that she took four games; the issue is that she ended up having conclusions contrary to general opinion in multiple examples. USN CA split is just one example, and in the other insances she had more games, but all of these conclusions ended up being misleading, if not outright wrong.
  6. Keiki_Haniyasushin

    Premium Ship Review #111: Jean Bart

    I disagree heavily with a player calling a ship overpowered after FOUR games. Four games tells you nothing about a ship. There are waaaay more scenarios in game that you are likely to meet on a regular basis than four games can provide.
  7. Keiki_Haniyasushin

    Premium Ship Review #111: Jean Bart

    I used multiple examples to the contrary. DoY, Kidd, and Aigle are all full, standalone reviews of a single ship. I never said I expected a full review of a full line of ships, nor a full college thesis for the Jean Bart. I just want to see a CC spend more than four games on a ship before calling it overpowered.
  8. Keiki_Haniyasushin

    Premium Ship Review #111: Jean Bart

    I preface this by saying that I have tried to give my utmost respect to your data collection, and I have tried to remain reasonable by saying that 1) we have come to different and valid conclusions, and 2) this is just a symptom of a larger issue at play. In addition, I still agree with most of your previous reviews, just not some of the later ones. Also, I realize that I was a bit harsh on some of my earlier points. I apologize for the wording and tone that could be misconstrued as "malicious". However, my response below can be seen as confrontational and angry. Forgive me in advance if I seem mean-spirited, as this is not my intent. I simply wish to speak my mind about the topic. With that, let’s go into this. 1. I concede 2. Alright, low tiers have more overmatch. That still doesn’t apply 3. Ok, sure 4. Yes, let’s actually dig into this. a) You said it yourself that the majority of these matches were in CBT in this thread here: “I have over 100 games sunk into Shimakaze -- many of them from Winter 2015…” b) It’s not a narrative, I tried to use the data I had available to me (your account) and came to the conclusion that the majority of your matches are in mid tiers. Because your games are mostly mid tier, I came to the conclusion that you have much less experience in high tiers compared to low tiers, with a large majority coming from the Conqueror, which is not a typical battleship. Thus, I came to the conclusion that you have little experience in high tiers, and while it may be wrong, I defend myself by stating I had little to no data otherwise aside from anecdotes. I cannot simply take anecdotes at face value, especially from a CC who is known for her meticulous data collection. c) I understand your goal with these kinds of reviews; it is to show what your ideas are about a ship. I think that’s a very admirable goal, but if enough people believe that the information coming out is either misleading or wrong, I think it is the job of the editor to review this information and start a discussion while thinking from the other side. I personally find that thinking from the other side is a good way to bridge the gap between two groups to find common ground and think about why these people think a certain way. Partisanship never did anyone good, and you are a mature person who is capable of viewing both sides of the debate subjectively, as I have tried to do. If you don’t believe me, I conceded half of my points because I believed that you were right and I was in the wrong. It is unbecoming of a CC to simply argue with their fanbase, because as much as I may disagree with you, I still respect your reviews and am willing to read them for their informational content. In addition, not taking other’s opinions into account will lead to trouble, as a lot of past examples have shown. It can only benefit both of us to attempt to find common ground where we can agree together. d) I think that if you want to be viewed as an accurate CC, you need to be willing to put more work into analysis and less into funny pictures. At the end of the day, a decision won't be made based on how much of a meme the ending picture is. A person will buy or not buy a ship based on an entire review, and quite often the concluding statements are enough to sway someone one way or another. The issue is that your concluding statements focus too much on either one side or another of a debate without accounting for the dissenting vote. e) I don’t ask you to put out these reviews in a ridiculous manner. I don’t ask you to be God himself and bend space-time to get a holy grail of a review. And, most importantly, I don’t ask you to eat worms. But what I do ask is that 1) you bring civility into this debate by not feeling like everything is a personal attack and 2) you spend more time on these ship reviews. I have my own school (in which I’m taking 2 AP courses), homework, and sleep schedule to get out, and yet I’m still able to also work on outside activities such as debate (which takes up around 14 hours each week), robotics (another 2 hours), ACT prep (4 hours/week) Rainbow Six Siege (7 hours/week), and this game (another 5 hours). All in all, I think it’s safe to say that we have pretty equally packed schedules, and my schedule is much more consistently packed, rather than yours, which is reliant on WG premium releases, of which are not very regular. I very much understand what you are going through, and I simply ask that you take another 1-2 hours just playing another four or so more games. Although there is no bright-line here, I think it’s safe to say that 6-10 games are enough to get an idea of what a ship is like. Four games are simply too small a sample size. I know lots of well-liked Youtubers would spend way more time than 27.4 hours and between jobs, family, and sleep, they would only put out videos once a month, if even. I can guarantee that people will not hate you for spending a bit more time on these reviews to get a larger and more well-rounded picture. You are a well-respected player who people listen to. I think putting in a bit more work to make sure you’re painting an accurate picture is reasonable, especially if some players feel that your accuracy has been a little off the mark. 5. To quote yourself, “[We’re] all very invested in this game and we want to see it improve. The unfortunate side of things is that there's no common consensus on what that direction towards improvement should be.” I was simply putting my 2 cents on the topic, and now here we are. I ask you to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that as I’ve iterated over and over, I’m not out to get you, despite your perceptions. I simply wanted to point out areas I disagreed with and state why I disagreed with them, and I want to criticize you for the better, to make sure that these egregious mistakes don’t come back to haunt you. Just like you, I want to see this game grow and mature towards a full and capable game. With that, please spend some time outside, doing something that doesn’t involve arguing with a faceless person behind a screen, and come back willing to take criticism. I’ve tried to be so polite, and never have I made an attack on your personality or identity. Please do the same.
  9. Keiki_Haniyasushin

    Premium Ship Review #111: Jean Bart

    First, on Hanger_18 I would like to preface this by saying that in no way do I believe you are a terrible or unintelligent person. I think that you have arrived at your own conclusions, which happen to be different from mine. Onto substance. 1. I had a quick glance and did not see that the Zao has a 25 mm bow. Forgive me for that. As for the Moskva and Stalingrad, both have very small 25 mm belts that are hard to hit at the extreme ranges they fight at, like I mentioned above. 2. I think that the ship is very much a situational ship that, yes, has the potential to “create” that situation, but that situation and the creation of it are both fraught with danger. In order to, say, hit an angling Yamato in the cheek, you need to get close, which exposes you to HE spam and fires, neither of which you deal well with. It’s tough to get that close, and the HE spam meta simply exacerbates your already poor protection. I understand that you can race into a situation which gives you disgusting broadsides, but saying that those situations will happen a lot is just false. We have no data to back up this point anyways, so may as well move on and call it moot. 3. Alaska is strong. Very strong. You have the ability to simply delete any cruiser in game, because your dispersion model is actually good and you don’t overpen a lot, and you are immune to getting deleted yourself. However, this argument is irrelevant, as the Alaska is still going through balancing. 4. ZR is a very good clan, and their opinion does matter. People say that unicums should balance the game, and when we’re talking ZR, we’re talking the best of the best. However, again, this argument is neither here nor there, and the warrant, which is that the North Carolina is strong despite its deceptively low winrate, still flows. 5. Testers can be wrong. Above you stated that the Alaska is weak, despite what Flamu has said, thus you are disagreeing with a CC and believing a conclusion contrary to what a CC says. If this isn’t proof that the general playerbase can disagree with testers on their opinion of a ship, then I don’t know what is. Also, the Aigle proves that CCs have been wrong before. Everyone thought it would be a terrible ship, and yet it enjoys a healthy 52% winrate. Obviously, the CCs were wrong on this one. While I may disagree with your conclusions, I think that the amount of data gathering you put into your reviews is phenomenal. The work you do in the community is valuable and the data has given everyone an equal opportunity to review these statistics. With that said, I disagree with some of your points. 1. Yes, scenarios are varying shades. I do agree in this. However, this is why I think the Jean Bart is such a polarizing ship; the ship is very strong in a few select situations but just average in the rest. This is an issue WG has had as of recent, with their ships relying on gimmicks that are very useful in certain situations but utterly useless in others. In fact, an entire class that is being reworked relies on this principle heavily; either you get nuked by AP bombs/crossdropped or you shoot down all of the planes. While I concede that arguing against someone doesn’t mean you’re the polar opposite, the gimmick is useless in a vast majority of situations. For example, a broadsiding cruiser will generally turn out once they get hit by one salvo, meaning most of your shells will just bounce or miss. Ultimately, the issue is that the ship is just a polarizing ship, with its strengths heavily relying on certain situations that may or may not happen. It is not enough of a generalist to work well in all scenarios. 2. Overmatch isn’t unique to high tier, but the fact is that overmatch is most present at tier 7 and tier 10. Using my estimates, I assume all high tier players are at least decent at this game, and while this may not be true in all cases, it’s better to overestimate rather than underestimate your opponent. High tier ships don’t necessarily live and die based on overmatch, but there is a reason why the Yamato can out trade a Republique in almost all scenarios. Although you have an appreciable amount of experience in overmatch (your 500+ matches in the Warspite are indicative of that), the fact is that overmatch is actually more important than you think, as evidenced by Yamato’s pickrate in ranked. a. While it is useful to find out the potential DPM of a ship, that doesn’t tell us the whole story. Of course, the Jean Bart has strong DPM, but with the dubiously small guns, it is very much at the mercy of the stupidity of the opponent, rather than any inherent power in the shells themselves. Yes, you can flank, but flanking opens you up to damage, and pushing in general is very risky. 3. Alsace argument is brought up as a parallel to the Jean Bart, to show how a 380 mm BB can perform well but will most likely perform worse than a tier 9.5. 4. This is a big issue, and I think it’s a microissue that can be contextualized within the larger issue. The microissue here is that I don’t know what other accounts you have/had, and I don’t know how you performed or when you last played those ships. Take the Shimakaze, for example. You say you played it heavily in CBT, but the game has changed a lot since CBT has come out. What you learned at the time is probably different from reality. It’s this lack of data and transparency that kills discussion and alternative conclusions from being drawn, with drastic results, with the Aigle or Alaska coming to mind. I don’t know what ships you’ve played, and I don’t know what the winrate, damage average, and any other player specific statistics the Jean Bart has. Therefore, I am unequipped to make my own judgement, which is unfortunate, considering I want a second opinion on a ship before it’s released. If everyone is praising one ship for its strength, I don’t know or understand the weaknesses of the ship. While sometimes a ship is just so obscenely strong that the weaknesses don’t matter (Belfast, the entirety of CV), sometimes these weaknesses are enough to make or break a ship. Similarly, if a reviewer only criticizes the ship for its weaknesses, I would rather see a second opinion of the ship before buying it. Aigle comes to mind again, where many of the CCs just played the ship incorrectly, trying to cap contest rather than playing it like a tier 6 Khabarovsk. a. I appreciate you taking the time to admit that you aren’t perfect, and that I can accept. None of us are, I’ve made a lot of bad judgement calls on other ships that were coming out that proved to be incorrect. Still, if you are going to review a ship, I encourage you to try the ships more than, say, four times. Four games can’t tell you everything about a ship, and I think that we would all be happier if you slowed down and focused on quality over quantity. I think it would benefit you too, as the current rate in which you are pumping out these reviews is inhuman and prone to causing mistakes, as shown in my previous examples. Very few people would be angry if you focused on playing the ships more, even if that means it would delay the release of the review. However, claiming that other players are wrong can lead to a perception that you are self-righteous, which is contrary to what you’ve said both here and other places. 5. I think this issue is symptomatic of the larger problem at play. From WG hiding many base stats that should be displayed in client (such as penetration and dispersion model), to their refusal to show player stats for ships in testing, to the debacle of Jean Bart’s unfinalization and the retroactive NDA put on this, I don’t think the problem with this debate lies with you or me. The party at fault here is WG, for refusing to put this kind of information that should be freely accessed behind a wall of secrecy. While test ships change and by extension their power level, WG could do us all a favor by either a) allowing us players to see the WR of each version of the ship (IE Jean Bart of 0.7.9 would be Jean Bart (0.7.9), and it would have different stats from Jean Bart (0.7.11) by distinction from WG) or b) allowing us players to test the ship on our own. While the CC program is made of all kinds of players, it is a small fraction of the playerbase, and the large majority do not know how the ship plays. A good alternative to this could be allowing regular players to try test ships on PTS. This is not unheard of, with the Chung Mu receiving something like this before the Pan-Asia release. Still, regardless of what action you think WG should take, ultimately WG caused a dearth of information that led to wildly different conclusions between CCs and regular players. WG needs to create a more open system for normal players to understand what is going on.
  10. Keiki_Haniyasushin

    Premium Ship Review #111: Jean Bart

    I would like to preface this by saying I respect the data you gather, the effort you put into these reviews, and in no way is this a personal attack. First, on this specific scenario. I have two major issues with your idea of the Jean Bart. The first issue is the "ideal scenario" argument, which I will cover below. The "ideal scenario" argument is being thrown around quite a bit, as this argument has showed us. Both sides are heavily employing the straw man fallacy, and although both may be right to a certain point, I think that one side brings up a significantly more true straw man than the other. Yes, it is true that on some occasions, teams will ignore your presence and hand you an open field of broadsiding cruisers. This does not happen often enough to consider it a catch-all argument. Instead, we must look at the "realistic scenario." I have a Yamato and Des Moines, and I can tell you from personal experience, both are very adept at abusing overmatch in completely opposite ways. The Yamato can and will simply laugh at an angling crusier or MN BB before slapping it for 12-15k per salvo. There really isn't much they can do against me, as I have strong enough bow armour and firepower to simply bow on and use my forward two guns, versus they must try to maneuver around me, which exposes their broadside, in order to get shots in on areas they can even think of penetrating. I can tell you that this happens more often than not, with Republiques being simply unable to do anything against the overmatch monster that is the Yamasushi. I'll also preempt the "blushing cheek" argument, which states that the Yamato can be penned through the side while angling. I'll say it here, and I'll say it once: Yuro is overhyping the situation. Cheek pens exist but effective angling and situation awareness can save the day. A Yamato must give ~25-50 deg of broadside to get effective cheek penetrated by a similar battleship. Any less of an angle will result in a bounce or non penetration. Although that seems like a very small margin for error, remember that the Yamato can reliably farm the Jean Bart while the Jean Bart must flank in order to deal significant damage. HE exists, but as much as you worship your Conqueror, Witherers do not win games, nor do they net kills. In the end, damage trading is particularly ineffective in the Yamato. This scenario may be different from other tier X battleships, and I will ask this thread's USN BB main, @saru_richard, to elaborate more on that, as he has more experience in smaller gunned ships. Second, on the Des Moines. It has a very questionable 27 mm bow that will stop any shells from 381 mm and below from doing any significant damage. This ship is not alone in that regard, with all of the tier 10 CAs (with the exception of the Moskva, but I will get to that in a moment, and the HIV, which is so rare on NA that it's not even worth mentioning) having 27 mm plating. This means going bow on and reversing will give you near immunity to any kind of shells thrown at you. And the Des Moines is a great ship to abuse this, because you have the DPM and fires/minute to flamethrower a 32 mm battleship. Also, Des Moines is a very popular ship right now, and for good reason; she's strong because of good guns, armour, speed, and an array of tools at her disposal. A special note on the Mosvka, which I own. It has great armour all around, aside from the 25 mm plating that is quite honestly, ridiculously small. This is further exacerbated by the extreme ranges the Moskva fights at. Yes, the Worcester and the Minotaur lack that same strong plating, I was mistake and I retract that claim. But the Worcester can hide behind an island and spam you down, plus it still has a 30 mm weather deck, and the citadel is hard to it. In the end, Worcester can deal significant damage to you and trade effectively. Minotaur is a whole nother story, with tons of survival tools at its disposal to fight a big and unmaneuverable battleship. The second issue specific to the review is that the Jean Bart is ever-so-focused on its gimmick. If you rip the gimmick away, you are an uptiered Richelieu with boosted AA (which, quite frankly, will not stop a full strike package from an angery Hakuryu). Without your gimmick, you are an arguably good tier 8 slotted in a tier 9 slot, with devastating results to your own team. We can look at other examples of "uptiered but still crap" boats, with the tier 8 New Orleans coming to mind. She wasn't a terrible boat, she just wasn't very good at anything, other than radar. And that was the crux of the issue, that the tier 8 New Orleans was a crapship without the radar. The same effect is happening here, with the Richelieu vs Jean Bart coming to mind. Take that gimmick away, and you are nothing. And this reliance on a precarious gimmick is compounded by the fact that most tier 10 battleships that are going broadside are turning, meaning it is unlikely you will get more than one salvo off at an enemy. You can't even get the full mileage out of the ship. Theoretical DPM is just that, theoretical. The Minotaur has incredible DPM and offensive power, but if the enemy decides to go bow on, you're crapout of luck. in the same way, the Jean Bart suffers from the same issue. You may have ayy lmbo levels of DPM, but that gets stripped away when someone taps the A or D key. And that's only when including your gimmick, which won't always be up. The key to a good ship is flexibility. The Jean Bart has none of that, instead opting to focus all of its potential on one gimmick. This leads me to my next section. Second, on the alternatives debate. I'm going to take a quote that you said earlier today. And that is your own words. Why would I pick an Alsace-like ship that trades survivability for a situational increase in firepower when I can pick a tier 10 at tier 9? Yes, Jean Bart may be good, if you can successfully refute my above claims. But even if it is, Musashi blows it out of the water, both literally in an engagement and figuratively in statistics. However, even if you believe that the Alsace is better than the entire competition, remember that statistics are not everything by far. Newer ships tend to have higher stats than older ones, simply because older ones have been out longer and therefore have had more potatoes go through them. If we sort by winrate of tier 8 ships, we can see that the North Carolina is near the bottom by winrate, but it is universally considered to be one of, if not the strongest tier 8 battleship. We can see from the Tenth Ranked Season that it is the most picked battleship in the tier 8 bracket, and the top player has an over 98% winrate in it, compared to the paltry 88% the Richelieu's top player has. If you want more proof, I'll get someone from [ZR] to say it directly. Another great example is the Baltimore, which you called "meh" in your last review of it. It has a rather average winrate, yet when we click on the Tenth Ranked Season statistics, it has the highest winrate out of all of the tech tree tier 8 cruisers. Yet another example of stats simply lying or not telling the whole truth. And if we look at winrates of the tier 9 premiums, the Kronshtadt leads by far. Now, I don't have the server statistics of the Jean Bart on hand, but it would be nice of you to provide some stats if you do have them. As is, players are going into this blind, with only your word to take for it. So as such, we must reach the conclusion of "why buy a possibly unreliable and bad ship when I can buy a Kronshtadt and wreck the competition?" Finally, the conclusions section. This part may get touchy, so keep in mind that this is not an attack on you as a person or your character, but rather the way you review these ships. First, let's cover your reviews. The data put into it is very thorough, I will give you that. It is very well-tested, with information given about pretty much anything you could know about a ship. But I heavily disagree with your conclusions as of late. Let's talk conclusions. You called the KGV a "meh bote," when winrates just say otherwise. And while stats may not be everything in all cases, there are no counter-stats that contradict this one. In addition, the Baltimore was "adequte but nothing special," and the Buffalo was "a great ship." Statistics from WoWs Numbers disprove all of your statements. I already covered the Balti above, but the Buffalo is struggling to reach a decent 50% winrate. Meanwhile, the Duke of York is a below average ship that somehow performs better than half the pack. If you want to debate this further, I have a unicum friend in EU who would gladly do so. And furthermore, you were on the fence about the Kidd, despite it being in the top 3 highest winrate ships and it enjoying a winrate above 50% in ranked. Finally, the Alaska is "well balanced" from your preliminary conclusions, yet Flamu calls it overpowered (I am well aware that this is V2, but the only major change was the turret firing angles). Obviously, there was a major disconnect between your review and the actual results. Now let's talk about why this keeps happening. I think I speak for a lot of players when I say that your conclusions on test ships can come out as misleading or flat-out wrong. But why does this happen? Why do you keep putting out different conclusions from everyone around you? Well, I think a big part of this is the lack of perspective you have while reviewing these ships. If we take a look at your account, you have an impressive 63% winrate that I could never achieve. But keep scrolling, and eventually the ugly truth will come out. Your top 5 ships in terms of battles played are all below tier 8, which means that they will most likely not meet a Jean Bart (as tier 7 matchmaking is godlike). You lack perspective outside of other test ships to judge the Jean Bart. And, your only tier 10 with significant amounts of games on it is the Conqueror, and that is a poor example of a battleship. The Jean Bart is nothing like a Conqueror. I think that you are losing perspective on what you see as good vs bad because you have not played many tier 10 ships recently. This is perfectly crystallized in this thread, where you claim the Shimakaze is fine, despite you having barely played it on your own account, and most of your games apparently coming from CBT. Instead of accepting that others can be right, you doubled down on your accusations until a very questionable user flat-out accused you of being out of touch with the meta. Although I won't go as far, I think he had the right idea when he said that you don't understand the average high tier game. Most, if not all, of the other CCs have learned how to put ships and conclusions into perspective of those ships around them. Maybe you need to get back into the swing of high tier again in order to also understand where these ships function. I'm always open for division if you need a buddy to join you. That's it.
  11. Keiki_Haniyasushin

    Premium Ship Review #111: Jean Bart

    The 380s just suck. That's the truth. You getting a lucky penetration does not validate your argument. Additionally, I can't even see what kind of angle the Misso was giving you, if you upskirted it, etc. Additionally, the main cruisers that the Jean Bart will have trouble with are also super popular. These are the USN CAs/CLs. The said ships also have good damage vs 32mm BBs if used by a non-braindead player. The Des Moines is the MOST popular TX cruiser in game right now. Worcesters are very common as well. These ships are very effective at bowtanking 380s and dealing heavy damage at the same time (Wooster less so, but a good player can wiggle to achieve a similar effect). I think you underestimate the power of overmatch, and overestimate the power of a lucky MN salvo into some poor Misso's superstructure.
  12. Keiki_Haniyasushin

    Hiryu (Strike) vs Saipan?

    I just don't understand how to beat a Saipan with my Hiryu. It seems impossible to win the game, since all he does is use his superior fighter HP to tank my strafes and then delete my fighters. I really want to switch to AS Hiryu for this, but I enjoy strike Hiryu. What do I do?
×