Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
skull_122_steel

Giulio Cesare Nerf Idea

75 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
995 posts
1,871 battles

So the CC's reviews of the Giulio Cesare are out and the results are unanimis it is to accurate and the HE fire chance is to high so here are my ideas on how to "improve" her

 

-So for her first improvement, change her dispersion from 138 meters to 170 meters sure it is still really accurate for a battleships but it should make you feel that 1.5 sigma a bit more.

-and now for her second improvement, change her fire chance from 35% to anywhere from 15-20%

-and for her third improvement, change her secondary gun range from 4km to 5km and change her 120mm guns shell type from AP to HE

 

let me know what you think and anything you would change about what I said.

 

 

P.S. no the concealment is not to good look at her range and her size, compared to the D'aosta their size are about the same and her range is the lowest at her tier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,476
[HINON]
Supertester
7,656 posts
8,089 battles

Her fire chance is in line with just about all BBs except for the RN, so why nerf it? Even those CCs you’re quoting say it’s not that the fire chance is too high, it’s that she’s so accurate that it seems like it’s high because you're gonna land more shells. So again, why nerf the fire chance? The fire chance is not a problem. Unless you want to nerf the fire chance on all other BBs as well. Just nerfing her dispersion like you’re suggesting will get rid of that problem.

Edited by renegadestatuz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,279
[POP]
Members
1,963 posts
18,865 battles

No nerfs to the first RM BB, gee she's the first one from Mediterranean let her be.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38
[TROY]
Members
212 posts
2,936 battles
23 minutes ago, skull_122_steel said:

So the CC's reviews of the Giulio Cesare are out and the results are unanimis it is to accurate and the HE fire chance is to high so here are my ideas on how to "improve" her

 

-So for her first improvement, change her dispersion from 138 meters to 170 meters sure it is still really accurate for a battleships but it should make you feel that 1.5 sigma a bit more.

-and now for her second improvement, change her fire chance from 35% to anywhere from 15-20%

-and for her third improvement, change her secondary gun range from 4km to 5km and change her 120mm guns shell type from AP to HE

 

let me know what you think and anything you would change about what I said.

 

 

P.S. no the concealment is not to good look at her range and her size, compared to the D'aosta their size are about the same and her range is the lowest at her tier

The weakest HE in same tier BBs is 22% on the Germans so 15-20% is way to low,  25-30 would be better if it gets lowered at all and no less.

12 minutes ago, renegadestatuz said:

Her fire chance is in line with just about all BBs except for the RN, so why nerf it? Even those CCs you’re quoting say it’s not that the fire chance is too high, it’s that she’s so accurate that it seems like it’s high because you're gonna land more shells. So again, why nerf the fire chance? The fire chance is not a problem. Unless you want to nerf the fire chance on all other BBs as well. Just nerfing her dispersion like you’re suggesting will get rid of that problem.

For a T5 her fire % is a bit high, 5% off would still be above the rest but much closer to reasonable in my opinion.  I however don't really see a problem with high fire chance on the RN so....burn baby burn!:cap_rambo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,889
[SIM]
Members
4,011 posts
6,767 battles

Keep her dispersion, nerf the hell out of her HE. There are worse things in the world than releasing a ship in the game that actually rewards players that know how to aim.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,094
[SYN]
Members
8,032 posts
12,536 battles

T5's should be stronger to counteract seeing T7 all the time.

T4's will suffer slightly, but they're only seeing +1 tier anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,584
[TBW]
Members
8,282 posts
15,043 battles

You know, if you are a Super Tester go ahead and speak up, I guess, but if you are not let them do their job and keep your ship opinion to yourself. No offense meant but let them release the ship before you go forming an opinion, that is strictly hearsay. Are you worried about it because you are buying the ship or not buying the ship? You may want to take into account the people who are using the ship at the moment and who they are playing against. You think Belfast is OP look at my stats in her. I sometimes wish they couldn't release the video reviews until the day the ship is released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,878
[HINON]
Modder, Privateers
6,796 posts
4,616 battles

As far as I am aware, the only thing really OP about the ship is it's accuracy. But I am gonna wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,730
[INTEL]
Members
11,058 posts
31,002 battles

If it is a bit OP, that's good. It's high time WG started releasing ships for the MMs they will actually encounter, not for some T5 environment that no longer exists because WG has destroyed T5 to sell more high tier premiums. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,402
[CUTER]
Members
3,868 posts
19,914 battles

 The ship is not released yet.

 

 

1 hour ago, tm63au said:

No nerfs to the first RM BB, gee she's the first one from Mediterranean let her be.

 

 

 Thank god you are not a game developer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31,429
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
10,818 posts
8,891 battles

The Community Contributors and Devs have been speaking together a lot about this ship (I imagine the Supertesters are having their own conversations to which I am not privy).  We all want to see a fun but not overpowered ship.  We've had a lot of ideas shared back and forth.  We'll see what changes come from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,889
[SIM]
Members
4,011 posts
6,767 battles
2 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

The Community Contributors and Devs have been speaking together a lot about this ship (I imagine the Supertesters are having their own conversations to which I am not privy).  We all want to see a fun but not overpowered ship.  We've had a lot of ideas shared back and forth.  We'll see what changes come from it.

Thanks to you and the community behind the scenes for all the work (and I do mean work) that you do to make the game better. Sidenote on your signature though: isn't Kii your most recent review?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31,429
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
10,818 posts
8,891 battles
Just now, SkaerKrow said:

Thanks to you and the community behind the scenes for all the work (and I do mean work) that you do to make the game better. Sidenote on your signature though: isn't Kii your most recent review?

It is.  Thanks for pointing that out.  My brain has been addled for most of the weekend because of meds.  Here's hoping I didn't suggest to the Devs that Julio Cesare needs to be buffed in my drug addled stupor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,255 posts

Considering it's a T5 going to see seal clubbing CV's all the time and be up tiered constantly. I think it's fine. Other then it's guns and speed it has nothing else going for it. It's torp belt sucks and that's really important when DD's at that tier have 60 second or less reload. It's armor is paper.

 

Just drop the damage on the shells a little and it will be fine.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[SYN]
Beta Testers
97 posts
6,174 battles
41 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

It is.  Thanks for pointing that out.  My brain has been addled for most of the weekend because of meds.  Here's hoping I didn't suggest to the Devs that Julio Cesare needs to be buffed in my drug addled stupor.

as someone who takes 6-7 pills twice a day i know what you mean. the anti depression meds have really chilled me out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
124 posts
6,443 battles

if were being honest it does not need a nerf, some of the old stinkers ie new york need to be updated but given its matchmaking and the state of the game currently the ship is fine. she has some what weak armor for her class and smaller guns that most of her competition (slightly i know) its interesting having a ship that is actually semi accurate.

Edited by The_Red_Butcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,279
[POP]
Members
1,963 posts
18,865 battles
4 hours ago, m373x said:

 The ship is not released yet.

 

 

 

 Thank god you are not a game developer.

you may think that but you have to remember its going to be up against ships 2 tiers higher, I liked to see how its going to fight against a Scharnhorst then tell me you think it needs a nerf. 

Edited by tm63au

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
109
[NZS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
393 posts
10,809 battles

A Sharnhorst/Giulio Cesare duel should end poorly for the GC.  There is a 25 year gap between the commissioning of both vessels.  Tier 5's should not stack up favorably to their potential tier 7 adversaries, this is why the wise under-tiered BB player does everything to avoid that scenario.

From what I've seen in the first WIP looks at it, the Accuracy+ROF+Fire Chance seems to put it a bit too much in the 5(+++), it should be reduced in at least one of these three areas.  Or raise its detection radius.  I like my interesting ships but this looks too much like a total package right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
[POI--]
Members
190 posts
2,093 battles

The actual "HE" (SAP, in fact - the Giulio Cesare didn't load HE shells) would add up, through the extrapolated formulas, to 4100 alpha and 21% fire chance. Nerf it to that, maybe enlarge the dispersion ellipse a bit, then give it its historical firing angles of 28° for ten guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31,429
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
10,818 posts
8,891 battles
2 minutes ago, WeissRaben_2 said:

The actual "HE" (SAP, in fact - the Giulio Cesare didn't load HE shells) would add up, through the extrapolated formulas, to 4100 alpha and 21% fire chance. Nerf it to that, maybe enlarge the dispersion ellipse a bit, then give it its historical firing angles of 28° for ten guns.

I would be very curious to see how well she would perform with those historical shells.  She'd be doing 1,353 damage per shell against unsaturated parts of the enemy ship (as opposed to 1,584 according to GameModels3d.com).  This 231 damage nerf would certainly add up over time.  Given the normal way which Wargaming does things, we should see the first round of changes this week or next.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,730
[INTEL]
Members
11,058 posts
31,002 battles
37 minutes ago, Panzerlin said:

A Sharnhorst/Giulio Cesare duel should end poorly for the GC.  There is a 25 year gap between the commissioning of both vessels.  Tier 5's should not stack up favorably to their potential tier 7 adversaries, this is why the wise under-tiered BB player does everything to avoid that scenario.

 

 

You can't avoid that scenario, because you're uptiered all the time. The only way to avoid that scenario is to be in the top tier BB, which is why WG wrecked T5 and T6 in the first place -- to force players to play high tier ships and purchase premium ships and time so they could afford it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
550
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,093 posts
6,258 battles
1 hour ago, Taichunger said:

 

You can't avoid that scenario, because you're uptiered all the time. The only way to avoid that scenario is to be in the top tier BB, which is why WG wrecked T5 and T6 in the first place -- to force players to play high tier ships and purchase premium ships and time so they could afford it.

1 more reason why WG should have +1/-1 MM when the server population hits 8,000 or so. T8 gets screwed over a lot too, far more than 1/2 my games in T8 ships are bottom tier. I can do well in a CV or BB but for me CA's and DD's have a much tougher time of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
505
[WAIFU]
Modder
1,175 posts
6,475 battles
3 hours ago, tm63au said:

you may think that but you have to remember its going to be up against ships 2 tiers higher, I liked to see how its going to fight against a Scharnhorst then tell me you think it needs a nerf. 

If the MM is faulty, you fix the MM, not the ships. They could improve MM by forcing battles where you are the highest tier, they could do something like WoT and have fewer highest tier per battle, etc. Buffing tier 5 ships to be equals to tier 7 only makes tier 4 suffer more. It also forces more buff to tier 6, because now they're not as strong as the tier 5, and then more buff to the tier 7, because they're suddenly not as strong as the tier 6... This is what you call power creep...

Also, don't forget that Premium ship won't be balanced after release (only won't be nerfed, buffs are fine apparently). This means that if the global game environment changes (stuff like the addition of IFHE, the stealth shooting removal, etc), you cannot change the ship to account for it. I'd much rather have a weaker ship released and they buff it a little after release, than an OP ship that will need to be removed from sale after a few days (see Nikolai).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,790
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,704 posts
2,122 battles
4 hours ago, WeissRaben_2 said:

The actual "HE" (SAP, in fact - the Giulio Cesare didn't load HE shells) would add up, through the extrapolated formulas, to 4100 alpha and 21% fire chance. Nerf it to that, maybe enlarge the dispersion ellipse a bit, then give it its historical firing angles of 28° for ten guns.

 

Eh, I'd rather avoid turning an SAP shell into a crappy HE shell.

 

Imo it'd be better to actually make it an SAP shell - it'd do a lot less damage than the AP (I forget off the top of my head, but I think the damage would be around 8700), and it would have a shorter fuse - perhaps the 15 milliseconds like RN AP - and better autobounce angles.

 

In that case, you'd have the option to either fire AP,  for enemy BBs giving broadside, and some cruisers. The SAP would be better suited for dealing with angled BBs, cruisers, and DDs. You can't set fires, but you'll generally be dealing a lot more alpha on a regular basis, simply because more rounds would give you regular pens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×