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

The more complaints I see about Graf Zeppelin

65 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

7,353
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,394 posts
3,875 battles

The more I want her.

 

Can't wait until Graf is on sale to the general public.

 

X2cInkC.jpg

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 3
  • Bad 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
139
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
597 posts
9,376 battles

I LOVE mine!  3 DB AP bomber squadrons + one BB +  a touch of Mistress RNG's grace = single run kill.  KM BB's are the most vulnerable, but not even the USN BB's can escape a single pass kill. :cap_haloween:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
698
[SPTR]
Members
20,099 posts
5,362 battles

Taking pleasure in something unbalanced is nothing to be joyful for. 

*Shame.gif*

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,353
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,394 posts
3,875 battles
5 minutes ago, khaenn35 said:

Taking pleasure in something unbalanced is nothing to be joyful for. 

*Shame.gif*

Taking pleasure in the suffering of those who've ruined the game over the past 2 years, however, is.

 

Look up "vengeance" sometime.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 3
  • Bad 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles

I ended up fighting the same Graf Zepplin Player in two battles with my Lexington. Who was a better player? I leave up to you...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,579
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
15 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Taking pleasure in the suffering of those who've ruined the game over the past 2 years, however, is.

 

 

How do you figure the GZ does that? It isn't even useful against DD's...

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,353
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,394 posts
3,875 battles
15 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

How do you figure the GZ does that? It isn't even useful against DD's...

Because destroyers aren't the problem and never were.

Edited by KiyoSenkan
  • Cool 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
245
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,344 posts
9,536 battles
6 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Because destroyers aren't the problem and never were.

If you set up for it, she hunts DD's just fine.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles
6 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

If you set up for it, she hunts DD's just fine.

Ryujo loves hunting for DDs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
918 posts
2,449 battles

I'm so happy that CV's are getting changed in the way they play. I doubt GZ will be as OP as it is now after waterline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,694
Members
18,190 posts
5,196 battles
54 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Taking pleasure in the suffering of those who've ruined the game over the past 2 years, however, is.

 

Look up "vengeance" sometime.

WG is suffering? Or are you insinuating that, out of all the suggestions/complaints in the forums, they only pay attention to those from BB mains?

You're barking up the wrong tree you know. It's painfully obvious that it's not a matter of BBs being WG's golden boy, or else cruisers would have been nerfed into the ground. (especially in regards to fire) but they got radar, extra rudder shift upgrade, and reduced burn duration.

No good sir, the issue is not that WG loves BBs, but that they hate IJN DDs.

Besides, the only way vengeance has a lasting positive effect is if the vengeance removes the reason it's called for in the first place. Otherwise, it's just a see-saw of ever-increasing negativity.

Edited by Skpstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
233
[TBOW]
Members
1,251 posts
10,669 battles
7 minutes ago, xalmgrey said:

I'm so happy that CV's are getting changed in the way they play. I doubt GZ will be as OP as it is now after waterline.

Provided they can make it work...  When was the Year of the CV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,268
[RKLES]
Members
7,195 posts
8,940 battles

My Yamato got revenge against Graf Zepplin last night for the times it has attacked my other BBs...

Yamato shot down 26 GZ Planes and pounded the enemy GZ with some nice AP shells, Lol that felt so good I must say. :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[STURM]
Members
298 posts
2,879 battles

The GZ at this point is every problem with carriers personified and taken up to eleven.

Ability to delete pretty much every ship in the game from anywhere on the map? Check.

Overwhelmingly powerful or completely useless depending on the slightest skill difference between it and the opposing CV? Check.

Extremely limited counter play against it for some ships? Check.

Except in the case of the GZ Wargaming decided to make it so much harder for destroyers to shut it down! Why in the world does it have both hydro and a Bismark level secondary battery?

I'm really hoping that the carrier rework balances this thing, and that it comes soon.

Also, laying all the problems in the game at the feet of one class of ship is both incredibly lazy, and so incredibly oversimplified as to be harmful to the game. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,353
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,394 posts
3,875 battles
18 minutes ago, Baskerville77 said:

The GZ at this point is every problem with carriers personified and taken up to eleven.

I disagree. With all the nerfs to their actual counter, and all the buffs they themselves keep accumulating, something like Graf Zeppelin is what is required for battleships to even have a counter in the RPS balance dynamic of this game.

 

And don't even try to say "Rock Paper Scissors is dead", the developers referenced it as still being the core balance dynamic of the game less than a month ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,891
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
10,725 posts
7,682 battles
1 minute ago, KiyoSenkan said:

I disagree. With all the nerfs to their actual counter, and all the buffs they themselves keep accumulating, something like Graf Zeppelin is what is required for battleships to even have a counter in the RPS balance dynamic of this game.

 

And don't even try to say "Rock Paper Scissors is dead", the developers referenced it as still being the core balance dynamic of the game less than a month ago.

Except the ship is an even harder counter to cruisers. The minimum arming threshold allows the bomb to arm on practically any cruiser and none of them have enough armor to stop the bombs. On top of that the DB drops in a circle so there is no way to minimize the strike and panic only slightly increases the drop size so RNG can still smash the cruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
142 posts

They changed how AP bombs work yet, or are they still just a point-and-click "I win" button?

I haven't really been following them since the backlash against Enterprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,353
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,394 posts
3,875 battles
7 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

Except the ship is an even harder counter to cruisers. The minimum arming threshold allows the bomb to arm on practically any cruiser and none of them have enough armor to stop the bombs. On top of that the DB drops in a circle so there is no way to minimize the strike and panic only slightly increases the drop size so RNG can still smash the cruiser.

Considering the behavior I keep encountering in some cruiser mains-- admittedly, not you-- I have a hard time being sympathetic about this.

 

It's just collateral damage I have to accept in exchange for the ability to actually do something about the grossly swollen battleship population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,891
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
10,725 posts
7,682 battles
25 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Considering the behavior I keep encountering in some cruiser mains-- admittedly, not you-- I have a hard time being sympathetic about this.

 

It's just collateral damage I have to accept in exchange for the ability to actually do something about the grossly swollen battleship population.

So if you are trying to get people to stop playing BBs where do you expect them to go if you are also smashing cruisers as well? Are we just trying to drive people out of the game or looking for massive amounts of DDs again?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
439
[YAN]
Members
1,640 posts
7,466 battles
2 hours ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Taking pleasure in the suffering of those who've ruined the game over the past 2 years, however, is.

Spot the DD main.

People like you with attitudes like this will turn this game into WoT, and I like my all chat thanks.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,579
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
1 hour ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Because destroyers aren't the problem and never were.

In your opinion. Obviously, many people disagree. And given the sheer volume of backflips and rings this game has to be pulled through to even make DD's viable, I'd argue that often they are MUCH more of a problem than they are worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,353
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,394 posts
3,875 battles
12 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

Spot the DD main.

People like you with attitudes like this will turn this game into WoT, and I like my all chat thanks.

I'm actually rather polite in chat. And I play all 3 surface combat ship types roughly equally.

 

I'm just able to recognize what's happened to the game since I've been here through everything.

15 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

So if you are trying to get people to stop playing BBs where do you expect them to go if you are also smashing cruisers as well? Are we just trying to drive people out of the game or looking for massive amounts of DDs again?

Don't blame me for how WG painted themselves into a corner. I'm just using the brush they're giving me.

8 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

In your opinion. Obviously, many people disagree. And given the sheer volume of backflips and rings this game has to be pulled through to even make DD's viable, I'd argue that often they are MUCH more of a problem than they are worth.

It's a game. Stop trying to equate reality to it, it just makes you look silly.

 

Unless you think battleships should charge 20m credits per match as early as tier 5, and cruisers 10m, to accurately represent the economical limitations to fielding them, I don't want to hear it.

 

Also, battleship complaints have caused far more damage than any perceived "overpopulation" of destroyers ever did (considering destroyers have always been the 2nd least played ship in the game's entire 3-year history, your implication is also a falsehood). Just about every change WG has fielded that's dumbed down the game, which is constantly thrown around as negative side to many suggestions, is due to battleship complaints.

Edited by KiyoSenkan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
98 posts
6,598 battles

Don't see that big of a change in BB population, also it's the players not the ship type. There will always be campers no matter what the game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[STURM]
Members
298 posts
2,879 battles
28 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

I disagree. With all the nerfs to their actual counter, and all the buffs they themselves keep accumulating, something like Graf Zeppelin is what is required for battleships to even have a counter in the RPS balance dynamic of this game.

 

And don't even try to say "Rock Paper Scissors is dead", the developers referenced it as still being the core balance dynamic of the game less than a month ago.

First off, the rock paper scissors style of balancing does not mean that, for example, a cruiser will beat a destroyer every time, even in a hypothetical one on one. If the players are of equal skill, that cruiser will win most of the time, but player skill should, and does, have a big factor in the outcome.

One of the reasons I hate the GZ as it is right now is that skill means nothing. CVs in general do have a problem in that much of the counter play is done out of the battle, with skills, upgrades and consumable choice, making the counter play come down to luck if you get a CV or not. The GZ makes that even worse, because it's stupidly huge dive bomber squad and circular drop pattern means it is less affected by the panic effect. Plus, the ridiculous damage of the AP bombs means that most BBs can get deleted, no matter what, often before firing a shot, further eliminating counter play.

And, well, rock paper scissors is dead, largely because of ships like the GZ. While carriers should be good against battleships, none of the ship classes have an advantage over the GZ. Unless you set up an already good AA boat for more AA, cruisers are unlikely to shoot down enough bombers to prevent getting citadeled to high heaven. And destroyers don't counter it as well. The hydro means it can dodge torpedoes much better than any other carrier, and the secondary battery means it can sink them by itself, often without even having to pay direct attention. The only thing that has an even playing ground against the GZ is another CV, and because minor differences in skill make so much of a difference in CVs, a GZ on a team often means a blowout of a game, most often for the team with the GZ. And a blowout like that is often only fun for the GZ captain.

As for your blinding hatred of battleships, I do agree that battleships are a bit too prevalent in the current meta. However, the GZ does not effect in the vast majority of games, by virtue of not being in the vast majority of game. And in the games it is in, it does not balance them, it makes them helpless. And while I can see you enjoying that out of spite, making the most popular class in the game downright rage inducing to play in a situation that can only be avoided by luck is idiotic and bad for the game in every way.

Finally, I find it ironic that you applaud the GZ because you hate battleships. If I had to go out on a limb, you hate battleships because many players camp in the back, they are hard to kill, and can delete ships in a single strike. While those are problems, the GZ does all of the same things to an even greater extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,353
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,394 posts
3,875 battles
10 minutes ago, Baskerville77 said:

Finally, I find it ironic that you applaud the GZ because you hate battleships. If I had to go out on a limb, you hate battleships because many players camp in the back, they are hard to kill, and can delete ships in a single strike. While those are problems, the GZ does all of the same things to an even greater extent.

No, I dislike battleship players because their lazy, selfish "I don't want to learn so make it easier" complaints and WG's eagerness to cow to them specifically has had far-reaching negative effects on the game as a whole. I have no problem dealing with back-line campers in a typical match.

 

Battleships as a ship type, I like just fine. I play all ship types, even carriers, unlike many players around here. It's the players who tend to be drawn to play battleships exclusively that are the problem, because they are the ones who tend to be ignorant of the abilities of other ships, and make complaints like "torpedoes shouldn't be able to reload" or "this ship shouldn't be able to shoot from smoke" or any other myriad collection of things they whine about when they take even the smallest amount of damage.

 

An entire mechanic and playstyle was whined out of the game by battleship mains. An entire ship type was very nearly driven out of the game by them. And people will still defend their right to keep doing this, and treat people like me who try to show them their place as if we're the negative aspect of the game.

Edited by KiyoSenkan
  • Cool 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×