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

Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,898 battles
Just now, LittleWhiteMouse said:

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.

Fair enough.

KC_CarryOnEh_Design.png

(What? The opportunity was perfect.)

 

Share this post


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

In a second thought that may be true.

What would you propose instead?

It depends on what the expected result of the change is. It sounds to me like people pushing for changes in this thread want the Yamato to be more forgiving at closer ranges and I am not sure I entirely agree with that because I enjoy ships having specific weaknesses that I have to play around and specialties that I can focus on when playing those ships. I actually really liked the Warpsite and Mogami before they were buffed because they had strengths and weaknesses. Buffing weaknesses out of ships in my opinion simply takes away character of the ships and makes the game less diverse. 

 

Just now, Akeno017 said:

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

Are you looking for a ship with fixed turrets? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,667 posts
7,210 battles
13 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

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.

GLVkKLv.gif

Having more advanced ships at tier X to fight at longer ranges makes sense, it challenges players to take more deliberate maneuvers and to have better marksmanship. What about buffing the normalization values to encourage landing more shells while lowering the dispersion?

Spoiler

This thread has turned from "Yamato doesn't need buffs" spam into valuable discussions. I'm happy now.

 

Edited by The_first_harbinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,708
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
11,061 posts
9,147 battles
Just now, The_first_harbinger said:

Having more advanced ships at tier X to fight at longer ranges makes sense, it challenges players to take more deliberate maneuvers and to have better marksmanship. What about buffing the normalization values to encourage landing more shells while lowering the dispersion?

It's a risk-reward issue you're playing with her.  So long as people can shoot at long distance, they will, gambling that (over time), they'll get the big numbers they're hoping for.  Reduced accuracy will only make HE shells from battleships more attractive as a result, increasing the amount of spam seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
469
[CAST]
Members
2,036 posts
9,368 battles

The Yamato doesn't need a buff.  It is quite functional as is.  If I could have one thing improved, it would probably be the turret traverse.  It doesn't have to be cruiser level, but a tiny increase in rotation would be nice, just so it doesn't take half the game to swing your guns from left to right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
489
[YAN]
Members
1,700 posts
8,085 battles
23 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

Are you looking for a ship with fixed turrets? 

Sure, gimme an old Ship of the Line, and ill show you dev strike!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
121
Members
188 posts
25 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

It depends on what the expected result of the change is. It sounds to me like people pushing for changes in this thread want the Yamato to be more forgiving at closer ranges and I am not sure I entirely agree with that because I enjoy ships having specific weaknesses that I have to play around and specialties that I can focus on when playing those ships. I actually really liked the Warpsite and Mogami before they were buffed because they had strengths and weaknesses. Buffing weaknesses out of ships in my opinion simply takes away character of the ships and makes the game less diverse. 

 

Are you looking for a ship with fixed turrets? 

But then Iowa and Montana gets their only weakness that was realistic removed with that pointless citadel buff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,805
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
7,128 posts
3,883 battles
7 minutes ago, bsbr said:

But then Iowa and Montana gets their only weakness that was realistic removed with that pointless citadel buff?

They were 47% win rate ships before that buff, which simply made their citadel EXACTLY the same height as the North Carolina's, the ship they succeeded.

Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Alabama, and North Carolina are among the easiest BBs to citadel in the game. If you can't do it the problem is you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,128
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,894 posts
8,457 battles
Just now, bsbr said:

But then Iowa and Montana gets their only weakness that was realistic removed with that pointless citadel buff?

You clearly have no ability to rationally give the ships fair evaluations if you think that the citadel height was the only weakness of high tier USN BBs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
680
[LUCK]
Members
1,711 posts
25,118 battles
21 minutes ago, bsbr said:

pointless citadel buff?

There was a problem when you could wipe a nearly full health Iowa with 4 salvos from Baltimore.

Not pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,643 posts
9,952 battles
1 minute ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

You clearly have no ability to rationally give the ships fair evaluations if you think that the citadel height was the only weakness of high tier USN BBs. 

he has made numerous threads raging about the Iowa/Monty for one reason or another over the last year while also trying to get the yammy buffed.  some of them were pretty funny.  some were just bad attempts.  he generally hasn't shown any inclination for wanting to have a rational conversation about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
841 posts
4,880 battles
3 hours ago, bsbr said:

A complete valid suggestion burn is drowned by groupthink.

No, a completely ridiculous suggestion is being given the reaction it deserves. It's a balancing issue. The Yamato has a LOT of strengths, its weaknesses are there to balance these off (and there are quite a few that believe it is too strong as is). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,147
Members
2,486 posts
4,169 battles
1 hour ago, yashma said:

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.  

Its people who want a ship they like personally to be changed to a play style they enjoy.  Personally I think its a little silly,  you research a line before you go up and see if the playstyle is going to be one you enjoy and then you either grind it anyway and learn or you don't.  Personally I have ship styles I really enjoy ((KM ships in general)) with specific ships I like ((NC,  Nagato,  Cleveland)) and I keep those ships or terminate my climb at that point. What I don't do is say things like "Hey,  wouldn't it be great if the NoCal were a brawler?!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,497
Beta Testers
6,868 posts
4,189 battles
34 minutes ago, Palladia said:

Its people who want a ship they like personally to be changed to a play style they enjoy.  Personally I think its a little silly,  you research a line before you go up and see if the playstyle is going to be one you enjoy and then you either grind it anyway and learn or you don't.  Personally I have ship styles I really enjoy ((KM ships in general)) with specific ships I like ((NC,  Nagato,  Cleveland)) and I keep those ships or terminate my climb at that point. What I don't do is say things like "Hey,  wouldn't it be great if the NoCal were a brawler?!"

 

I enjoy the Des Moines but I think it needs more alpha.  I don't want to buff the Des Moines, just raise shell damage to 14k and reduce the main belt by 2mm.  Look, it's got a drawback so it's not a buff.

 

:Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
595
[MAHAN]
Beta Testers
1,540 posts
5,976 battles

Yamato is fine, and that is coming from somebody that isn't particularly good in her. The only change I wish they would make is to add the last little bit of missing AA just to make it fully historical. I guess that would technically be a "buff," but please. It would be an inconsequential addition of short range DPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,143 posts
3,273 battles
3 minutes ago, AdmiralPiett said:

Yamato is fine, and that is coming from somebody that isn't particularly good in her. The only change I wish they would make is to add the last little bit of missing AA just to make it fully historical. I guess that would technically be a "buff," but please. It would be an inconsequential addition of short range DPS.

Considering that AP DBs are a thing, I wouldn't say it's "inconsequential" but it could come eventually once or if they ever get CVs fixed... ie decrease the height difference between skill floor and ceiling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
595
[MAHAN]
Beta Testers
1,540 posts
5,976 battles
4 minutes ago, Ivlerlin said:

Considering that AP DBs are a thing, I wouldn't say it's "inconsequential" but it could come eventually once or if they ever get CVs fixed... ie decrease the height difference between skill floor and ceiling. 

It is inconsequential because Yamato is missing like four triple 25mm mounts and two 13.2mms. The 13.2mms are worthless and the added DPS of the four triples mounts is tiny. Like 25ish DPS IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,254 posts
8,623 battles
2 hours ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

It depends on what the expected result of the change is. It sounds to me like people pushing for changes in this thread want the Yamato to be more forgiving at closer ranges and I am not sure I entirely agree with that because I enjoy ships having specific weaknesses that I have to play around and specialties that I can focus on when playing those ships. I actually really liked the Warpsite and Mogami before they were buffed because they had strengths and weaknesses. Buffing weaknesses out of ships in my opinion simply takes away character of the ships and makes the game less diverse.

I highly agree with this. Yamato has both very clearly designed strengths and weaknesses. I actually really enjoy Yamato because of this, even though I'm an aggressive player, because I get to focus on my ship's greatest strength and push her as far as she can go without allowing others to take advantage of her weaknesses, or to put me in a bad spot.

Those guns are devastating, but anything that can penetrate her citadel can be devastating to a Yamato if you let it. It's currently one of the most well done ships in the game in terms of gameplay in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,143 posts
3,273 battles
53 minutes ago, AdmiralPiett said:

It is inconsequential because Yamato is missing like four triple 25mm mounts and two 13.2mms. The 13.2mms are worthless and the added DPS of the four triples mounts is tiny. Like 25ish DPS IIRC.

"Buffs" a buff?...? Lol..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
121
Members
188 posts
3 hours ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

You clearly have no ability to rationally give the ships fair evaluations if you think that the citadel height was the only weakness of high tier USN BBs. 

Iowa and Montana were already really strong and there was no need for a citadel buff yet they got one, but now Yamato treated fairly by getting the same is unacceptavle? Citadel buff to make more forgiving is only allowed for USN BBs? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,805
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
7,128 posts
3,883 battles
5 hours ago, bsbr said:

Iowa and Montana were already really strong and there was no need for a citadel buff yet they got one, but now Yamato treated fairly by getting the same is unacceptavle? Citadel buff to make more forgiving is only allowed for USN BBs? 

The Iowa was tied with the "worst ship in the game" Izumo, and Montana was the worst Tier 10 Battleship. A Des Moines or Baltimore could walk up to an Iowa or Montana broadside at close range and EASILY win the exchange. The German BBs simply mud stomped all the USN BBs which were already below all the IJN BBs except Kawachi vs South Carolina and Myogi vs Wyoming. I mean how is that balanced in any way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×