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

Does the Yamato need some tweaks?

116 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
3,667 posts
7,191 battles
1 minute ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

Asking to change the citadel is a buff, that is what you are not getting.

Please take a moment, scroll up, and review my original post. I never proposed a lowered citadel of Yamato, this is a part of her distinctive feature that gave her a unique playstyle, and a sacrifice for her excellent artillery.

What I'm asking for are changes that allow Yamato to take a more active role in the current meta DESPITE retaining this hindrance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,873 battles
1 minute ago, The_first_harbinger said:

Because I'm not arguing that Yamato needs a buff.

Please take a moment to scroll up and review my post. Thanks.

You mean the post where you are incorrectly saying that the OP isn't asking for a buff just because he did not say the word "buff"? And because we can all see that it is him asking for a buff we are all trolls? Yes lets review the fact you are the one actually falling for the bait and not @LittleWhiteMouse and the rest of us like you are accusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[DO-IT]
Members
6 posts
3,607 battles

Perhaps give Yamato the same 18.7sec standard rudder shift the Musashi has? Or not. I just feel like I can out play Yamato's with my Musashi because it has slightly better maneuverability. Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,873 battles
Just now, The_first_harbinger said:

Please take a moment, scroll up, and review my original post. I never proposed a lowered citadel of Yamato, this is a part of her distinctive feature that gave her a unique playstyle, and a sacrifice for her excellent artillery.

What I'm asking for are changes that allow Yamato to take a more active role in the current meta DESPITE retaining this hindrance.

A.K.A you are buffing her armor and maneuverability wile sacrificing her main power. So you are nerfing her largest strength to give her buffs she does not need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,667 posts
7,191 battles
Just now, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

You mean the post where you are incorrectly saying that the OP isn't asking for a buff just because he did not say the word "buff"? And because we can all see that it is him asking for a buff we are all trolls? Yes lets review the fact you are the one actually falling for the bait and not @LittleWhiteMouse and the rest of us like you are accusing.

"To all those that say "Yamato doesn't need any buffs", please note that the OP initiated a discussion about should Yamato be changed, and never ever, did he mention anything about straight up buffs.

OP asked for Yamato to have a more healthy and interesting playstyle, not a buff to her power. Let us examine what does the Yamato in her current stage, overpowered or underpowered, brings to a match:

Long, long-range strikes: 2.1 Sigma, THE best penetrating projectile 15km and up, overmatching capability and plunging trajectory means Yamato is good at, and especially good at, long range shooting. 

Passive engagement: Yamato is horizontally the least protected battleship at tier X that just so happened to be the least maneuverable, unbearable turret traverse for any maneuvering battleship at any tier means Yamato cannot afford to take any risks, something that everybody else can confidently do.

Abrupt games: Yamato, when she had her flanks protected, fully able to bring her rapid firing accurate guns to bear can shred any ships, from destroyers to the toughest battleships with great ease. Yet, her vulnerability to both devastating airstrikes and battleship salvos means her 97k hitpoints rarely last long in a losing firefight, while everybody else can be a tough pillbox, allowing cruiser and destroyer teammates to regain their footholds and mount a counter-offensive.

I don't think Yamato is a healthy addition to the game in her current stage, over or underperforming does not change this problem. I agree with OP that Yamato requires some changes, my suggestion would be to increase Yamato's turret traverse, give back Yamato's 760-meter turning radius while nerfing Yamato's horizontal dispersion. This allows Yamato to recover from bad positions and make more active moves while punishing excessive sniping against cruisers.

So many respected forumites, including the LittleWhiteMouse, got distracted by a low-quality bait made me very disappointed.

Edited 24 minutes ago by The_first_harbinger 
grammar
"

Sorry for the long page length

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
488
[YAN]
Members
1,700 posts
8,085 battles
1 minute ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

Asking to change the citadel is a buff, that is what you are not getting.

Because if every other battleship at tier is going to get that same citadel, why shouldn't IJN ones?

It feels anything but rewarding to get pen damage in a brawl when the enemy can derp shells anywhere in your broadside for 3x the damage.

That feeling needs to change, and theres 2 ways to do it.

1. Make it equal and lower Yamatos citadel.

2. Make it equal and raise the citadels of the other battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,873 battles
1 minute ago, The_first_harbinger said:

 

He is suggesting changes that buff the ship. Buffs the ship does not need, that is what you are missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,667 posts
7,191 battles
5 minutes ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

A.K.A you are buffing her armor and maneuverability wile sacrificing her main power. So you are nerfing her largest strength to give her buffs she does not need.

1, That is just my personal opinion, OP asked for different opinions from different participants after all.

2, If a ship posses the greatest strength that such a ship should not possess to promote a healthy gameplay, such as Conqueror HE, what's so wrong with nerfing it? 

Edited by The_first_harbinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
488
[YAN]
Members
1,700 posts
8,085 battles
4 minutes ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

You mean the post where you are incorrectly saying that the OP isn't asking for a buff just because he did not say the word "buff"?

"I don't want the Yamato to be OP(i remember  beta and the "lol montana") but perhaps tweak some things? The more I think about it the more i feel the  game as a whole would need a sweeping change than a simple tweak to one ship. "

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,027 posts
5,679 battles
1 hour ago, Ramsalot said:

Conqueror already melts like no other under focused fire, it has weak all around armor susceptible to HE and regular pen damage.  Nerfing citadel will only force players into max range, that’s not going to benefit anyone.

That's pretty much how people play the damn thing now isn't it  along with it's ridiculous heal and stealth ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,103
[CHASE]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,948 posts
11,725 battles
1 minute ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

 

Flamu has nothing to do with it.  There is nothing wrong with the Yamato.  It's a great ship.  It doesn't need any help.  It competes very well with the other tier 10 BB's.  It's within 1% winrate for the other 10's and is second in damage done behind the stupid HE spamming Conq.  It has a 39% survival rate, which is 1 point behind Montana and 3 points better than the GK.  I have never loaded into a game in any of my tier 10 BB's and thought, man, I need buffs.

 

I never said it needed buffs, just saying obviously bc flamu had a 200k game in it that's the perfect way to tell if a ship is balanced or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,873 battles
8 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

Because if every other battleship at tier is going to get that same citadel, why shouldn't IJN ones?

It feels anything but rewarding to get pen damage in a brawl when the enemy can derp shells anywhere in your broadside for 3x the damage.

That feeling needs to change, and theres 2 ways to do it.

1. Make it equal and lower Yamatos citadel.

2. Make it equal and raise the citadels of the other battleships.

The Yamato's citadel is her balancing factor, her guns can overmatch all ships in the game and citadel them, so she has a larger citadel to compensate. As for other ships getting their citadels raised? That would turn the games into a complete campfest and make the Yamato Op with her gun accuracy and caliber. Is it unfair? Yes. I will not deny that, but it balances the ship and keeps her in check, if her citadel was like everyone else all people would play are Yamatos because with her guns and her armor she could charge right in with little to no fear and every other BB would be pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23
[AGBSL]
Members
63 posts
7,363 battles
8 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

Because if every other battleship at tier is going to get that same citadel, why shouldn't IJN ones?

It feels anything but rewarding to get pen damage in a brawl when the enemy can derp shells anywhere in your broadside for 3x the damage.

That feeling needs to change, and theres 2 ways to do it.

1. Make it equal and lower Yamatos citadel.

2. Make it equal and raise the citadels of the other battleships.

Or,

3. Remove all citadels. It would require a lot more general game balancing, but would help cruisers too. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,873 battles
6 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

The more I think about it the more i feel the  game as a whole would need a sweeping change than a simple tweak to one ship. 

That is a bit of a stretch, but I will agree that the Yamato is set so firmly in her niche and a change to her would cause large changes to high tier gameplay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,103
[CHASE]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,948 posts
11,725 battles
3 minutes ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

That is a bit of a stretch, but I will agree that the Yamato is set so firmly in her niche and a change to her would cause large changes to high tier gameplay. 

 

Some wd40 for a base 60 second traverse would be nice, although I am happy weegee removed the inability of the #2 turret to aim directly forward at ranges under 4km. I like to brawl with yamato. Imho it's the best brawling ship in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,478
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
10,998 posts
9,124 battles

pp0cMOL.png
Buffs in green.  Nerfs in red.

I know what you're trying to advocate -- you're trying to change Yamato's play style.  However, the changes proposed will not affect her play style in the desired fashion and would only increase her power level in her current, passive long-range play style.  You've effectively buffed her durability and flexibility.  Those are two of Yamato's biggest flaws and they keep her balanced.  Few ships reward you for catching their flank as Yamato and with good reason:  if she hits you with her main guns, you're taking a butt ton of damage.  Adding agility and rotation speed simply neuters that weakness.  Yamato won't use that agility to press a flank or engage at close-range.  She'll use it to stay back and react to threats by angling better or swinging her guns to bear to delete whatever is making a run against her. 

A decrease is dispersion won't force her to close the distance either.  Look at Musashi.  Is she in a hurry to get up close?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,128
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,894 posts
8,457 battles
46 minutes ago, The_first_harbinger said:

To all those that say "Yamato doesn't need any buffs", please note that the OP initiated a discussion about should Yamato be changed, and never ever, did he mention anything about straight up buffs.

OP asked for Yamato to have a more healthy and interesting playstyle, not a buff to her power. Let us examine what does the Yamato in her current stage, overpowered or underpowered, brings to a match:

Long, long-range strikes: 2.1 Sigma, THE best penetrating projectile 15km and up, overmatching capability and plunging trajectory means Yamato is good at, and especially good at, long range shooting. 

Passive engagement: Yamato is horizontally the least protected battleship at tier X that just so happened to be the least maneuverable, unbearable turret traverse for any maneuvering battleship at any tier means Yamato cannot afford to take any risks, something that everybody else can confidently do.

Abrupt games: Yamato, when she had her flanks protected, fully able to bring her rapid firing accurate guns to bear can shred any ships, from destroyers to the toughest battleships with great ease. Yet, her vulnerability to both devastating airstrikes and battleship salvos means her 97k hitpoints rarely last long in a losing firefight, while everybody else can be a tough pillbox, allowing cruiser and destroyer teammates to regain their footholds and mount a counter-offensive.

I don't think Yamato is a healthy addition to the game in her current stage, over or underperforming does not change this problem. I agree with OP that Yamato requires some changes, my suggestion would be to increase Yamato's turret traverse, give back Yamato's 760-meter turning radius while nerfing Yamato's horizontal dispersion. This allows Yamato to recover from bad positions and make more active moves while punishing excessive sniping against cruisers.

So many respected forumites, including the LittleWhiteMouse, got distracted by a low-quality bait made me very disappointed.

Sounds like a pretty massive buff to me and would have a very different result than you say. It wouldnt help the ship recover from bad positions because its still the slowest BB at tier 10 but the ship would become much more nimble and responsive at close range removing the biggest issue the Yamato has at close range. Anyone would sacrifice a little horizontal dispersion to gain turret traverse alone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,667 posts
7,191 battles
Just now, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

Sounds like a pretty massive buff to me and would have a very different result than you say. It wouldnt help the ship recover from bad positions because its still the slowest BB at tier 10 but the ship would become much more nimble and responsive at close range removing the biggest issue the Yamato has at close range. Anyone would sacrifice a little horizontal dispersion to gain turret traverse alone. 

In a second thought that may be true.

What would you propose instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,478
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
10,998 posts
9,124 battles
2 minutes ago, The_first_harbinger said:

In a second thought that may be true.

What would you propose instead?

If you want ships to engage at close range, it requires a systematic overhaul at tier 10.  Reduce the reach of their weapon systems -- not just effective reach, actual reach.  This can be done a number of ways, not just tweaking the weapon range of ships.  For example: introduce a radio-relay system for spotting similar to World of Tanks, but limit it just to select ships.  If you're not in range of said ships, you must do your own spotting.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
488
[YAN]
Members
1,700 posts
8,085 battles
9 minutes ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

That is a bit of a stretch, but I will agree that the Yamato is set so firmly in her niche and a change to her would cause large changes to high tier gameplay. 

Its a quote from the forum op. My own opinion on Yamato, Musashi and battleships as a whole is that citadels should be all or nothing, with everyone having either high cits or low cits, instead of the super low cit trend that the KMS bbs introduced and since then all BBs have essentially followed, with USN bbs receiving lowered cits but no nerfs. I say Yamato deserves the same treatment, or other battleships be lowered to compensate.

6 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

 Look at Musashi.  Is she in a hurry to get up close?

Musashi has the same dispersion as Yamato, its only her sigma that is lower. ( 256m at 26.5 on Musashi, 256m at 26.6 on Yamato )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
488
[YAN]
Members
1,700 posts
8,085 battles
8 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

 Anyone would sacrifice a little horizontal dispersion to gain turret traverse alone. 

Can I remove some turret traverse for better dispersion if we're doing these offers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
4,624 posts
6,979 battles
3 minutes ago, The_first_harbinger said:

In a second thought that may be true.

What would you propose instead?

Why does the Yamato even need to be changed though?  It's pretty balanced in the current meta, and there are numerous other BBs to pick from if the Yamato's play style is not your cup of tea.  I just feel this is a classic case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and I have yet to see compelling evidence for how the Yamato is a big enough detriment to the game to warrant a rework.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,873 battles
9 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

pp0cMOL.png

You have really become obsessed with those chibis @Chobittsu gave you aren't you LWM? Not that it is a bad thing just noticing that you are using it alot lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,478
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
10,998 posts
9,124 battles
1 minute ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

You have really become obsessed with those chibis @Chobittsu gave you aren't you LWM? Not that it is a bad thing just noticing that you are using it alot lately.

They're fun to play with.  They also help keep people from using my jpegs as their own as some sites and Youtubers have been doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×