Jump to content

Aristotle83

Members
  • Content count

    626
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1507
  • Clan

    [-AOA-]

Community Reputation

58 Good

About Aristotle83

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia
  1. The last ship of the Kaiser's Navy

    IMO she belongs in the game as a Turkish premium because they can just put her sister the Moltke as a German T4 premium. Turks don't have enough for their own line might as well give them a premium here and she did do most of her notable service in the Turkish navy.
  2. when buff for the duke of york

    I mean again here you are saying that DOY got the reputation it deserved and your critique is entirely based on saying KGV is better(which given the current meta it is). Do you think KGV is bad or even average? How is a ship that is slightly worse than an OP ship bad? This is what I mean, DOY was treated to standards entirely different from your typical ship, being slightly worse than one of the most OP tech tree ships in the game doesn't make a ship bad. So no it didn't get the reputation it deserved and you proving my point entirely in your criticism as all you can talk about is it's slight inferiority to the KGV which does not make a ship bad. You are not making an argument saying ship is bad you are saying the ship isn't as good as KGV and therein lies my problem with the way this ship was treated. DOY<KGV does not =KGV is garbage and yet that was the logic I saw used to trash the ship with great consistency and I'm seeing it again now.
  3. Debate: Which is the best T4 BB?

    Well didn't say there wasn't a statistical answer, I just was honest and that I didn't have one. Also while there will be a margin of error always that doesn't mean the stats are meaningless. But yeah you picking apart my argument is a bunch of personal insults and comparing me to a "skunk"without being provoked to do so. I mean I got a ton of nasty things I want to say to you that I won't because I enjoy posting on this forum and I'll leave it at that.
  4. when buff for the duke of york

    I mean again wasn't saying hydro was useless just saying that I can see why people wouldn't be psyched to have it, utility wise. I was wrong about the hydro time being one minute and I should have checked before I said that. You've listed a bunch of ways for DOY to use hydro and I plan on putting those in use when ranks over and hope other DOY players do as well. It takes skill but the ship can no doubt DD hunt. Securely capping seems like a no brainer time to use it, embarrassed I forgot that. All those situations do indeed add up. RN AP is one of those incredible things that no one ever talks about because it's overshadowed by it's big brother. Exactly agree with your last point. In a BB, cruiser dominated game, where the main threat is HE spamming cruisers and BB damage, those 5 seconds reload and that heal might seem really preferable over the hydro and AA. AA can't help you if there's no CV's. Change that to a DD and CV dominated game, DOY is the better ship.
  5. when buff for the duke of york

    Terrible PR. DOY got slandered right from release day. If people constantly trash a product you have to pay money to buy, people aren't going to buy it. Also the ship hasn't been available in a while and there' just not that many of them, it was on sale for a couple of months tops, and during most of that time it was constantly being derided. KGV on the hand is a tech tree ship, even if DOY was actually better and people talked about it that way, there would still be a ton of more KGV's hanging around than DOY's. At the end of the day my issue with people trashing DOY is that they were just dishonest about it and equated a ship being slightly worse than an OP ship(without upgrades that not everyone gets DOY is better) with being bad. They also talked about DOY trading hydro for the few seconds of ROF and the heal without mentioning any of DOY's other advantages like the AA. Again the motive is pretty clear, either 1)people wanted KGV plus, and were upset they didn't get it, and 2)people who heard group 1 say the ship is bad and who will understandably listen to collective wisdom and join in on the hater bandwagon.
  6. Should the USN think about restructuring?

    Yes, yes and yes. The CV fleet is built to fight a war that hasn't been fought since the 1940s. Ways to erase carriers are much cheaper and cost effective than building them is. I recall reading an admiral testified in a hypothetical conventional war with another great power they would all be gone in 48 hours. We are spending a huge portion of our money on them and while I love carriers as much as the rest of you, we can have more ships that can do more damage for considerable less money. We need to invest in smaller non capital ships who aren't important enough where the entire offensive operation is dependent on them. While battleship's had this same problem at least they were independently powerful and the risk was divided among more ships, carriers are floating airfields. A big fleet of hundreds of non capital ships is best and submarines should be the only capital ships(cause they can go underwater). I remember the US navy ordered dozens of new advanced DD's and got like 4.
  7. Scharnhorst was not a battlecruiser, she was a battleship. Battlecruisers were all about the sacrifice between armor, speed and armament and after WWI technology didn't make that sacrifice neccessary anymore and separate classes of battlecruisers were never built again. Your right about Graf Spee. Thing with her is that since she and her sisters are so unique/rare she doesn't fit in any conventional category. For example you can just as easily call her a "pocket battleship" as you can an "overgunned heavy cruiser". Fact of the matter is, no cruisers ever had close to the gun caliber Deutschland's did but no battleships had ever been that small and fast. Unlike battlecruisers, Deutschlands have a lot of traits that are exclusive to battleships and cruisers that can't really be reconciled into a conventional type. I would agree she's closer to a cruiser.
  8. All battlecruisers were basically bigger battleships that could go fast, that typically had a turret or so fewer main guns than their BB counterparts. Germany made their battlecruisers even more similar to BB's with heavier armor. Battlecruisers are basically battleships though but despite this Germany did build these as battlecruisers, separate and relative to their own country's BB's, the UK and German battlecruisers were basically the same. German BB's tended to be more heavily armored than UK BB's and thus that carried over to the BC's. But the German battlecruisers usually had one less turret than battleships with similar armament, were considerably faster and were considerably larger. That's really all there is too it.
  9. when buff for the duke of york

    Yeah I agree, was mentioning if DD's weren't in the game she looks worse, same with CV's. Think you misunderstood me, though I do think she is less effective against DD's then planes which I'll get to below. Yeah I love the DOY and I put a lot of effort into defending her when she came out feel she was very unfairly attacked. She's basically a specialty KGV and a lot of her hate is because people don't value hunting DD's and CV's the same as they value their heal and ROF and because they wanted an even more OP version of what is basically the upper tiered version of Orion. Imagine if they released a premium Thunderer at T4(Conqueror and Monarch can't be done for obvious reasons:), wouldn't it be a little much to expect the ship to be even more powerful? I think WG would opt for making the ship different as well. My issue has always been that the hate DOY gets isn't on the merits but because it's not what they wanted it to be and this is really apparent in all their arguments "wah it's ROF isn't as good as KGV", "it has one less heal than KGV" and equate being slightly less than OP to being "garbage". Anyhow I got DOY first and though I've since gotten KGV I play the DOY instead and rarely touch the KGV. I will say though that the hydro is much less of an asset IMO than the AA, kind of get how people feel with hydro not being a good trade while I think the AA is. AA you don't really need skill to use, just by merit of existing you will get harassed by CV's less if they know their stuff(why go after a DOY when you could hit a less risky target?) which allows you to play casually without fear of torpedo bombers and I totally believe if CV's are in the game, this makes up for having one less heal. Hydro though you only get a minute so you need to time it for when you really need it and it's a pretty situational power that works best when you are chasing a DD and want to not take damage in the process as a defense though, it's just too random. I mean DOY is better at killing DD's than it's peers because of it but I do get why people don't think the hydro for other things is a good trade.
  10. when buff for the duke of york

    KGV is one of the most OP tech tree ships in the game, making it considerably better wasn't really an option. Also DOY isn't inferior to KGV, it's just different. If WG ever fixes CV and they become commonplace, DOY is fine, as it is a fly swatter. Without CV's in the game and without DD's in the game, it looks inferior but it's more of a specialty ship. If DOY is slightly inferior to KGV, it isn't "garbage" by any measure except for your unrealistic expectations. I think it's far more likely KGV is nerfed than DOY is buffed.
  11. Their is more reason to go Tier -I than Tier XI tbh at BB. CV and DD could keep going but past the Midway we're getting a little too close to the present to the point where stuff is going to start being classified(Midway retired in the 90s). I guess the A 150 would be a T11 so I'd have to vote that but besides that T11 really wasn't a thing IRL even in regards to paper and fantasy ships, T9 and T10 is where all the aborted next gen BB's are, there was no real next step after this generation wasn't built.
  12. Debate: Which is the best T4 BB?

    Ah had a busy week so I couldn't respond to this hitjob earlier(the later parts anyway ), my apologies. Well there is no criteria for when this will sort itself out and what sorting itslelf out would be is sort of subjective but at the end of the day it's eventually going to happen, never said to have a handle on when exactly that is or what it is, but at some point the difference between the time with just the US and IJN and the first four BB lines will have been accounted for. I don't have criteria for when that will be never said that I did. I've been claiming the overall stats are relatively accurate compared to two week snapshots. Also when comparing ships of the same line, every US BB for example has faced IJN's BB's the same amount of time and etc etc, and thus when one ship is doing better overall than their peers on the line or their IJN counterpart, it is fair and the correction isn't really needed because they started facing new ships at the same time. Tracking changes comes from looking at the all time stats one week and then another week and seeing how they changed. Yes it would be time consuming to statistically chart them and there's no filter but if you keep looking at them you will notice some ships stats are moving one direction or another. Good point about the two weeks potentially being the whole set of data on the exact same game but the sample size is still super small and that's my main concern with it and I think that's more important than any gradual shifts in the game. I am aware that T4 has never seen ranked and I am aware most UK BB's and many BB's have never seen ranked, when praising ranked stats I was saying they were ideally superior but listed the lack of data on many ships as a major drawback. I never claimed otherwise here and you raked me over the coals for suggesting stuff that I never suggested. Did I ever cite made up T4 or UK BB ranked stats? No I did not, I was referring to how I ideally see them as the best in the limited situations where they are available(which sadly does not include the debate topic of this thread). In terms of your last paragraph I'd think that only facing the ships in that tier is a large part of what makes the ranked stats hypothetically superior as you're only facing ships in the same tier and thus the comparison is more accurate. T5 ships have the worst matchmaking in the game and accounting for MM is a general weakness that all other stats have, especially the really low tiers that don't have to go up two tiers ever. I see that as a feature not a flaw.
  13. Debate: Which is the best T4 BB?

    Again that two week sample size I just see as a far bigger problem. Also while boosts and nerfs are real, I think they rarely make ship A that was better than ship B inferior or vice e versa, they are usually for balancing purposes to not let one ship get too strong or too weak. Can't speak for your CV and DD examples, but the German one IMO is pretty misleading. I wasn't here then but before the fall of 2017, there were no UK or French BB's. If you take the UK and French tech tree BB's out of the game, the Germans would have the best tech tree BB's at T3, T4,T5 and T9, that's half the tiers. At T7 it's close. They would be second in two of the other three tiers and T6 is a statistical dead heat behind the Fuso. If you use one season of ranked that is about a month, not two weeks. Still far preferrable to the random two week snapshots, ranked not only has a sample size twice as large but you have something of a quality assurance because most people who play ranked are working their butt off to win while in random things are much more loose, because there's actual meritocratic consequences for winning and losing while in random the number one objective is fun. Different ships coming in is my biggest concern but I mean I still think the larger sample size is more important as the larger sample size over time will largely erase the effects of these differences. Also the all time rank allows us to keep track of how they changes effect the balance of power. Why is ship A's overall stats going down relative to ship B and etc. I've only been really looking at the stats for a few months now but the two instances where the balance of power seems to really shift is A when new ships are added and B when ship A and ship B were basically tied and a buff/nerf/the passage of time simply reveals that one is better than the other. At the end of the day the increasing sample size will slowly adjust to the change and if it goes on long enough after a change the stats will be virtually the same. Now that is a hypothetical and I know the stats being counted from the beginning do tip the scales a bit but it evens out, enough to give us a good picture. Here's my biggest example, the new ships are getting a boost from being newer but the oldest ships might be getting a boost from having dominated at a time when their only opposition was US BB's, see how that balances?
  14. Going to be devils advocate, don't know what I'm talking about here, thinking we're going into obscure territory few will now the answers too but still think I have a counter. 1) Wouldn't those 40 year olds be more used to WWI era style ships of which the majority of the ships we are discussing were. Aside from Rich and Dunkerque we are discussing WWI era dreadnoughts the vets would be pretty familiar with. 2)Wouldn't the war not be desperate enough in the early phases for those men to not be serving? 3)Wouldn't only a small percentage of the group we are talking about be actually needed? I mean they need to staff like 7 French battleships with the vets of like 20 German battleships and battlecruisers, not to mention the other groups I mentioned. They would be able to do the trick with the most capable of that group. 4)Good point about the change from coal to oil. 5)In terms of the H class I mean surely they were in the process of recruiting sailors at a pace to meet the demand they were planning to have in the next few years. I do admit that would take some time. Germany only had 3-4 capital ships at this point, if we're not counting the Deutschlands and Hipper's, seems like only a slight adjustment of priority's from U Boats would get the sailors needed. After all if you are planning to conquer the UK what is the need to staff hundreds and hundreds of U Boats? Could be overseeing how hard it would be for those men to serve on a BB.
  15. Well until the French BB's came alone, every single other British BB was either the best statistically or arguably the best statistically(Iron Duke and Bellerophon) except for QE. Ironically I think the two you cited are the only two whose status was taken by the new French BB's(and it's debatable when we should start counting them). Upon checking the numbers the Bellerophon has taken a nose dive in the stats and is clearly behind Nassau but is still second, misspoke on that one. Not counting the French though, Orion, KGV, Lion and Conqueror are still clearly the best in their tiers and Monarch and Iron Duke are debatedly the best. If you add the French Lion and Monarch are going to be surpassed and KGV might be surpassed at KD but is going to keep her advantages elsewhere. QE is last in KD amongst T6 tech tree BB's, in a dead heat for last with NM in WR, and third in damage which is her best major stat. You are hard pressed to find another UK BB whose third in any major stat, nm last. Orion(pre nerf anyway) was IMO the most OP tech tree BB in this entire game. Orion's averages 7k-8k more damage than any other tech tree T4(Kaiser is second), wins about a percent more than the second place tech tree T4(Kaiser is again second) and averages 0.35 more kills a game than any other tech tree BB(Kaiser is again second). She is massively better stats wise than Wyoming, that being said Wyoming as a lot more matches under her belt but at what point are those leads statistically close to accurate? Remember Kaiser and the Germans have been around a year longer than Orion and Kaiser's still maintaining large leads over Wyoming in everything. Even amongst premiums only T4 better than Orion is the Nikolai which might as well be a religious figure(it's namesake is a saint so there's that).
×