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

Update on the re-tiered USN Cruiser stats

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

753
[BNKR]
[BNKR]
Members
1,804 posts
1,267 battles

From the WoWS Development Blog:

 

Dear captains! 

Let us bring some clarity to the situation with the down- and up-tiered American ships’ stats. As you’ve noticed, they are hardly corrected for their relevant tiers. 

But let us assure you, that they’re going to begin getting balanced very soon, and the stats will be modified depending on their new tiers.

We’d like to apologize for causing this confusion. When the actual new numbers become available, we will be sure to share them with you.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
666
[LUCK]
Members
1,700 posts
23,913 battles

Not sure they needed to apologize/clarify. It says the numbers are subject to change.

I'm just happy to see movement on the split.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,759
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,670 posts
2,114 battles
1 hour ago, Yoshiblue said:

Makes me wonder what the lines each specialize in. AA vs Fire Power?

Heavy cruiser vs Light cruiser?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,242
[5BS]
Members
7,625 posts
1 hour ago, Madwolf05 said:

Then why bother releasing the numbers on them at all?

Because they get leaked by SEA group anyway. At least this way they can (sort of) control the narrative. Problem is this response is insulting, frankly, because people react to *most* ST information like this, but they know that the USN CA/CL's already get the short end of the stick 90% of the time, and these stats are all the worse *AND* in nearly all cases, when a ship's stats reach the ST Servers, those are seldom tweaked more than a few % points in any direction. What you see now is functionally what you will get. The only outliers of major tweaks are the GZ, the DoY, and Kidd.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,759
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,670 posts
2,114 battles

Funnily enough SEAgroup hasn't actually released anything on the USN cruisers yet :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
854 posts
10,722 battles
52 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Heavy cruiser vs Light cruiser?

Do do, tsh.

 

2 hours ago, Madwolf05 said:

Then why bother releasing the numbers on them at all?

I mean I can see the concern of SEA releasing a his info before them in this form, but it may have played out differently in WG minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
264
[A-D-F]
Members
885 posts
7,008 battles
2 hours ago, Madwolf05 said:

Then why bother releasing the numbers on them at all?

Because there's no such thing as bad press? :Smile_trollface:

Edited by Curly__san

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,638 posts
3,938 battles
1 hour ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Heavy cruiser vs Light cruiser?

At the end of the day it tells me nothing. Do the lights get torpedoes? Do the heavies get 1/4 HE like the german line? Do they both get equal AA protection? Are the Lights better at covering wide areas like the Cleveland while the heavies can only protect themselves? 

 

Can't say without data, but it makes me wonder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,835 posts
4,697 battles
3 hours ago, Madwolf05 said:

Then why bother releasing the numbers on them at all?

Because it's an "in" thing in present development and gaming culture to release development changes, despite it being a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
913
[HINON]
Members
3,938 posts
4,342 battles
1 hour ago, _RC1138 said:

What you see now is functionally what you will get. The only outliers of major tweaks are the GZ, the DoY, and Kidd.

And Enterprise, and Colorado and any other Tier 7 ship that had WWI ammunition, and the RN CLs (which, when they entered testing, were pretty-much all Flints), and the USN CVs (several times over), and Shinano, and Kitakami, and all destroyers (OWSF removal), and Smoke Firing....

There have been so many changes to the game that your claim does not hold water here. Stop being pessimistic and offering that feeling of pessimism as evidence. It isn't. It's just a feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,797
Alpha Tester
7,113 posts
3,722 battles
7 minutes ago, Carrier_Lexington said:

And Enterprise, and Colorado and any other Tier 7 ship that had WWI ammunition, and the RN CLs (which, when they entered testing, were pretty-much all Flints), and the USN CVs (several times over), and Shinano, and Kitakami, and all destroyers (OWSF removal), and Smoke Firing....

There have been so many changes to the game that your claim does not hold water here. Stop being pessimistic and offering that feeling of pessimism as evidence. It isn't. It's just a feeling.

* Enterprise's only change was giving her a Tier 9 module slot, and she still has the worst torpedo spread in the game. Meanwhile, Kaga and GZ are God Level.

* Colorado is STILL missing her frontal armor, and it only took them 3 years to fix her blatantly incorrect HP. The RN BB line came out and put a BB right next to her with slightly better HP and a "Super Heal." And they nerfed her 2.0 sigma to 1.9.

* The RN CLs are hot trash through Tier 5, and then become meh 6+, and suffer badly in competitive play.

* The USN several times over and they STILL suck massively. In fact, after the last buff ww actually saw another USN CV fall bellow 50% WR!

* Shinano?

* Kitikame is still not in the game, and despite people fawning over her, was a turd. You just launched your torps, died, and hit a few reds and a few team mates.

* The Graf Zepplin came out despite massive warnings from the community. So acting like that is proof that things regularly get adjusted is hilarious.

* OWSF made it through 2 years, the game was released that way.

* Smoke fire was the same way.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,838
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

i guess I will hold all further Comments on the Split till after it happens and follow the crap storm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
913
[HINON]
Members
3,938 posts
4,342 battles
7 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

* Enterprise's only change was giving her a Tier 9 module slot, and she still has the worst torpedo spread in the game. Meanwhile, Kaga and GZ are God Level.

* Colorado is STILL missing her frontal armor, and it only took them 3 years to fix her blatantly incorrect HP. The RN BB line came out and put a BB right next to her with slightly better HP and a "Super Heal." And they nerfed her 2.0 sigma to 1.9.

* The RN CLs are hot trash through Tier 5, and then become meh 6+, and suffer badly in competitive play.

* The USN several times over and they STILL suck massively. In fact, after the last buff ww actually saw another USN CV fall bellow 50% WR!

* Shinano?

* Kitikame is still not in the game, and despite people fawning over her, was a turd. You just launched your torps, died, and hit a few reds and a few team mates.

* The Graf Zepplin came out despite massive warnings from the community. So acting like that is proof that things regularly get adjusted is hilarious.

* OWSF made it through 2 years, the game was released that way.

* Smoke fire was the same way.

1) Despite Enterprise being one of the best Tier 8 CVs currently, especially in competitive play.

2) They removed the A-hull with it's WWI Ammunition that made her completely unplayable

3) Leander is amazing, Fiji is moreso, Edinburgh is alright... look, just because something got changed doesn't mean it became "God-Tier". If anything, "God-Tier" should be avoided, because that is synonymous with broken.

4) See above

5) Removed from the game because she was just trashed by Midway

6) Yep, the developers listened to the majority of the playerbase and fixed a problem at the end of testing.

7) Did I mention GZ? No.

8) Still got changed in the end

9) See above

 

Just because something gets changed doesn't mean it inherently becomes mega-awesome in all regards. Sometimes things need nerfs, and sometimes things need buffs. They always get changed.... including the CV rework that we're going to see SoonTM.

Edited by Carrier_Lexington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,242
[5BS]
Members
7,625 posts
24 minutes ago, Carrier_Lexington said:

And Enterprise, and Colorado and any other Tier 7 ship that had WWI ammunition, and the RN CLs (which, when they entered testing, were pretty-much all Flints), and the USN CVs (several times over), and Shinano, and Kitakami, and all destroyers (OWSF removal), and Smoke Firing....

There have been so many changes to the game that your claim does not hold water here. Stop being pessimistic and offering that feeling of pessimism as evidence. It isn't. It's just a feeling.

Anything before full release is non compos mentis to bring up as that is the very POINT of a beta test. As far as Enterprise is concerned, that's debatable, as by the time the 'general' 'leak' of it's stats on the DevBlog, they didn't change much at all, just a slight tweak to penetration that frankly didn't alter much of it's performance (can still 1 shot most KM BB's and put a helluva hurt on IJN ones). Same for the RN Cruisers, by the time they hit the devblog their stats didnt change much at all. Really the only example I left out was KM Destroyers, but those caught everyone by surprise, even ST/CC's who had already written reviews. But other ships like KM BB's? Or RU CL/CA's? RN BB's? 94% of Premiums in the last two years? By the time we had official stats issued for them (as in, posted directly on the Wargaming official devblog) they were more or less finalized with little in the ways of changes. Maybe a 1% change to fire starting here, a 5% drop in HP there, but very little in the way of testing feedback seemed to come. Only post-release nerfs/buffs happen, and depending on the ships, with long or short times of response. Baltimore and NO's much needed RoF buffs? Took about two years. Colorado's HP buff? Almost 3. Conqs and Lion's zombie heal? About 2 months. But all are post release. And given WGing's history with USN Ships, any flaws upon release of USN CL/CA's are going to stay for a GOOD long while.

Combine these two realities and you get a clear picture of what this line and how it's going to work for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,797
Alpha Tester
7,113 posts
3,722 battles

We're talking about "in testing, subject to change" vs actual release.

The proof is in the pudding. If they look bad now, the history of this ship line tells us it's not going to change for release.

This is literally the most cautiously buffed line in the game. War Gaming literally buffed the NO last time and nerfed her prior to release thinking it might have been too much. She went from worst non-CV on average to still solidly in the conversation. Woooo, thank God they didn't just buff her and see what happens.

I mean nothing like a line with the smallest "Dev Strike" ability in the game having merely above average guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,670
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
7,527 posts
38 minutes ago, Carrier_Lexington said:

And Enterprise, and Colorado and any other Tier 7 ship that had WWI ammunition, and the RN CLs (which, when they entered testing, were pretty-much all Flints), and the USN CVs (several times over), and Shinano, and Kitakami, and all destroyers (OWSF removal), and Smoke Firing....

There have been so many changes to the game that your claim does not hold water here. Stop being pessimistic and offering that feeling of pessimism as evidence. It isn't. It's just a feeling.

 

Indeed, the USN CVs just went through a HUGE nerf. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
913
[HINON]
Members
3,938 posts
4,342 battles
4 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

The proof is in the pudding. If they look bad now, the history of this ship line tells us it's not going to change for release.

Once again.... when the RN CLs entered testing, they were a line of mini-Flints that were the bane of everything with HE Spam. Seems a pretty dramatic change to what we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
533
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
5,071 posts
1,501 battles
10 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Anything before full release is non compos mentis to bring up as that is the very POINT of a beta test. As far as Enterprise is concerned, that's debatable, as by the time the 'general' 'leak' of it's stats on the DevBlog, they didn't change much at all, just a slight tweak to penetration that frankly didn't alter much of it's performance (can still 1 shot most KM BB's and put a helluva hurt on IJN ones). Same for the RN Cruisers, by the time they hit the devblog their stats didnt change much at all. Really the only example I left out was KM Destroyers, but those caught everyone by surprise, even ST/CC's who had already written reviews. But other ships like KM BB's? Or RU CL/CA's? RN BB's? 94% of Premiums in the last two years? By the time we had official stats issued for them (as in, posted directly on the Wargaming official devblog) they were more or less finalized with little in the ways of changes. Maybe a 1% change to fire starting here, a 5% drop in HP there, but very little in the way of testing feedback seemed to come. Only post-release nerfs/buffs happen, and depending on the ships, with long or short times of response. Baltimore and NO's much needed RoF buffs? Took about two years. Colorado's HP buff? Almost 3. Conqs and Lion's zombie heal? About 2 months. But all are post release. And given WGing's history with USN Ships, any flaws upon release of USN CL/CA's are going to stay for a GOOD long while.

Combine these two realities and you get a clear picture of what this line and how it's going to work for a long time.

 

Given the last several premiums have completely broken this pattern you don;t really have a leg to stand on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,242
[5BS]
Members
7,625 posts
Just now, Carl said:

 

Given the last several premiums have completely broken this pattern you don;t really have a leg to stand on here.

Only the DoY. Roma didn't receive almost ANY changes from her DevBlog version. Nor did the Kii, or Aigle, or the Vampire, or the Gasc (so far), nor really any but 2 or 3. Yeah. They get small, 5% here, 5% there tweaks, no one discounts that. But look at the Cleveland's stats, and the Baltimores, is a 5% tweak here or there gona help them? Even assuming their stock stats TOTALLY break from tradition and have an FCS mod with +20% (double what they do in nearly all cases) she still has the shortest range of her at tier mates (other than Eden). IDK why people are finding it hard to believe that USN cruisers are getting a shaft. They *always* get the shaft on changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
533
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
5,071 posts
1,501 battles

Gascogne has been significantly changed, so have Asashio and Cossack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
155 posts
3,106 battles

Maybe it's just me or me starting playing In December but too many people be complaining about range this range that... yea some of it matters if you sit in the open and fire away... cover>max range

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
134
[DOG]
Members
677 posts
8,195 battles

Apologies for the narrowed columns.  It condensed them when I copied and pasted them from an Excel.  Below is a data chart I made for an old board game called Battlewagon, representing WW2 ships.  It has ships included in the game, plus some conjectural ships I researched (SoDak2 and Lexington), if you wanted to have an idea of what we might be looking at in the way of armor and such.  This particular game was pure surface ship vs. surface ship, so it didn't bother tracking anything smaller than a 3" gun.  It can be read as follows:

PV = point value / SP = speed (in 2,000 yard hexes per 10 minute turn.  A lot of rounding going on here). /  FL = flotation boxes (a measure of size, watertight integrity, and compartmentalization - how much flooding before you sink).  / BL = belt armor (All armor is in inches. A + means it's between that # of inches and the next.  i.e. 4+ means more than 4" but less than 5").  / DK = deck armor / TR = turret armor / TT = turret top armor / MG = main gun (in inches.  AA is more powerful than BB, which is better than CC or DD).  / ABCD WXYZ = turrets.  FX is forward 270 degree firing arc, RX is rear 270 degrees, a B followed by an S (can't put [edited], apparently, because it gets edited)  is both sides (but not directly forward or rear), and if it has a ! or + it's a funky firing arc that's not a centerline turret. / SEC = secondary guns (s = unarmored, c = case mount, t = turret - if followed by a number that indicates the number of guns per turret. / TER = tertiary guns / TP = torpedo type / 1234 = torpedo mounts, with number of torpedoes per mount and firing arc [edited] = both sides, LS = left side, RS = right side, R* or L* = limited right or left side arc. / Year = year the first ship was commissioned / QTY = number originally planned.  Not necessarily the number completed.

As you can see, Cleveland had pretty close to the same armor as a CA.  It actually had thicker deck armor than Baltimore.  This was mostly unique to American CLs though.  In most other navies, CLs would have quite a bit thinner armor than CAs.

 

  UNITED STATES                                                  
  Ship Name PV SP FL BL DK TR TT MG A B C D W X Y Z SEC TER TP 1 2 3 4 YEAR QTY
BB Wyoming ('45R) 424 4 6 11 4 12 5 12AA 2FX 2FX   2BS 2BS   2RX 2RX 6x5DDs 10x3BBs - - - - - 1940R 2
BB Texas 549 4 6 12 7 14 5 14AA 2FX 2FX     2BS   2RX 2RX 6x5DDc 10x3BBs - - - - - 1942R 2
BB Nevada 604 4 7 13+ 4+ 18 5 14AA 3FX 2FX         2RX 3RX 16x5DDt2 - - - - - - 1943R 2
BB Pennsylvania 720 4 9 14 7 18 5 14AA 3FX 3FX         3RX 3RX 16x5DDt2 - - - - - - 1943R 2
BB New Mexico 703 4 9 14 8+ 18 5 14AA 3FX 3FX         3RX 3RX 8x5DDs - - - - - - 1936R 1
BB Misissippi 703 4 9 14 8+ 18 5 14AA 3FX 3FX         3RX 3RX 14x5DDs - - - - - - 1936R 1
BB Idaho 703 4 9 14 8+ 18 5 14AA 3FX 3FX         3RX 3RX 10x5DDt2 - - - - - - 1936R 1
BB Tennessee 722 4 9 14 7+ 18 5 14AA 3FX 3FX         3RX 3RX 16x5DDt2 - - - - - - 1943R 2
BB Maryland 689 4 10 16 5 18 5 16BB 2FX 2FX         2RX 2RX 16x5DDt2 - - - - - - 1921 4
BB North Carolina 833 5 10 16 4+ 18 7 16BB 3FX 3FX           3RX 20x5DDt2 - - - - - - 1941 2
BB South Dakota 846 5 10 16 6 18 7 16BB 3FX 3FX           3RX 20x5DDt2 - - - - - - 1942 4
BB Iowa 1111 6 12 19 9 18 7 16AA 3FX 3FX           3RX 20x5DDt2 - - - - - - 1943 6
BB Montana 1320 5 15 23 8 18 8 16AA 3FX 3FX         3RX 3RX 20x5DDt2 - - - - - - 1944 5
BB South Dakota2 858 4 9 14 6 18 5 16BB 3FX 3FX         3RX 3RX 16x6BBc 8x3BBs - - - - - 1940R 6
BC Lexington 685 6 10 7 4 14 5 16AA 2FX 2FX         2RX 2RX 6x6BBc 6x6BBs G 2R* 2L* 2RS 2LS 1925 6
BC Alaska 489 6 9 9 4 13 5 12AA 3FX 3FX           3RX 12x5DDt2 - - - - - - 1944 6
CA Pensacola 173 6 3 4 1+ 3 1+ 8BB 2FX 3FX         3RX 2RX 8x5DDs - - - - - - 1929 2
CA Northhampton 167 6 3 4 2 4 2 8BB 3FX 3FX           3RX 8x5DDs - - - - - - 1929 6
CA Indianapolis 176 6 3 4 4 4 2 8BB 3FX 3FX           3RX 8x5DDs - - - - - - 1931 2
CA Astoria 199 6 3 5 5 6 3 8BB 3FX 3FX           3RX 8x5DDs - - - - - - 1933 7
CA Wichita 199 6 3 5 5 6 3 8BB 3FX 3FX           3RX 8x5DDs - - - - - - 1937 1
CA Baltimore 213 6 3 6 3 6 3 8BB 3FX 3FX           3RX 12x5DDt2 - - - - - - 1942 14
CA Oregon City ? 6 3 6 3 6 3 8BB 3FX 3FX           3RX 12x5DDt3 8x3BBm2 - - - - - 1943 8
CL Omaha 153 6 2 5 3 5 3 6BB 2FX 2R+ 2L+     2R! 2L! 2RX 8x3BBs - G 3RS 3LS - - 1923 10
CL Brooklyn 187 6 3 6 2 4 3 6BB 3FX 3FX   3BS     3RX 3RX 8x5DDs - - - - - - 1936 9
CL Atlanta 83 5 2 3+ 2 2 1 5DD 2FX 2FX 2FX 2R! 2L! 2RX 2RX 2RX - - G 4RS 4LS - - 1941 10
CL Cleveland 195 6 3 5 5 5 3 6BB 3FX 3FX         3RX 3RX 12x5DDt2 - - - - - - 1941 39
DD Farragut 36 6 1 1 + + 0 5DD 1FX 1FX     1BS   1RX 1RX - - G 4BS 4BS - - 1934 8
DD Porter 50 6 1 1 + + 0 5DD 2FX 2FX     2BS     2RX - - G 4BS 4BS - - 1935 8
DD Mahan 38 6 1 1 + + 0 5DD 1FX 1FX         1RX 1RX - - G 4BS 4BS 4BS - 1935 18
DD Craven 43 6 1 1 + + 0 5DD 1FX 1FX         1RX 1RX - - G 4RS 4RS 4LS 4LS 1936 4
DD Somers 56 6 1 1 + + 0 5DD 2FX 2FX         2RX 2RX - - G 4BS 4BS 4BS - 1937 5
DD Sims 47 7 1 1 + + 0 5DD 1FX 1FX     1BS   1RX 1RX - - G 4BS 4BS 4BS - 1938 12
DD Benson 27 6 1 1 + + 0 5DD 1FX 1FX         1RX 1RX - - G 5BS - - - 1939 24
DD Fletcher 32 6 1 1 + + 0 5DD 1FX 1FX     1BS   1RX 1RX - - G 3BS 2BS - - 1942 175
DD Sumner 37 6 1 1 + + 0 5DD 2FX 2FX           2RX - - G 3BS 2BS - - 1944 70
DD Gearing 45 6 1 1 + + 0 5DD 2FX 2FX           2RX - - G 5BS 5BS - - 1944 98
DE Butler 12 4 1 + 0 0 0 5DD 1FX             1RX - - G 3BS - - - 1943  
Edited by zubalkabir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×