Jump to content

Nemo_Veritas

Members
  • Content Сount

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2928

Community Reputation

13 Neutral

About Nemo_Veritas

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I don't work for WG, but I would assume that their primary reason for keeping a wide MM spread is a lack of players. Otherwise, they would implement it to satisfy the community. There may be some sadistic reason behind it to make you spend more money by grinding up the tiers faster, but it's most likely just a lack of players. NA only reaches like 12k players during the day, which may not be enough for such a small matchmaking spread. You would basically be doubling the amount of games compared to the current ratio.
  2. I think the only issue with these two ideas is a lack of players. Does WoWs have enough players to accomplish a compartmentalized matchmaking system like you propose? What about the super unicums who represent roughly 1% of the community, how will they ever have enough players for a game? Decreasing the MM spread will inevitably increase the number of games overall, as will skill based MM. As for your other ideas, they all seem reasonable.
  3. Nemo_Veritas

    Suggestions for balancing Smolensk

    Most of my knowledge of the Smolensk comes from numerous replays and commentaries from skilled players that I've watched. This is probably why I didn't consider any nerfs or updates that occurred after these videos were uploaded.
  4. Nemo_Veritas

    Suggestions for balancing Smolensk

    I understand your method of reasoning, but you're forgetting a few important aspects. Firstly, the Stalingrad requires around 30,000 steel to purchase. To reach this amount of steel you definitely need to participate in ranked or clan battles, so the owner of Stalingrad is likely to be a skilled player which will distort the stats. Additionally, the Goliath is a newer ship, so it has a lower amount of battles. Looking at the average damage and the average experience of the Smolensk, it clearly has an advantage over its peers. The win rate may be lower, but other stats like the average damage, experience, and planes destroyed is higher than other cruisers that have a similar WR.
  5. Nemo_Veritas

    Suggestions for balancing Smolensk

    Look guys, I may have never played the Smolensk, but I've seen plenty of footage of games in the Smolensk and commentaries on its playstyle. Likewise, I've seen the stats the ship has and what it's like to be on the receiving end of a Smolensk. Yes, most of my games are BB games and I have been spammed by a Smolensk before, but that was absolutely not at the forefront of my thoughts when writing this article. I get that my initial suggestions were stupid, but I had no idea that the ship was nerfed as much as it was. If you believe that my initial suggestions were foolish, then please offer your own instead of simply stat shaming me
  6. Nemo_Veritas

    Suggestions for balancing Smolensk

    The Smolensk right now is in a pretty enviable position. The range, reload time, and shell velocity makes it very powerful in combination with a smoke screen. The amount of guns and the fire chance gives it insane HE DPM. I'm not sure what you mean exactly.
  7. Smolensk is quite overpowered compared to other tier 10 cruisers. The ridiculous amount of guns and their small reload makes Smolensk the envy of tier 10 HE DPM kings. The smoke screen consumable and hydro makes for a dangerous combination, and including the troll armor scheme that typically makes large caliber BB shells overpen. So, let's look at some potential ways to balance the Smolensk. These options are obviously open for discussion. NERF - Increase the main battery reload from 4.5s to 8s. This will reduce the shots/min to 7.5, and the HE DPM will be reduced to 216,000. NERF - Completely remove the smoke screen consumable. It gives the Smolensk too much positional freedom and heavily reduces the punishment to positional mistakes. NERF - Reduce the main battery firing range from 13.8km to ~11km. This will require most captains to take Advanced Firing Training, therefore reducing the flexibility that captain skills can provide on other skills. NERF - Reduce the chance of fire from 8% to 4%. The current chance is way too high for a 130mm gun, and this chance can be further increased using Demolition Expert and various signal flags to a ridiculous level. NERF - Reduce the range of the Smolensk's torpedoes from 8km to somewhere between 6-7km. This will make the torpedoes equivalent to other light cruisers. NERF - This is a bit of a stretch, but reconsider the Smolensk's armor scheme. Perhaps, raise the citadel's height further above the waterline or increase its size. Alternatively, increase the thickness of the belt armor to lower the frequency of overpens. Now, it may seem ridiculous to have a list of buffs for the Smolensk, but keep in mind the reduction in the effectiveness of the Smolensk if such nerfs are applied. This warrants a few buffs. BUFF - Decrease the detectability range from 12.78 km to ~9km. This is to compensate for the decreased main battery and torpedo range, the reduced HE DPM, and the removal of the smoke screen consumable. BUFF - Decrease the rudder shift time from 8.2 seconds to ~6-7 seconds. This is to compensate for the decreased range and the inevitable close range engagements that will occur. Furthermore, it allows Smolensk players to effectively kite away. BUFF - Increase the speed of the torpedoes from 60 knots to 65 knots. This is to compensate for the decreased torpedo range. To further compensate for these nerfs, a few features need to be kept. Particularly, the comprehensive and effective AA suite as well as the repair party consumable. This will allow the Smolensk to keep its utility as a light cruiser, allowing it to compensate for its low HP pool. The AA suite will make the Smolensk a formidable AA escort for allied battleships and destroyers, thus encouraging captains to do so. Lastly, the impressive shell velocity of the Smolensk should remain to compensate for the aforementioned nerfs. So, what do you guys think? Personally, I believe that such changes will dramatically change the Smolensk's play style to make it more of a team-oriented light cruiser. It's low range will force Smolensk captains to position themselves intelligently, while supporting allied destroyers with its hydroacoustic search consumable and impressive amount of guns. Of course, the changes that I have proposed can easily be modified. I am not a game designer, so perhaps you have a different opinion on this matter. Either way, I would love to hear your suggestions.
  8. Nemo_Veritas

    Is the Dunkerque worth the price?

    The Dunkerque deviates in its play style compared to other tier 6 battleships. Notably, its speed and thin armor means that you can't tank like a tier 6 battleship normally would, but you are still able to quickly reposition yourself and kite away effectively. Realistically, the Dunkerque plays more like a "battlecruiser" than a battleship, as it was historically designed to hunt German heavy cruisers of the Deutschland-class. Because of these factors, the Dunkerque has a very high skill floor, so I would definitely not recommend you purchase the Dunkerque with your inexperience as a new player. The 26mm bow and stern plating makes it vulnerable to 15-inch caliber guns or above, meaning that some tier 6 battleships and nearly all tier 7 to tier 8 battleships will ignore your armor and pen or citadel you from the front. It definitely takes a lot of skill to play, and the low caliber forward-facing guns combined with great speed means that you need to take advantage of crossfire positions, particularly by flanking. Islands will also be paramount to your success by shielding your broadside from enemy battleships and cruisers. If you feel that you're ready for that unique play style, go ahead and buy it. Otherwise, I recommend that you continue to gather experience with game mechanics and positional skills prior to purchasing it. A more friendly tier 6 premium like the Arizona or the Warspite would probably suite you better.
  9. Well the Bismarck is quite similar. It's large, possesses inaccurate guns, and isn't very maneuverable.
  10. I'm currently grinding the Bismarck, so the F. der Große at tier 9 is inevitably next. I'm quite enjoying a 60+% WR in it so far, but apparently the Bismarck's successor is quite exasperating. I noticed it gets a seemingly useless gun upgrade, but I'm assuming its main weakness lies in the fact that its basically a larger Bismarck that's been moved up a tier. I just hope it's not as bad as people say it is lol
  11. Well my main concern with this is whether or not IFHE is worth the 4 skill points. I could use those points for basics of survivability and high alert or fire prevention to mitigate damage and decrease the damage control reload time. Also, many CCs and unicum players claim that IFHE is a dead build now because of the changes.
  12. Here's my current Massachusetts build if you guys want to take a look. Notice how I traded BFT for superintendent to get an extra heal. Not sure if that was the best decision, but I'm now torn between a tanky build and a concealment build
  13. I was wondering which captain skill would be better. Obviously fire prevention would be useful to reduce the damage from HE spam, but the Massachusetts has an amazing heal so it sort of counters it. Concealment expert would also strengthen the stealthy characteristic of high tier American BBs. I need some clarification on this
  14. When you say close range, I mean 10-8km. Under that is close, like you say, and is really where the Yamato underperforms. But most players don't brawl in a Yamato
  15. Fighting a Yamato at close range unless its like under 5km is suicide. They can overmatch you and do so much damage that it's practically signing your death warrant
×