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

The real reason the new T9 cruiser is being called OP by many

123 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles

Most players don't know how to play cruisers.

 

Explanation:

 

Whilst bow tanking in a straight cruiser vs cruiser duel with no enemy BB's around is exactly the right thing to do; when an enemy BB is around however cruisers have to start avoiding incoming fire. And thats somthing most cruiser players are very bad at, changing course only after they get hit. As a result unless they get very lucky most cruiser players die in a very small number of BB salvos.  But a good cruiser driver can avoid more salvos than he or she actually gets hit with. This makes the ship actually quite survivable. it just dosen;t feel it because of how sudden and drastic changes in HP state actually are.

 

The thing about the new T9 cruiser announced is that it's so big and thus going to handle so poorly that it flat cannot avoid salvos anywhere near as well. Virtually every salvo is going to land hits and deal damage and generally deplete the ships health pool. And because it's got cruiser style extremity armour those salvos are going to hurt every bit as much as getting hit in a cruiser. Yes she has more health, but she's going to lose it more easily, i believe therefore that at least vs BB it's going to be no more durable, and possibly considerably less durable than the average cruiser.

 

She also has terrible raw fire starting and DPM and far worse accuracy than a normal cruiser of her tier. That means she can't deal damage back to a BB, (or a cruiser tats in a position to bow tank her), very well.

 

The one area she's going to excel is her AP, whilst it can't overmatch cruiser bows and is unlikely to best BB flight times despite it's high velocity and low drag it will still be a very potent threat to any cruiser that doesn't evade the shells and the slightest mistake is going to hurt too. And with the 20 second reload to catch people more easily with i expect her to do it better than might at first seem apparent. In that respect i expect her to excel vs cruisers. But she's going to suffer vs BB's in a way traditional cruisers don't because they can take more damage and deal more of it back to a BB than this ship can.

 

 

 

The thing is all the various players who don;t practice evading incoming fire in their cruisers are just seeing a ship that will get hit as much as them but has more health and better guns for hitting other cruisers with too. So they don;t understand why this ship is more vulnerable than their cruisers in some situations, whilst stronger in others.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,118
[NDA]
Supertester
3,896 posts
1,472 battles

I don't disagree in principle, but I would point out that most high tier cruisers don't exactly dance like ballerinas as-is.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
4 minutes ago, kerensky914 said:

I don't disagree in principle, but I would point out that most high tier cruisers don't exactly dance like ballerinas as-is.

 

Oh i know, the Baltimore is especially bad in that regard, (as much because of the short range as the poor turning performance), but compared to this they're positively destroyer esque. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,118
[NDA]
Supertester
3,896 posts
1,472 battles
3 minutes ago, Carl said:

 

Oh i know, the Baltimore is especially bad in that regard, (as much because of the short range as the poor turning performance), but compared to this they're positively destroyer esque. 

I was thinking more of Moskva, Donskoi, Hindenburg, etc. They make Baltimore look downright zippy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,708
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles

I have to admit, I was surprised by this announcement. As well as Stalingrad. If this is how WG is going about dealing with superheavy cruisers, then so be it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
6 minutes ago, kerensky914 said:

I was thinking more of Moskva, Donskoi, Hindenburg, etc. They make Baltimore look downright zippy.

 

I'd want to see data from mouse on turn times for those before i endorse those conclusions. Donski moves through her turning circle faster than baltimore so she may well be more agile when it comes to dodging, without checking hindy's values the same may be true of her. How much speed a ship retains in a turn and how rapidly it bleeds off are key in dodging as much as turn radius. A Dunkerque turns as fast as a Warspite despite the massive differences in turning circles for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,780 posts
14,828 battles

Thank you for taking all this time and energy to explain why the new paper designed cruiser with fantasy capabilities is actually UNDERPOWERED.

I promise I will give this post all the attention it deserves.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
6 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Thank you for taking all this time and energy to explain why the new paper designed cruiser with fantasy capabilities is actually UNDERPOWERED.

I promise I will give this post all the attention it deserves.

 

I wouldn't say underpowered, but it's different from a normal cruiser in what it's good at and what it's bad at, and thats going to really radically alter any balance discussion of it. It dosen;t play like a normal cruiser or a normal BB but somthing in between and that means it's not really threatening either type but instead carving out a new niche for itself.

 

Thats why i kinda think introducing BC as an MM type, (but allowing BC's to be matched vs same tier cruisers), would do wonders for acceptance of the ship. People would stop trying to compare it to cruisers so directly.

 

It's also likely to be an incredible AAA platform for fleet defence, (self defence the lowered turning will offset the raw firepower IMO), TBH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
755
[SF-A]
Members
2,848 posts
5,548 battles

Also, things like fire and flooding do more damage since it is a percent. I'd expect it to have a BB repair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
381
[SAA]
Members
814 posts
26,779 battles

Op or not, having WG introducing a paper ship that was never built and not giving us ships like Alaska (CB-1) just sort of seems wrong.  There are so many good ships out there that were built, I just dont understand why they are ignored and WG spends so much time and resources on fictional paper ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
456
[LUCK]
Members
1,276 posts
19,024 battles
30 minutes ago, Turbotush said:

Op or not, having WG introducing a paper ship that was never built and not giving us ships like Alaska (CB-1) just sort of seems wrong.  There are so many good ships out there that were built, I just dont understand why they are ignored and WG spends so much time and resources on fictional paper ships.

Makes sense to me in that they are developing Stalingrad for the 75th anniversary of the battle (according to WG) and lessons learned on that could be applied to the T9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,780 posts
14,828 battles
1 hour ago, Carl said:

 

I wouldn't say underpowered, but it's different from a normal cruiser in what it's good at and what it's bad at, and thats going to really radically alter any balance discussion of it. It dosen;t play like a normal cruiser or a normal BB but somthing in between and that means it's not really threatening either type but instead carving out a new niche for itself.

 

Thats why i kinda think introducing BC as an MM type, (but allowing BC's to be matched vs same tier cruisers), would do wonders for acceptance of the ship. People would stop trying to compare it to cruisers so directly.

 

It's also likely to be an incredible AAA platform for fleet defence, (self defence the lowered turning will offset the raw firepower IMO), TBH.

So ... another OP fantasy ship that fits .. nowhere. Great!

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,675
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,055 posts
7,611 battles

I'm curious if her listed turning radius is accurate.  The soviet cruisers don't have a great track record for accuracy there.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,761 posts
8,052 battles
2 hours ago, pewpewpew42 said:

Also, things like fire and flooding do more damage since it is a percent. I'd expect it to have a BB repair.

Not if it has Cruiser Damage Control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
114
Members
309 posts

Because it's probably going to be another piece of clan battle reward garbage like stalingrad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
74
[ADAPT]
Members
805 posts
12,773 battles

TX moskva who scared of it? none..

T9 paper under development ships--mehhh..who care..long big [edited]ship..easy to shoot and hit..spam HE or AP  they will bow reverse..mehh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,426
[5BS]
Members
4,493 posts

The Kron is OP because it's a T10 masquerading at T9. Why is that so hard for people to understand. In principle, it has very little difference with the Moskva. Slightly larger guns and slightly larger size and a bit more health (20k more is a bit, apparently), but it's in principle, a Moskva, at T9... how do you not see the problem with that? This, combined with the equally problematic Musashi is showing a BAD trend of just taking T10's, futzing with them slightly, and dropping them to T9.

As I've said elsewhere, this is akin to taking the DM, removing some AA, nerfing down detection and Radar range a bit, and putting it at T9, with the same health, and ROF and gun ballistics/Superheavy rounds. Does THAT sound fair?

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,582
Members
17,779 posts
5,084 battles
15 hours ago, Carl said:

Most players don't know how to play cruisers.

 

Explanation:

Explanation not needed.

The first line tells us that matching this thing against regular cruisers is going to give the team that has one an advantage over one that doesn't.

It doesn't matter that you know how to deal with this new ship on the other team, because most of your teammates won't.

Not that I disagree with your assessment.

Edited by Skpstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,023
[OPG]
Members
3,888 posts
5,476 battles
26 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

 Slightly larger guns and slightly larger size and a bit more health (20k more is a bit, apparently), but it's in principle, a Moskva, at T9... how do you not see the problem with that?

You are forgetting the fact that it has half the RoF and BB levels of dispersion and sigma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,426
[5BS]
Members
4,493 posts
4 minutes ago, yashma said:

You are forgetting the fact that it has half the RoF and BB levels of dispersion and sigma.

It's still a T10 nerfed slightly (and also BUFFED a bit too) and dropped a tier. This is a BAD way to pad out trees and born of a stupid self imposed 'rule' against selling or making generally available TX prems.

And need we forget, that WGing has already had issues with this style of implementing prems and it backfires as often as it works,or need it be reminded that the Konig Albert and Belfast, both ostensibly tier higher ships, 'nerfed' and dropped a tier are so overpowered they wont even SELL them anymore?

Edited by _RC1138
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,426
[5BS]
Members
4,493 posts

Oh and btw, we *already* have a bunch of Battlecruisers in the game, that are NOT treated by MM as CA's, and they are fine. Seriously, why is it then that Hood cannot be considered 'equal' to a Pensacola as far as MM is concerned if this thing is to be considered equal to say, an Ibuki?

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,023
[OPG]
Members
3,888 posts
5,476 battles
17 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

It's still a T10 nerfed slightly (and also BUFFED a bit too) and dropped a tier. This is a BAD way to pad out trees and born of a stupid self imposed 'rule' against selling or making generally available TX prems.

I disagree.  I argue it's a Tier 7 BB masquerading as cruiser.  Apart from the fact this ship gets to game the MM into having 30k-40k more HP than the ship that lines up across from it, the initial stats of the Kronshtadt don't look OP.  It does not have the RoF, DPM or accuracy to rival cruisers as HE spammers, and compared to BBs it is lacking in alpha and overmatch.  The existence of the Kronshtadt does not really make any other ship redundant.

On paper it does not look like it will excel in any one category apart from being a damage sponge, and that is of questionable value in randoms.  *I could see it this abused in competitive though....

*edit

And just for the sake of openness, I really would have preferred if the Kronshtadt had a lower HP pool.  This just causes a balancing headache in which I struggle to say the Kronshtadt is not OP because it has twice the HP pool of its MM counterpart, but the ship itself looks really "meh" 

Edited by yashma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
156
[R-R-R]
Members
969 posts
6,420 battles

I agree with some of what you said but not all. Surely I don't consider her OP yet just by raw stats, but I don't see her being weak either.

Her AP firepower seems to be slightly better than Scharnhorst, potentially having better penetration. Her HE has much higher alpha. The 1.8 sigma can be a pain but we will see. I think such firepower is quite adequate at T9.

She has huge HP pool and good armor by cruiser standard. However, Russian cruiser tends to have large citadel which leads to very weak broadside. So combined with 14.x s rudder, it can be tricky do play her.

However, she comes with a very good base concealment value. So it should be entirely possible to play around her weakness. You can either go full concealment and dictate the engagement. Or you can go double rudder shift to reduce the time down to 7.x second. So I am pretty confident that I can handle her pretty well.

She will probably have 50mm deck armor just like Moskva. So I disagree that she will eat a lot of HE damage outside of being shot by Hindenburg/Roon.

 

Edited by Exciton8964

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,023
[OPG]
Members
3,888 posts
5,476 battles
10 minutes ago, Exciton8964 said:

She will probably have 50mm deck armor just like Moskva. So I disagree that she will eat a lot of HE damage outside of being shot by Hindenburg/Roon.

I unfortunately don't have first hand knowledge on the topic, but several people on reddit were claiming the Kronshtadt was never supposed to be fitted with 50mm plates IRL, unlike the Moskva and Stalingrad, and as a result there is a good chance it won't get them in game either.  

*So that is the assumption I'm operating under.  

Edited by yashma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,344
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,179 posts
2,029 battles

I doubt it will be OP.

 

It will fail, in fact, for the same reasons Alaska will fail as a high-tier cruiser. It's just a massive 'Free cits' sign to BBs. She doesn't have the extremity armor of Stalingrad, so this is just going to get slaughtered by other ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×