Jump to content

red_crested_ibis

Members
  • Content Сount

    161
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6214
  • Clan

    [KAPPA]

Community Reputation

86 Good

1 Follower

About red_crested_ibis

Recent Profile Visitors

446 profile views
  1. red_crested_ibis

    Don't Sacrifice the Atlanta

    Originally from the following thread, crossposted for visibility (and realizing last thread had wandered off-topic). Disclaimer: Atlanta was my first premium and is to this day my favorite ship to play in general, so I have a horse in this race. Alright, here's my main concern here. I pulled some numbers off of na.wows-numbers.com a little while ago. It's not the most ideal dataset as it takes the raw numbers over time and doesn't normalize anything (more common ships will, generally, trend lower). I will also note that, generally, Atlanta is the most commonly played T7 light cruiser period. On the flip side, Surrey is brand new and her numbers are likely high and will come down over time. I will also note that these numbers are for the top 5% of all players as per the same site. It's the cream of the crop. If anyone has number of battles for all T7 cruisers for the top 5% only, that would provide a better picture. Alright, now to actually take a look. In this range, Atlanta shows that she has the worst win rate of any light cruiser by a large margin. Her win rate is 2.37% lower than the next closest light cruiser, Shchors, which is both a tech tree ship and the third most commonly-played light cruiser (the second most commonly played is Fiji). Not only that, but ignoring the glut of Myoko clones that surround her, but the only ship that is currently available with worse record than Atlanta is New Orleans. Yorck, Indianapolis, and Myoko, of which two are the most commonly played heavy cruisers in the tech tree and one of which is a premium heavy cruiser counterpart to New Orleans. Consider also that heavy cruisers are generally less competitive than light cruisers in the current environment anyway, and Atlanta finds herself at the low end of the heavy cruiser win spectrum. Of course, that could be accounted for by simply being more common. Let's look at damage: Atlanta's average damage is nowhere near any of the available light cruisers. The next closest, Nueve de Julio, has an average damage 25.3% higher than Atlanta. Also, every single tech tree ship has a higher average damage than Atlanta, with only New Orleans being marginally close. Again, Atlanta's damage is on the low end of the heavy cruiser spectrum, and even assuming some leeway because of how often she is played, she is far below the nearest light cruisers. Next, average frags. Here Atlanta is more respectable, finding herself on the high end of the heavy cruiser spectrum. However, there is still a noticeable jump from the best heavy cruisers to the worst 6" gun cruiser. Experience, Atlanta finds herself at the low end of the pack of light cruisers. Her premium bonuses do show through here, as she beats out four tech tree ships and is just a few exp behind two other tech tree ships. Planes is illuminating, as while Atlanta is still second best on average, there are many other ships, tech tree and premium, which are almost as effective. There's very little point to get Atlanta for her AA capabilities as they simply are not nearly as good as they used to be. This is the sad thing as Atlanta should be thriving in the current environment with CVs being more common, but her nerfed AA role really hampers her. Finally for now, the K/D spread really highlights her weakness. Again, Atlanta comes in only slightly better (0.11 K/D) than one other tech tree ship (New Orleans), while the tech tree ship she is behind is a full 0.3 K/D behind Yorck. The next tech tree is Helena which is 0.67 K/D better, Shchors at 0.83 K/D better, and Myoko at 0.9 K/D better. This is especially highlighted by Flint's 4.95 K/D, as it shows that Flint is able to leverage survivability to be far more effective. ------------ This change will not be good for Atlanta as it will either force captains to drop IFHE and depend on fires instead (unreliable and luck based and the whole reason this change is being made in the first place), or it will force people to take IFHE and reduce both damage (since 27mm can't be pen'd) and reduced fire output. Since Atlanta loses 2.5% fire chance vs the 1% current, that means with BFT and a reload of 4.5 seconds that each gun loses 0.2 fires per minute, or 3.2 fire per minute in total. Or, in a typical situation with three turrets fore or aft with one wing turret (four turrets on target), one would lose 1.6 fires per minute in addition to the damage loss against 27mm ships. In total, this makes heavy cruisers, especially higher tier ones, a hard counter to Atlanta, as Atlanta will have a hard time damaging them and they will still be able to overmatch Atlanta's bow (anything 186mm and above could). And in all, it's certainly a nerf to the worst premium light cruiser in the game that would make her effectively nonviable compared to almost any other option. If anything, Atlanta needs a survivability buff so she isn't killed as easily - that would allow for her other stats to rise as she lasts longer in the battle. Again, you can see the jump from Atlanta to Flint. She most certainly does not need this nerf. I can see why they're addressing Flint as it's coming out for coal, and if the nerf is effective even Belfast might be reintroduced which WG would like so they could get sales again. The win rate says a lot as 6 of the top 7 ships are premium light cruisers that would be noticeably impacted by this change and that WG cannot directly balance. Regardless, Atlanta should not be sacrificed at the alter so as to make other ships more viable or balanced.
  2. red_crested_ibis

    Save the Atlanta! (...and Flint too)

    EDIT: Crossposting to a new thread to get this more visibility - thread HERE. Alright, here's my main concern here. I pulled some numbers off of na.wows-numbers.com a little while ago. It's not the most ideal dataset as it takes the raw numbers over time and doesn't normalize anything (more common ships will, generally, trend lower). I will also note that, generally, Atlanta is the most commonly played T7 light cruiser period. On the flip side, Surrey is brand new and her numbers are likely high and will come down over time. I will also note that these numbers are for the top 5% of all players as per the same site. It's the cream of the crop. If anyone has number of battles for all T7 cruisers for the top 5% only, that would provide a better picture. Alright, now to actually take a look. In this range, Atlanta shows that she has the worst win rate of any light cruiser by a large margin. Her win rate is 2.37% lower than the next closest light cruiser, Shchors, which is both a tech tree ship and the third most commonly-played light cruiser (the second most commonly played is Fiji). Not only that, but ignoring the glut of Myoko clones that surround her, but the only ship that is currently available with worse record than Atlanta is New Orleans. Yorck, Indianapolis, and Myoko, of which two are the most commonly played heavy cruisers in the tech tree and one of which is a premium heavy cruiser counterpart to New Orleans. Consider also that heavy cruisers are generally less competitive than light cruisers in the current environment anyway, and Atlanta finds herself at the low end of the heavy cruiser win spectrum. Of course, that could be accounted for by simply being more common. Let's look at damage: Atlanta's average damage is nowhere near any of the available light cruisers. The next closest, Nueve de Julio, has an average damage 25.3% higher than Atlanta. Also, every single tech tree ship has a higher average damage than Atlanta, with only New Orleans being marginally close. Again, Atlanta's damage is on the low end of the heavy cruiser spectrum, and even assuming some leeway because of how often she is played, she is far below the nearest light cruisers. Next, average frags. Here Atlanta is more respectable, finding herself on the high end of the heavy cruiser spectrum. However, there is still a noticeable jump from the best heavy cruisers to the worst 6" gun cruiser. Experience, Atlanta finds herself at the low end of the pack of light cruisers. Her premium bonuses do show through here, as she beats out four tech tree ships and is just a few exp behind two other tech tree ships. Planes is illuminating, as while Atlanta is still second best on average, there are many other ships, tech tree and premium, which are almost as effective. There's very little point to get Atlanta for her AA capabilities as they simply are not nearly as good as they used to be. This is the sad thing as Atlanta should be thriving in the current environment with CVs being more common, but her nerfed AA role really hampers her. Finally for now, the K/D spread really highlights her weakness. Again, Atlanta comes in only slightly better (0.11 K/D) than one other tech tree ship (New Orleans), while the tech tree ship she is behind is a full 0.3 K/D behind Yorck. The next tech tree is Helena which is 0.67 K/D better, Shchors at 0.83 K/D better, and Myoko at 0.9 K/D better. This is especially highlighted by Flint's 4.95 K/D, as it shows that Flint is able to leverage survivability to be far more effective. ------------ This change will not be good for Atlanta as it will either force captains to drop IFHE and depend on fires instead (unreliable and luck based and the whole reason this change is being made in the first place), or it will force people to take IFHE and reduce both damage (since 27mm can't be pen'd) and reduced fire output. Since Atlanta loses 2.5% fire chance vs the 1% current, that means with BFT and a reload of 4.5 seconds that each gun loses 0.2 fires per minute, or 3.2 fire per minute in total. Or, in a typical situation with three turrets fore or aft with one wing turret (four turrets on target), one would lose 1.6 fires per minute in addition to the damage loss against 27mm ships. In total, this makes heavy cruisers, especially higher tier ones, a hard counter to Atlanta, as Atlanta will have a hard time damaging them and they will still be able to overmatch Atlanta's bow (anything 186mm and above could). And in all, it's certainly a nerf to the worst premium light cruiser in the game that would make her effectively nonviable compared to almost any other option. If anything, Atlanta needs a survivability buff so she isn't killed as easily - that would allow for her other stats to rise as she lasts longer in the battle. Again, you can see the jump from Atlanta to Flint. She most certainly does not need this nerf.
  3. red_crested_ibis

    Update 0.9.1: British Heavy Cruisers Part 2

    Killer Whale
  4. red_crested_ibis

    ARP Grind Made Simple

    Wouldn't a better option to be take one of the T6 heavy cruisers into Aegis? You can always try and get a party together to run it even if it isn't operation of the week. Probably better to do that anyway. Both Pensacola and Aoba are pretty good at this, and it's feasible to get 15+ citadels depending upon the enemy spawn fairly consistently. Two to three games here and you're done. You do have to take the northerly route instead of the easterly one for optimal angles, but that's the easiest way to farm. Trento I have had less success with, but more due to not be used to her as much as the other two. If one is familiar with an operation it can work fairly well - again depending on the spawns. Again, i'll point at Aegis - the northern route is torpedo soup if there is a heavy spawn of 4-5 cruisers, and either in a battleship that can take a few hits or a cruiser with hydro, you'd be able to juke the torpedoes and get their potential damage. Combine that with being the point ship, and you'll get focused on a lot, so you can pile up potential damage so long as you manage your exposure and ensure you don't get overwhelmed. Might be decent in coop if you go in at low tier as well with your destroyers. That way, DDs will be facing more low tier slower battleships that will have a harder time dodging. It'd take more games using DDs and making runs at full throttle into the cap so as to torp the enemy, but coop games can end quick when everyone is nuked, too. CVs would be more efficient in operations I feel.
  5. red_crested_ibis

    ST, changes to British heavy cruisers

    Ah, I see. In that case, yeah, it would be, as Neptune's cit is... pretty bad. Do you know what Drake's extremeties are? If her plating is good overall, she could be tanky enough to justify the RoF reduction as with the heal she has roughly the same potential health as the large cruisers on a smaller, less well-armored package. And yeah, it seems that way to me. I'm mostly hoping that Drake will be a ship comparable to old Baltimore pre-US line change. (I mean, Alaska is close, but the large cruiser just quite ain't the same) I imagine that the reload is going to be a bit too high though I guess it was changed due to the fire chance and HE pen being ludicrous. At least she still has the cruiser sigma calcs so she'll be more accurate. I imagine she'll get a buff down to about 17.5-18 seconds by the end of the balancing, as this feels like an overreaction prior to release.
  6. red_crested_ibis

    ST, changes to British heavy cruisers

    That does bring to question its own logic, I feel, as I have to wonder: There are multiple different suppositions here that I'd address. 1. Premiums do not count for the purposes of the argument: You dismiss Cheshire as not counting for the argument as its reload is much shorter to assist its selling point, which more means it has so few guns its reload has to be buffed to compensate - similar to most other ships that have so few guns in comparison to its tier mates. Where the logic falls flat is that if we exclude one ship for virtue of it being premium and therefore for sale and requiring a selling point, it becomes more ridiculous to argue that other premiums can be included as well, as then we're just checking picking data. It'd be more of an argument to look at the whole data set and see an outlier that we can say that WG obviously reduced to make it more competitive, not something we can ignore because of its status. But for argument sake, let's exclude all premiums since they are/have been for sale and look just at tech tree ships. There's not a single large cruiser in the game that is not a premium (such as Alaska, Azuma, etc). Of the battlecruisers in the tech tree, the only unambiguous ones are as follows: Kongo - 31 sec reload Pyotr Velikiy - 33 sec Amagi - 30 sec With the arguable/borderline ones being: Normandie - 30 sec Gneisenau - 26 sec Iowa - 30 sec Average 30 Std Dev 2.08 All numbers unbuffed. With the exception of Gneisenau, all of the unquestionable/marginal tech tree battlecruisers in game have a reload 30 seconds or greater. And for Gneisenau, she would fall in the similar trap of Cheshire in having a low number of barrels for her tier. Ignoring premiums doesn't seem conducive to the argument in either way, though, as it excludes all ships that are relevant to the discussion (the 11"/12" gun ships). So no, I don't think cherry picking one ship out of the bunch really is conducive if we're wanting to look at the whole picture, especially if the basis is that it's a premium it shouldn't be concluded as there are other factors, as none of the new British heavies would fall under battlecruiser classification in any regard using only tech tree ships. Yes, this is going a bit too far, but just trying to illustrate the point that ignoring one ship on the basis of it being a premium begs the question of why not to ignore other ships on the basis of them being a premium. 2. Reload length of the gun dictating classification of the gun (battlecruiser reload makes battlecruiser gun): I'll look at the T8 and T9 heavies for Reload comparison (all unbuffed): Baltimore - 10 sec Saint-Louis - 11 Hipper - 11.5 sec Charles Martel - 12 sec Buffalo - 12 sec Roon - 13 sec Ibuki - 13.7 - sec Mogami - 15 sec Amalfi - 16 sec Brindisi - 20 sec Average 13.4 Std Dev 2.79 I'll even take Prinz and others out so it remains all tech tree vessels so there's nothing with selling points to argue about. Over that range, we see a spread of 10 seconds between the largest and smallest reloads with an average unbuffed reload of 13.4 seconds. And we can see that WG will play with reload even in this small spread just to suit to balance. Balti/Buff and Amalfi/Brindisi have the same guns, but reload is increased due to there being a sizable increase in gun count. The Italians have very long reload times due to the power of their guns against certain classes, while the American ships have low reload times as they do not have torpedoes/reload booster/etc and are very vanilla in their performance. Point being that even with T8/T9 tech tree heavy cruisers there is already an extreme variance of reload times. And, while I myself am disappointed in the nerf to Drake, it still would not be the longest reload of T9 heavies and would actually fall within 2 standard deviations of the mean (Baltimore is more than 1 standard deviation below the mean, while Amalfi is greater than 2 standard deviations, making her the largest outlier). Cheshire, to bring her back in, would fall just below the average for the tech tree sample, which does compute for her stronger-than-average guns and low barrel count. For further comparison: every 11"/12" cruiser in the game. Alaska - 20 sec Azuma - 20 sec Kronshtadt - 18.5 sec Puerto Rico - 22 sec Yoshino - 18.5 sec Stalingrad - 20 sec Graf Spee - 20 sec Average: 19.86 Std Dev 1.09 Of course, no T8 representatives are in there but I am working with what is available. I didn't include Scharnhorst as in game mechanics she is a BB (yes, cherry picking). Her reload is 20 sec, and with her included the average becomes 19.88 and the std dev 1.02, so if you include her as well most of the answers would be similar. I proceed with the cruiser data set. Drake pre nerf - 1.10 std dev above CA mean, 3.08 below CB Drake post nerf - 1.82 above CA, 1.25 below CB Drake post nerf counting only T9 - 1.44 std dev above CA mean, 1.41 below CB So, while Drake's reload has shifted from being solidly in CA spectrum to being closer to a CB, she still is roughly midway between the two in the spectrum. Consider that to be exactly between the two spectrums, the mean would per her near 16.64 (near her initial release) and the std dev (1.66 from each mean) would put her at 18.01. But, regardless, while she is closer to the 11"/12" gun reload range now, she is still within the established tech tree CA gun range at T8/T9. (I will note that if I only include the T9 tech trees, the mean becomes 13.94 and the std dev becomes 3.16, putting her reload at only 1.44 std dev above the CAs, so the margin is even closer) (including only the T9 12" cruisers, they average 19.5 w/ std dev of 0.71, putting Drake at 1.41 std dev below the mean). So labeling her directly as having battlecruiser guns (to which I believe you refer to the 11"/12" guns as) is incorrect as, compared to the T9 tech tree vessels and the t9 large cruisers, her reload falls nearly the same standard deviation from each at her current nerfed state and has gone from solidly a CA to halfway between. Which befits the caliber's status being nearly halfway between.
  7. red_crested_ibis

    ST, changes to British heavy cruisers

    Eesh, so the actual paper large cruiser (I am pretty sure the TX was made up) went from being an interesting halfway point between 8" and 12" gun ships to being... effectively a worse Alaska with a better heal.. There goes any incentive for grinding up to high tiers. Cheshire: 24 RPM -> 27.7 RPM Drake: 32.7 RPM -> 29.2 RPM Drake w/ Main Battery: 37.2 -> 33.2 RPM Goliath: 36.9 RPM -> 37.9 RPM Goliath w/ Main Battery: 42.0 RPM -> 43.1 RPM Yeah, Drake is nerfed to the point that the T8 Premium looks equivalent. Cheshire has the same potential DPM, effectively, has better AA in both DPM "and" flak" than Drake, has better turning speed and maneuverability, has the same exact guns and gun handling. The only thing that Cheshire does not have is the fighter consumable, 0.2 km worse surface conceal than Drake, (w/o camo so the difference gets smaller) but better air conceal, and the torpedoes and secondaries are both 2 km shorter ranged. I'm unsure, but the T8 about sounds like the better of the two ships now. EDIT: I did forget main battery booster (which basically restores her to previous performance), but does impair her gun handling. That last mod is the only thing that can give the ship a quality besides 2 km of torpedo range that seems objectively better.
  8. red_crested_ibis

    You know, I had an odd thought on PR.

    Speaking of, from Flamu's video, he was defending Gorizia on Reddit as being easier to earn than PEF. Notably, the amount of effort required for XP/Base XP seems to be 800% more than it was for PEF, while many other categories are also much higher than for PEF. The only thing that requires less is credits. I have wonder if someone looked at the numbers and figured that it would be way too easy and then jacked them up about of nowhere. Because if the requirements were 1/10 of what they are now, Gorizia would be easier than PEF to earn.
  9. red_crested_ibis

    WG didn't think the directive requirements through...

    If you go by this thread's calculations (created by @Randomguy22): Under his base rate calculations (which I need to check, but the update is still downloading for me), and assuming that the base gain is 125 points per minute, and assuming that directives are completed instantly, he ends up being about 5.2 million points short at the start of the last directive, and finishes 2.2 days into the 6 day window. Compare @Kizarvexis who has slightly lower points per day (different numbers on the point values are an issue here for consistency), and who is assuming that you have exactly 1 day less for each build time (finishing directives by the end of 24 hours), and he's finishing 4 days into the 6 day window for D7. Just looking at that, you have less than 48 hours to finish each objective to really have a prayer of it finishing, and if you push your time to the right too much you will be looking at PR possibly not even finishing quite in time. - Again, my game hasn't updated and I haven't run the numbers myself, just comparing what has already been shown.
  10. red_crested_ibis

    Solution to overheating problems on your PC

    Was going to use this for the new Pan-Swedish line of destroyers. This looks like an appropriate place.
  11. red_crested_ibis

    This needs to change.

    He obviously had a Bogue on his six! I'll show myself out.
  12. red_crested_ibis

    This needs to change.

    After some meals, I'd almost welcome it if it was armor piercing...
  13. Thing is, this doesn't sound like that bad of an idea. I mean... Take the Tennessee class cruiser. Have a it be in its otl state as a T3 cruiser, working similar to Mikasa when she is uptiered. Then you could have it exist in its refitted state, where it could function as a T4/T5 vessel as well. There's meat on this funny bone, in all honesty.
  14. Well, it's really tough to pair them down... Save for first place, any of these could probably be anywhere else. 1. Atlanta for pew pew goodness. 2. Omaha as I hated her at first but have come to love her. Still hoping for Raleigh some day... T6 buffed for ops plz 3. Yuubari/Katori put together as they're both relatively weak outside of their gimmick but interesting to play at the same time. 2. Showboat as I don't play her nearly enough but when I do it's also a comfortable and good game. So rarely have a bad one with her. 5. Nelson because she's carried me through almost as many Narai as Atlanta Kita/Aki/Harekaze, Alaska, Albany, and pretty much any Standard battleship that I've played.
  15. red_crested_ibis

    It's time for Wargaming to add battlecruiser trees.

    You'd probably have to give them the Georgia treatment and better accuracy in general to give them sufficient damage output. And pretty much, as on the US side, the ultimate expression would be 1919 Lexington, which would be best paired up against Hood at T7 (with ridiculous top speed and hahapaperthinarmor). At lower tiers you might be able to squeeze in a few US battlecruisers of various types. After that, it'd just be fast battleships, effectively, as the two types of warship merged. Though an earlier line split that stops about T7/T8 for most nations would be interesting, I feel. Just couldn't be a rush job.
×