Jump to content

inktomi19d

Members
  • Content Сount

    1,684
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    7842

Community Reputation

342 Excellent

About inktomi19d

  • Rank
    Lieutenant
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

775 profile views
  1. inktomi19d

    @WG: Fair Fights Are More Fun

    I’m not a beta tester and I’ve been away from the game for a year, but the three tier MM is still mostly fine. There are a few specific ships that don’t uptier well, but generally there isn’t that big a difference. A NC’s 16” guns still hurt tier 10 ships — heck, an Arizona would sink tier 10 BBs if you aim at the upper belt. After tier 6, most ship lines are fairly consistent. Thats not saying that higher tier isn’t better, but how you play matters a lot more than tier. Whether a Pensacola goes broadside to a Yamato, or a Des Moines goes broadside to a Nagato, the result is going to be the same. The Nagato might even be more effective at fighting tier 10 cruisers, since it turns so much faster, rotates it’s turrets faster, and reloads faster — The lower tier ship has some big advantages which could be used to compensate for its disadvantages. It’s been a while since I played a lot, but IIRC you get more rewards for punching up than punching down. Ther are a few ships which don’t uptier well, but those are really specific problems
  2. I could see keeping ranges nerfed a bit based on tier, but mostly at the low end, but I wasn’t talking about balance. While no gun in the game has its actual historical range, they tend to match up as compared to one another. USN secondaries got nerfed hard in that way too though. In the original release of the game I kinda understand the IJN having "good" secondaries and USN having "bad" ones for "flavor" (WG was basically just amplifying the effect of the USN choosing 5” secondaries instead of 6”), but the game has come a long way since then. De-nerfing USN secondaries wouldn’t suddenly make them good, or make them a recommendable focus (though USN cruisers do actually have much more significant secondaries than other cruisers). i really don’t understand why they need to be nerfed. The USN 5”/54 (on the Montana) should have a range of 7.5, since it’s range would virtually match the range of the Bismarck’s secondaries. That would be up from 6.0. The 5”/51 (on tier 4-7 BBs) should be about 7km since it was just a bit shorter range than the 5”/54 or the Bismarck’s secondaries. It has a relatively low ROF, and is a smaller gun thannused on similar ships at the time, so there should be no harm in letting it have the one thing it was good at. The 5”/38 should be 6km as compared to other ships. The 5”/25 should be 4.5 km. Several USN ships have 3”/50 DP guns, which are included as secondaries on some ships, but only as AA on most. Clemson, Omaha, Worcester and Des Moines all had 3” secondaries which only function at AA in game. On the Clemson and Omaha, the gun is relatively slow, but they are in tiers where 76mm HE can still damage lots of things. On the tier 10s, 76mm HE would have a harder time damaging ships of the tier, but they have automatic fire versions of the gun, so they would be likely to find weak spots and set fires just with heir volume of fire. 76mm is big enough to count as secondaries, but when the USN line was released WG couldn't put different types of secondaries on the same ship. Any ship that has two types of secondaries should get them in game. Several ships have a mix of 5”/38s and 3”/50s, or 5”/51s and 5”/25s.
  3. This has come up several times over the years, partly because USN secondaries are unnecessarily nerfed. As a rule, every gun in the game gets its best-case ROF, except for USN secondary guns, and USN secondaries get slightly shorter range than other secondaries which had comparable range in real life. When the Cleveland was at tier 8 the nerfs kinda made sense, because that ship would have secondaries comparable to a BB at that tierand would have been flat overpowered. Now that the line has been straighted out. The nerfed secondaries don’t make neatly as much sense. To be de-nerfed, the 5”/38 needs buffed ROF, and about 1km added to its base range. All USN secondaries should pick up 1km range, but the 5”/38 also needs its ROF de-nerfed. Its not so much a buff, as getting rid of an unnecessary nerf. Even without the nerfs, it’s not like any USN cruiser has secondaries to rival a BB, they are just better secondaries than other cruisers get. The more powerful secondary batteries don’t show up until about tier 8, and by that tier 5” guns start to have trouble penetrating things, so they mostly just start a few extra fires.
  4. Of course, I have to ask - Inktomi San Mateo? I was Europe...

  5. inktomi19d

    Premium Ship Review - USS Indianapolis

    Every cruiser you mentioned except for the Pensacola has something else to keep it alive other than wiggling. Most of them have better armor than the USN treaty cruisers as well. The Pensacola gets by on its rudder, and you can’t make a ship which such a similar armor scheme and gun work with a poorer rudder. The Pensacola can dance at max range against most BBs she sees, and easily wiggles between torps, but the Indy is only really good at ambushing other cruisers. I wouldn’t mind seeing her guns buffed a bit, but her guns are already pretty good. What’s really hurting the Indy is that she shares tier 7 with the Pensacola, which is overall a better ship for the radar. WG doesn’t want to just give the Indy the Pensacola's rudder and concealment because they don’t want the Indy to be strictly better. The NO moving to 7 and Pensacola moving to 6 should give a bit of room to improve the Indy without making it just the tier 7 tech tree + radar.
  6. inktomi19d

    Premium Ship Review - USS Indianapolis

    I see rudder shift and concealment as survivability. She just can’t avoid getting hit
  7. inktomi19d

    Premium Ship Review - USS Indianapolis

    This might help her a bit. I want to like the Indy, but her rudder and concealment are still not good enough for a cruiser with no torpedoes that needs to work against DDs.
×