• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

572 Excellent

About mofton

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile mofton

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
  • Portal profile mofton

Recent Profile Visitors

425 profile views
  1. If that was the plan, then giving the smoke 30s emission time and >2 min duration was a pretty dumb move. The RN smoke is bad for evading with but you don't need a 40 mile long 10% game duration screen to go evasive... I think your theory of reducing frustration to increase BB players as giving a better return on investment than on CA/DD (and even at the expense of them is an interesting one). Increase 2/3 the playerbase by 10% even if the last 1/3 diminishes the same? More likely that any quit factor would be different to an improved retention factor, but both unknown. It's interesting, especially as some people are not actually 1-class mains. I try and keep close to 30/30/30 splits myself. Am I supposed to just play BB more, or quit or what? I'm always confused... That said, they've released 6 cruiser lines and 3 battleship lines so far, and have apparently had to be prodded into putting RN BB out this year, something they appear in no hurry to complete. Are BB really the most popular class in the first place, and are BB premiums both more numerous and (more importantly) more profitable? Of the top 10 most played ships, 5 are BB. However cruisers do seem to be diluted and I'm not inclined to total things up. I would guess at there being 4.5 BB/game on average at the tiers I play, but there certainly aren't half. While it's true they do cost more than other premiums, the release of the Hood build video showed that BB's can be a huge investment. They're charging about the same as Hood for the HSF Harekaze, a copy/paste Kagero with some gun options bolted on i.e. it's a far lower investment and so far it's hugely more popular (about twice the games of Hood in the last week, anecdotally I rarely see Hood). Perhaps partially because Dunkerque was put on a big sale prior to release she's still only slightly more expensive than Gallant: a smaller, less complex, less modelling required ship. At T5, Texas is the most popular premium. At T6 AGS/HSF AGS together are the most popular premium ahead of Dunkerque (in the throes of a mission too). At T7 Scharnhorst is the most played premium, but only slightly ahead of Atlanta (Hood sucks as noted). At T8 Atago and Kutuzov beat Alabama for games played, a proxy for purchases. So not only may battleships be less financially crucial as lines, but potentially as premiums too. It would be nice to do away with some of the frustrating elements of WOWS, a feeling of helplessness whether under CV attack, torpedoed from invisibility, gunned from invisibility (partially gone with OWSF) or gunned from smoke isn't a great thing to have in a game. I would like to think though that we can reduce these frustrations, retain balance and not nerf entire classes rather harshly, but WG doesn't seem to be thinking of trying that.
  2. I disagree, this is a destroyer nerf. The destroyer will be nerfed directly (by lessening smoke screen time by it's own shooting) though I consider that minor, but more importantly as a utility/support class, why for instance take a Gearing? You may not get hit directly if you're smoking for your allies, but if that tactic goes down the drain your utility is reduced, if your utility is reduced your ability to influence the games' out come is greatly diminished. This is from a ship where one of the major competitive advantages of its' line is longer than average smoke. Maybe it's because I don't division but being smoked in a BB is a somewhat rare occurance for me, though I love to follow DD's into caps with Des Moines. As you say some ships are significantly more harmed than others, often ships which are already poor performers. To continue the Gearing trend you have a ship which is dead last in solo play on the NA server for WR at 48%, but which leaps to 3rd place when in a 3-ship division. Why? I suspect due to the strong utility (USN smoke) which is going to be significantly reduced by this change. Why is this equitable when Grozovoi which already out performs it and is far less smoke dependent was just buffed? Why? I think someone calculated early in the the thread that Minotaur (middle of the road for WR, low damage but does AP rather than repairable fire damage) will get its' smoke duration about halved if it fires throughout. Given that that ship depends on being able to survive for prolonged periods at close-mid range to do damage that's a huge nerf. Ultimately this is a simple change, anything using or depending on smoke whether it generates it or advantages from it - though I would argue the generators are worst hit as they are most likely to interact with their own smoke - is getting fairly substantially nerfed. Playing ranked in Warspite what do I think will happen with this change? Both teams will move into a cap, both teams will be smoked by friendly DD's, both teams smoke screens will disappear and the game will continue with destroyers more of an irrelevance. They'll be reduced to some spotting (in a world where spotting will be far easier) and trying to do damage, there's a reason the least damaging T6 BB does twice the damage of the least damaging T6 DD after all. Playing random in DM - well, even less scope for survivability, less value to radar, with 203mm and 5s reload one of the best ships for attriting a smoke screen and also the worst performing solo T10 cruiser. I'm generally perturbed that after going on 400 posts and other threads too no one from WG has been able to put in an appearance, calm things a little or even say 'ships adversely affected will be re-assessed or compensated in other ways'. I'm also generally annoyed that WG are going to disrupt their own game due to a scenario of their own making: Releasing under-tiered RN CL but then adding smoke was a terrifically bad idea as evinced by 60+ days of ST, especially as at that point Kutuzov was already a pain in the neck Releasing Belfast was a bad idea Buffing Belfast with IFHE was a terrible idea Updating the captain skills with 'Smoke Screen Expert' was a bad idea Releasing the 'Smoke Generator Modification 1' was a bad idea Yet no sign of communication, let alone contrition. An excellent point and a key way in which smoke is different from for instance OWSF. Musing - hold on a minute, would this be another change like OWSF that doesn't really hit the Russian destroyers (especially those without smoke at all) but does the others... surely not!
  3. I'd be far happier with the Enterprise's AP bombs if I'd been trashed in my FdG rather than (so far) in a couple of cruisers instead...
  4. Well, the in-game performance of the 5.25in on Conqueror (which has the turret appearance of the RP.10 Mk. I* guns of Vanguard) is underwhelming, and not hugely improved over the KGV. It leaps up to 5.2km range to match Montana after the disappointing 4.5km of the gun on KGV/Lion, but has only 8.5 DPS/turret vs. 8.125. That's about half the USN's 5in/38 DPS starting at T8. I don't have the numbers to hand for T7 B-hull Gneisenau but I think her 128mm DP's do better as well? Overall IRL Vanguard's turrets were a big improvement, but in game (if they are Conq's) they're pretty underwhelming. As a general aside what the heck is 'T8' AA or 'T7 speed'? Is it close to the average for that tier, better than the worst example... just within the range? KGV for instance has 28kt speed, which at the extremes is slower than Kongo at T5, but faster than Yamato at T10. So, T5-T10 speed then? Not much of a balance point. Kind of similar with AA, slightly better than Colorado's long range aura at T7, but Vanguard's long range would be about the same as stock-Izumo's so T7-T9 AA.
  5. Pure laziness. Fail at planning or implementing a reasonable T7/T8 so take KGV, copy/paste and then bolt on different turrets (easy to rapidly model). A real 15C would have been a different hull and heap of extra work to model, so they didn't do it originally and don't have the time now. SEA group. Not sure if the leaks are from the ST server which I believe is different from the in-game extended tech-tree mod some of us can access. The current public version of the game being different does not disprove the potential leaks.
  6. Well, I've enjoyed my 156 Minotaur games so if this makes it unenjoyable to play I'll dump it, so be it... I do like @Carl's potential Perth smoke solution for RNCL, though the long, long cool down between the smoke ending and the next one would suck unless addressed.
  7. The worn/unworn difference is pretty slight, ~3% or so if memory serves. You'll likely not notice much of a difference in game. Vanguard IMO would need the supercharges I think she could in theory use, though never did. Then again she spent half her short life with XY turrets deactivated, and I'm sure that wouldn't be reflected. There's a difference between '15in gun disguised as a 14in' and 'a 15in gun which could in theory do this'. They've already used supercharges in-game with the Emerald.
  8. The Cyclone is kind of lame, without the AA power you can't for instance intervene properly against the Luftwaffe fighters when the RAF arrives, and if you don't the Luftwaffe fighters win and the final waves of air attack are far more difficult.
  9. German cruisers underperforming? Hey just buff the HE pen from 1/6 to 1/4. How about buffing KGV's AP pen from 1/14.3 to 1/13? DAS IST VERBOTEN!! Thought to be fair there are more issues than the overmatch for the 14in at T8.
  10. So far, this is the worst premium I've ever purchased. I am hoping that partially that's because I'm using the Dunkirk British skipper until I get a free 'Dunkirk Jack' for her, and that guy's optimized for AA rather than torpedoes (which are a bit pointless in the Dunkirk mission, though I have torpedoed a Schnellboot) or utility. The torpedo armament is kind of poor. The reload is punitive, and the poor arcs mean firing in pursuit is a great difficulty. In my first game my team pushed, their team retired and it's impossible to stealth torp with them falling back. The detection does seem off and on a couple of occasions people have clearly telegraphed that they had all day. Depending on aggression, practically everything outguns it destroyer-wise. There are just too many scenarios the ship is outright bad in: There's a carrier There are dangerous destroyers - basically everything that isn't a Minekaze/Mutsuki is dangerous Too many cruisers T7 radar cruisers Your team is too good, the reds melt in retreat and you do nothing Your team is too poor, the reds advance and you do damage but can't stop them In my last game I hit battleships 5 times with torpedoes for a single flood, not sure if the flood chance on these weapons is particularly bad or if I'm just unlucky.
  11. I disagree, although SC made 20kts on trials Dreadnought made 21.6 on trials to her nominal 21 too, and being able to keep up with fleet speed is crucial. If the USN had made all following ships capable of a reliable 18 kt it might have been less of an issue. As it was there's a reason SC didn't deploy with the bulk of the US Fleet to bolster the RN Grand Fleet in 1917, though to be fair Dreadnought was far from the best unit there. Speer discovered that sentimentally allowing his 18kt pre-Dreadnoughts into the fight at Jutland was more of a hindrance than a help (he didn't want to abandon them and therefore made some questionable tactical choices) and adding SC to their roster would likely have been the same hindrance for the allies. I also don't think the RN was doing it 'on the cheap' issues with Dreadnought's design (turret arrangement in particular) I don't see as cost savings (if anything a superfiring arrangement would have saved the cost of a turret). The design is flawed due to Fisher's rather mistaken belief that the RN would immediately chase any force it ran into, and a misapprehension of the blast effect on super-firing turrets and armoring/torpedo defense deficiencies.
  12. https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/83446-new-ship-preview-monarch/ Not replace, but reading through the lines and Tuccy's responses here it seems clear that the Monarch is intended as Tree T8 with the KGV bumped down to T7. Of course normally you can't have 2 tree T7's in one line (though an IJN DD split is possiblll) so one of T7 KGV and T7 Nelson would be inferred to be a premium. As a name Monarch isn't entirely in the realm of fantasy, there was as you observe, another RN Battleship called Monarch but it is an odd choice. One of the KGV proposed or follow-on names makes more sense. It kind of feels like WG thought 'Oh those Brits are obsessed with Monarchy... that's it 'Monarch''!
  13. Amen. I bought the ship because I like RN premiums and to reward WG for good behavior in not releasing it in a staggered bundle. Flamu and Aerroon were pretty middling on the reviews, Special_Kay's just put something up and I do worry I may have made a mistake in the purchase. I'll find out tonight, but slow torpedo reload can annoy me and these reload times are punitive. I don't take great advantage of the single-launch torpedoes on Minotaur, though that's partially because if you take the time to click 8 times there's a notable gap in your firing which is a give away. I like to dump and run. Quite a jog from GHI-Tribal-JKN though. Lose torpedoes, gain guns, JKN is just outright superior to Haida at least (same gun battery, better turret placement, 10 vs. 4 torpedoes) while being likely superior to an 8-gun Tribal.
  14. Well, Mahan out DPMs with superior gun arcs and has 12 torpedoes to 4. All the 'soft stats' will need to be set to 11. I had thought that the RN's 4.7in gun might be ok compared to the USN's 5in, but inferior ballistics shown by Gallant... oh boy.