Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
_Dracarys

holy crap seattle sucks

142 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,348
[SWFSH]
[SWFSH]
Beta Testers
2,442 posts
5,522 battles

While I don't own it myself, my friend is enjoying the Worcester very much. Played it all night long alongside my Missouri.

New USN branch seems to have a few wonky ships. Granted, the old tree was the same story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
228
[TNG]
Members
813 posts
6,173 battles
1 minute ago, Cruiser_StLouis said:

While I don't own it myself, my friend is enjoying the Worcester very much. Played it all night long alongside my Missouri.

New USN branch seems to have a few wonky ships. Granted, the old tree was the same story.

both NO and pensocola were terribad ships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,464
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,623 posts
521 battles

Old NO was fantastic compared to old Pensacola. Old Pensacola really taught you to appreciate how durable the NO was in comparison. Even at tier 7 the NO can take a bit of a beating. The Pensacola is still squishy food for anything that sneezes on it.

 

And now that NO is the same tier as Indy, you really can say NO to Portland!

 

Anyone who gets that has been playing bote games too long.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49
[WOLF2]
Members
168 posts
13,853 battles

worcester is cool 4-0 124k damage so far lol, may be ppl still haven't figure out how to play against worcester yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
381
[SALTY]
[SALTY]
Members
258 posts
4,622 battles

Seattle is a strong ship

  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
899
[LEGIO]
Members
2,956 posts
5,370 battles

Seattle seems to offer no significant improvement over Cleveland other than the T9 heal and it loses its secondaries. Not very impressive.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,015
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,019 posts
11,539 battles
2 hours ago, ramp4ge said:

Old NO was fantastic compared to old Pensacola. Old Pensacola really taught you to appreciate how durable the NO was in comparison. Even at tier 7 the NO can take a bit of a beating. The Pensacola is still squishy food for anything that sneezes on it.

 

And now that NO is the same tier as Indy, you really can say NO to Portland!

 

Anyone who gets that has been playing bote games too long.

The new Nola is sweet.  I am really enjoying it.  I hated her with a passion before.  Now, she's a glorious freedom dispenser.  She might be a little OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
98
[NNC]
[NNC]
Beta Testers
397 posts
5,608 battles

Not a fan of the ship thus far. 10 matches, 50% win rate and 50k average damage. It honestly doesn't have much improved over the Cleveland except for the access to the 6th upgrade slot, heal, better AA, larger hp pool, and tiny bit better top speed. The worst thing is the main battery range being worse than the Cleveland; I'm tempted to switch MBM3 for the improved gun range. 

 I'll grind through the ship but I'm not going to keep it. 

Edited by Noble_Taipan
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
74
[5D]
Beta Testers
432 posts
7,594 battles

Seattle is the Anit-island hugging ship.. dem arcs are crazy. It can't open water fight worth dam, unless its retreating with that thicker rear deck armor, but only to gtfo and re position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
228
[TNG]
Members
813 posts
6,173 battles
7 hours ago, Noble_Taipan said:

Not a fan of the ship thus far. 10 matches, 50% win rate and 50k average damage. It honestly doesn't have much improved over the Cleveland except for the access to the 6th upgrade slot, heal, better AA, larger hp pool, and tiny bit better top speed. The worst thing is the main battery range being worse than the Cleveland; I'm tempted to switch MBM3 for the improved gun range. 

 I'll grind through the ship but I'm not going to keep it. 

the biggest problem is its back turret firing angles are really narrow. you must give broad side if you want to fire all 12 guns.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[70]
Members
961 posts
3,691 battles

I put up a thread explaining how Seattle was not an upgrade over Cleveland.

 

Seriously, why they didn't use Seattle for a premium and Fargo for the tech line is beyond my comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
98
[NNC]
[NNC]
Beta Testers
397 posts
5,608 battles
17 hours ago, _Dracarys said:

the biggest problem is its back turret firing angles are really narrow. you must give broad side if you want to fire all 12 guns.

You're right, that is the worse thing about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
17 hours ago, Guardian54 said:

I put up a thread explaining how Seattle was not an upgrade over Cleveland.

 

Seriously, why they didn't use Seattle for a premium and Fargo for the tech line is beyond my comprehension.

Because Fargo would be even less of an upgrade. She's literally a Cleveland with different funnel and improved AAA arcs, none of which matters in WoWS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[70]
Members
961 posts
3,691 battles
3 hours ago, Carl said:

Because Fargo would be even less of an upgrade. She's literally a Cleveland with different funnel and improved AAA arcs, none of which matters in WoWS.

The Seattle as is is a straight downgrade except in HP, which just makes you a bigger pinata. Making me grind all the XP from Tier 9 to 10 in a repeat Cleveland would be less annoying by far. And then there's how Fargo is an upgrade on Cleveland.

 

The turrets on Fargo are set a foot lower to help with the dangerous heeling in tight turns. The Max displacement on Wikipedia is greater than Cleveland. And it was built later with other minor refinements. The superstructure is also more compact.

Do you know what that reads as?

Fargo gets tighter turn and faster rudder than Cleveland, along with slightly more health. The reduced profile size means slightly better stealth (instead of failing to stealth radar, you can stealth radar by about 100 meters if you max it out). That's already enough to fight at Tier 9 and be VASTLY more fun than Sea-Cattle (I hereby nickname it that for being easy meat and utter bullsh** Free XP sink)... and then you massage reload to 6 sec.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
2 minutes ago, Guardian54 said:

The Seattle as is is a straight downgrade except in HP, which just makes you a bigger pinata. Making me grind all the XP from Tier 9 to 10 in a repeat Cleveland would be less annoying by far. And then there's how Fargo is an upgrade on Cleveland.

 

The turrets on Fargo are set a foot lower to help with the dangerous heeling in tight turns. The Max displacement on Wikipedia is greater than Cleveland. And it was built later with other minor refinements. The superstructure is also more compact.

Do you know what that reads as?

Fargo gets tighter turn and faster rudder than Cleveland, along with slightly more health. The reduced profile size means slightly better stealth (instead of failing to stealth radar, you can stealth radar by about 100 meters if you max it out). That's already enough to fight at Tier 9 and be VASTLY more fun than Sea-Cattle (I hereby nickname it that for being easy meat and utter bullsh** Free XP sink)... and then you massage reload to 6 sec.

 

Turning radius is based on some combination of length vs beam, positioning of turrets and IRL turning capabilities have no effect. IRL Yamato could turn inside her own length, good luck doing that in game.

 

The HP difference would be negligible. And the maximum firing rnage is at least partly based on director height, so if it really has a different profile with better stealth it would also take a similar hit to maximum range.

 

If you want to take a hit of several thousand health just for a tiny bit better stealth, be my guest. I wouldn't.

 

I'm not saying seattle is fine BTW, just that a Fargo would be worse.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[70]
Members
961 posts
3,691 battles
1 hour ago, Carl said:

Turning radius is based on some combination of length vs beam, positioning of turrets and IRL turning capabilities have no effect. IRL Yamato could turn inside her own length, good luck doing that in game.

The HP difference would be negligible. And the maximum firing rnage is at least partly based on director height, so if it really has a different profile with better stealth it would also take a similar hit to maximum range.

If you want to take a hit of several thousand health just for a tiny bit better stealth, be my guest. I wouldn't.

I'm not saying seattle is fine BTW, just that a Fargo would be worse.

1. As if that's not fudged to hell for the Russian ships already. And ships are scaled up and move faster than IRL by about 2.55 times IIRC, hence the turn issues. And besides, better stability in turn = can turn harder.

2. You can lower other things without lowering the director. And even 1000 more HP than Cleveland with equal handling and similarly compact hull would be better than Seattle.

3-4. I would prefer Cleveland as it is right now at Tier 9 over Seattle, whose paper stats as is make me want to puke. Cleveland can fire 30 degrees off bow or stern, Seattle has cancer gun arcs.

 

My first game today trying for 1750 base XP mission: Cleveland, 170K damage, High Cal, Witherer, 1742 base XP.

A Seattle would have been gravely violated by the Tier 7-8s I defecated all over with the Cleveland.

Edited by Guardian54
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
232
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
1,492 posts
8,036 battles
On 6/28/2018 at 5:08 AM, crzyhawk said:

The new Nola is sweet.  I am really enjoying it.  I hated her with a passion before.  Now, she's a glorious freedom dispenser.  She might be a little OP.

Nothing wothout torpedoes is op.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
232
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
1,492 posts
8,036 battles
On 6/29/2018 at 7:02 AM, Carl said:

Because Fargo would be even less of an upgrade. She's literally a Cleveland with different funnel and improved AAA arcs, none of which matters in WoWS.

The cut down superstructure would allow forr tighter mbt firing arcs. In addition, WG could replace Fargo's bofors with 3/50s as part of one of their qol ahistoric upgrades. Even the Gearings were having their bofors replaced with 3/50s post ww.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,015
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,019 posts
11,539 battles
7 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

Nothing wothout torpedoes is op.

Torpedoes are overrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
232
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
1,492 posts
8,036 battles
47 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

Torpedoes are overrated.

Until they delete a battleship or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,015
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,019 posts
11,539 battles

Belfast says you don't need torps to be OP.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,015
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,019 posts
11,539 battles

doh, wrong thread

 

Edited by crzyhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[-GPS-]
Members
2,523 posts
24,635 battles
On 6/28/2018 at 1:23 PM, _Dracarys said:

the biggest problem is its back turret firing angles are really narrow. you must give broad side if you want to fire all 12 guns.

I can’t believe how bad the firing arcs are on this ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
16 hours ago, Guardian54 said:

1. As if that's not fudged to hell for the Russian ships already. And ships are scaled up and move faster than IRL by about 2.55 times IIRC, hence the turn issues. And besides, better stability in turn = can turn harder.

2. You can lower other things without lowering the director. And even 1000 more HP than Cleveland with equal handling and similarly compact hull would be better than Seattle.

3-4. I would prefer Cleveland as it is right now at Tier 9 over Seattle, whose paper stats as is make me want to puke. Cleveland can fire 30 degrees off bow or stern, Seattle has cancer gun arcs.

 

My first game today trying for 1750 base XP mission: Cleveland, 170K damage, High Cal, Witherer, 1742 base XP.

A Seattle would have been gravely violated by the Tier 7-8s I defecated all over with the Cleveland.

 

1. Again thats not how WG'ing does it. Yamato didn't just have a better turning radius than she does in gme, she significantly outperformed IRL multiple ships that have better turning radius value sin game. In game turning radius may be based of certain IRl statistics but it bears absolutely no resemblance to reality.

 

2. Again not how WG'ing does it. They use the highest point on the ship when determining concealment, not how big the side profile is. So if the Director is the highest ro near highest point on the ship you can;t improve the concealment much without lowering the director. Or conversly if the director dosen;t move between two variants then your not going to see much if any change in concealment.

 

3. Then your an idiot. Seattle may have flaws but she's clearly flat out superior to Cleveland, the most courswery look at the raw stats proves that. I suspect the issue is the same one most people have with USN cruisers, (including the second form with me), they don;t know how or don;t like island firing, but island firing done right means you'll almost never come under fire. If your getting shot at in a high tier USN cruiser your doing somthing wrong.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×