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

holy crap seattle sucks

151 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

205
[70]
Members
1,092 posts
5,642 battles
9 hours ago, Carl said:

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.

How exactly is Seattle better than Cleveland for island-humping?

Terrible gun arcs means you have to shift back and forth a bit to get all guns on target sometimes.

Traverse can't keep up with hull unless you want to deal with the exact same DPM a tier higher (not using the -12% reload +13% traverse time 6th equipment) or are fine with a relatively marginal DPM increase (6 second reload vs 6.5 AFTER modifications) in exchange for still awful traverse compared to Cleveland (the slot 2 -15% traverse time +5% reload time balances the slot 6 traverse time out).

 

And when you have to leave the island in late-game to hunt down the last couple enemies, your citadel is a huge barn and you are a giant pinata that cannot even weave between enemy salvos properly.

Edited by Guardian54
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
451
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
2,696 posts
10,021 battles
10 hours ago, crzyhawk said:

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

Your right! Helena needs smoke and radar to be OP; how forgetful of WG.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,070
[ADR]
Members
4,422 posts
15,182 battles

Seattle is just another Piece of tras T9, woefully under ranged,  turret firing angles are abysmal.  it's slow and  turns like a bus..  and everyone wonders why the MM sucks up so many T8s,  all the T9s are pure trash for the most part, no one wants to play them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,793 posts
4,512 battles
On ‎6‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 5:01 AM, Carl said:

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.

Actually, this isn't true. The height of the ship's deck(along with its overall length) and profile of its superstructure plays a role. See Gearing versus Fletcher, where Fletcher is the higher ship with the taller director mount, but Gearing has a longer detection range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13
[-TD-]
Members
80 posts
8,880 battles

I find it interesting ,when it comes to the US line of ships you constantly hear it's not "historically accurate " . So, NO it can't have this and can't have that its under performance but that was the way it was...

Then, when people compare ships of other nations vs history you get a total different set of rules; This is a Arcade Game, NOT a Simulation so we are allowed to reference this "Paper ship", that never seen the light of day and change it for game balancing (ahem). to make the numbers works game wise...  Its seems like such a double standard...

 

What drives me nuts, is the constant ideology that the US Navy did nothing but hide behind island for their entire existence.. This started with the DD's move onto the Hvy CA's and now its all the Lite CA's can do... The funny part is most BB's are the ones hiding behind islands who are suppose to be the tanks of the game.,   Maybe I'm looking at this from a PUP group in random battles where team works is so lacking  and its far better in clan battles..

 

I for one would of like to see the Weekly Operation  Added a Hard mode for the Seattle , By UP'ing  the enemy tier DD's to better IJN DDs and Ca's.

in any event, I keep trying to like the Seattle, maybe its my 8 point captain killing me, but I got it will slowly grind it I guess, but 8 km Torps should would be nice on Lites..( i know, historically accurate...Meh).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
205
[70]
Members
1,092 posts
5,642 battles
2 hours ago, Mopic312 said:

I keep trying to like the Seattle, maybe its my 8 point captain killing me, but I got it will slowly grind it I guess, but 8 km Torps should would be nice on Lites..( i know, historically accurate...Meh).

You must be clinically insane or at least extremely masochistic to try to play Tier 8+ light cruisers (Tier 7 is generally where I gain 10th point, hence why I'm not saying Tier 7+) without IFHE i.e. a 10-point captain.

Then again you find the double standard anti-US sentiment weird in a Russian-made game, which doesn't speak well of your sanity anyhow. Sorry if you find that rude, but it's basically memetic in WG games.

Edited by Guardian54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
70
[HDM]
Members
386 posts
13,248 battles
On 6/28/2018 at 1:43 AM, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

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

The worst thing is it's not even a real ship. They could have put in the Fargo class which would be a perfect fit for an upgraded Cleveland and it was a real ship class. Wargaming tends to go full derp with ship lines way too often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
83 posts
727 battles

it's trash.
image.png.b0302c62ba75f9a44ed1bf9198276400.png
most of those are 50-60k damage games too, it's just unable to compensate for suicidal teammates because its so awful. Doesn't help that it keeps giving me loop and putting me on the wide open side so i get citadeled by a stray 15km shot before i can get to an island. Can't even use rear turrets without sitting at a really bad angle. Compared to cleveland its a straight downgrade and it's so disrespectful on wargaming's part that if i had three wishes one of them would be to remove this company from existence.

oh look as i was typing it did it again, it put me into another map on the WIDE OPEN SIDE
image.png.e03a7c25a69306a7187e8a9b0bf4321f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
3,005 posts
10,086 battles
On 6/27/2018 at 11:09 PM, _Dracarys said:

i hope worcester isnt as bad...

5b404dc042be5_WorldofWarshipsScreenshot2018_07.06-11_35_13_24.thumb.png.7962b8bf9ec3c24ef921d7e78cfe8392.png

 

Had another today at 174k and a few at 75kish, just got out of a 96ish... Yup, certainly "sucks"... /eyeroll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
83 posts
727 battles

i managed to make it over to the other side of the map only getting citadeled once by a single bb round which was the only thing to hit me the whole game up until this point when my entire team turned around and left leaving me alone. They took fire the whole way but only because i was using island cover because had i turned around and went with I would have just died faster. Was only able to use two turrets the whole time.
wO3kLLl.png

but in the end i really didn't do anything, it was good torpedo work by allies that turned the game into a win. Seattle is as substantial as a fart in the wind.

biggest problems are
-turning is crap
-deceleration is crap
-turret angle is crap
I can cope with large citadel, I wish it was more like cleveland's, but overall seattle is a pile of trash and wargaming should be ashamed of themselves and cherry picking games where you get good map, good teammates, and stupid opponents does not somehow make this ship good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
3,005 posts
10,086 battles
15 hours ago, Battlecruiser said:

i managed to make it over to the other side of the map only getting citadeled once by a single bb round which was the only thing to hit me the whole game up until this point when my entire team turned around and left leaving me alone. They took fire the whole way but only because i was using island cover because had i turned around and went with I would have just died faster. Was only able to use two turrets the whole time.


but in the end i really didn't do anything, it was good torpedo work by allies that turned the game into a win. Seattle is as substantial as a fart in the wind.

biggest problems are
-turning is crap
-deceleration is crap
-turret angle is crap
I can cope with large citadel, I wish it was more like cleveland's, but overall seattle is a pile of trash and wargaming should be ashamed of themselves.

At the risk of having you say that your setup is "exactly" like mine, seriously, what upgrades and what point Capt. do you have?

Personally, I have a 14pt Capt. which is built like:

1st row: Prevent Maint (old habit as I hate my turrets being popped)

2nd row: Expert Marksman

3rd row: Basic Firing Training (though I probably should have gone with Demo Expert, but I don't have the Doubloons to switch at this point and will pick it up later).

4th: IFHE (Inertia Fuse for HE Shells **must have** and I took this before my concealment talent)

and for my 14th point I have in my 4th row as well Concealment Expert

Upgrades are as follows:

1st slot: Aux Armaments 1

2nd: Damage Control Systems Mod. 1

3rd: AA Guns Mod 2.  (notice I went with a slight AA build in my upgrades instead of the dispersion)

4th: Steering Gears Mod 2

5th: Concealment Systems Mod. 1

6th: Gun Fire Control Systems Mod. 2

 

Other than that, I'm not even running the Gun Fire Control System Mod. 2 (Range Mod that extends the range by 10%), so my range at the moment is 15.5km. It's about "position" with the new USN CL's and it's an adjustment, more so than the RN line was because there is no smoke or escape mechanic.

But people want to call either the line trash (until the Worcester) or the Seattle garbage. While everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that, lets look at the "server average" numbers.

It's 2nd in Win Rate (only to the Kron)

3rd in Average Frags (Kron is first and Neptune is second. Neptune averages 0.80 and the Seattle averages 0.79)

3rd in Average Damage (Kron is first Saint_Louis is second with 60,541 and the Seattle sits at 59,126 which the 4th is the Dimi at just over 55k)

2nd in Average Experience (Kron is first, Seattle sits at 1,600 and the 3rd is the Saint-Louis at 1,489)

3rd in Average Planes Destroyed: Neptune is first - 2.03, Baltimore (pre-USN split) 1.88, Seattle 1.72 (this is how WoWs-numbers read the stats off, so I don't think it can differentiate the split quite yet, however the Seattle may be second post split, who knows).

2nd in Kills/Deaths (Kron is first 2.11, Seattle - 1.62, Saint-Louis - 1.51)

 

So lets look at this without the premium in there shall we?

1st in Win Rate

2nd in Average Frags

2nd in Average Damage

1st in Average Experience

2nd in Average Planes Destroyed

1st in Kills/Deaths

 

I don't see how this ship is "garbage" or "trash" let alone how "WarGaming should be ashamed of themselves"....

Do you mind if I ask what your Main Battery Hit Ratio is? I know the Seattle has a high arc, like all USN, but that could be the issue. Also, are you performing a rolling fire or a salvo?

I'm not white knighting the ship, what I am trying to show is that if an average player such as myself can do well and even start excelling in it, why are others having such an issue and might I be able to help those looking for help. I mean, the ship isn't trash by any means, if used right, the ship can shut down an area like no other.

 

EDIT: I think it's funny that someone down voted this. I didn't base anything on opinion but simple numbers and the fact that I am an average player. Not to mention that I was only trying to help people, but I guess some folks want to have some or all new ships/lines dominate in every category or even have Cruisers tank and have the Alpha damage like BB's while maintaining the concealment and speed of DD's. /shrug

Am I close downvoter? lol

Edited by BURN_Miner
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
83 posts
727 battles

I don't use concealment systems because you get outspotted by dd's anyway and you cant shoot without being spotted 18km out anyway and there's always planes and crapflying around and you can just radar and sonar through islands. I can't afford the upgraded hull because this thing rarely does more than break even but i think the increase in rudder shift time would help immensely. 8 seconds is insufficient to evade incoming fire at most ranges.  Instead of concealment I use radio because it lets me keep tabs on potential flanks when i'm shooting over an island and helps me intuit when a good time to use radar is. It results in dead DD's all the time. As long as I have any sort of team support. Other than that as long as team doesnt fold, as long as i get a map with islands it's a guaranteed 30-60k damage. It might as well be 0 damage though because i cant kill things before they sink half my team (as they single file into the open and get melted) and it can't 1v1 when my team decides "yeah we're going to throw a birthday party in J1, good luck!"  It also can't support battleships or other cruisers decently with its aa because it's citadeled easily. What it can do however is advertise itself as a seattle and then you can bait people into shooting you instead of your teammates because you're easy damage. That actually results in more wins than actually trying to do damage myself. because i'm always stuck hugging some island watching teammates sail out one at a time and throw the game. while I can only use my front two turrets or risk getting citadeled. Meanwhile if I stick my nose out everybody will stop what they're doing to shoot at me, and that saves teammates. It also permanently destroys my frontal guns at some point and then i'm left with 50k damage, 1.8m potential incoming damage, and forced to sit and watch my teammates do the stupid thing.

I think the biggest problem with the seattle is that I can do 50k damage and have done more than 3/4ths of my team 60% of the time despite them having more gun and useable armor. It's a very weak ship. Compared to cleveland it's trash. It has its moments but I'm not going to pretend for a second that doing 80k+ damage is relevant to winning when it dies the moment it's caught without an island meanwhile you have a bunch of teammates in montanas and yamatos who fire one salvo and then eat torps like timmy eats hot dogs and now the other team has a bunch of ships that are still fresh and can just beeline for you because they know there's nothing you can do about it. I feel like after I get the hull upgrade I'll be able to evasive tank fire like I used to but it's 2.8m credits. I have the indianapolis now so at least I can grind credits, finally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
3,005 posts
10,086 battles
3 hours ago, Battlecruiser said:

I don't use concealment systems because you get outspotted by dd's anyway and you cant shoot without being spotted 18km out anyway and there's always planes and crapflying around and you can just radar and sonar through islands. I can't afford the upgraded hull because this thing rarely does more than break even but i think the increase in rudder shift time would help immensely. 8 seconds is insufficient to evade incoming fire at most ranges.  Instead of concealment I use radio because it lets me keep tabs on potential flanks when i'm shooting over an island and helps me intuit when a good time to use radar is. It results in dead DD's all the time. As long as I have any sort of team support. Other than that as long as team doesnt fold, as long as i get a map with islands it's a guaranteed 30-60k damage. It might as well be 0 damage though because i cant kill things before they sink half my team (as they single file into the open and get melted) and it can't 1v1 when my team decides "yeah we're going to throw a birthday party in J1, good luck!"  It also can't support battleships or other cruisers decently with its aa because it's citadeled easily. What it can do however is advertise itself as a seattle and then you can bait people into shooting you instead of your teammates because you're easy damage. That actually results in more wins than actually trying to do damage myself. because i'm always stuck hugging some island watching teammates sail out one at a time and throw the game. while I can only use my front two turrets or risk getting citadeled. Meanwhile if I stick my nose out everybody will stop what they're doing to shoot at me, and that saves teammates. It also permanently destroys my frontal guns at some point and then i'm left with 50k damage, 1.8m potential incoming damage, and forced to sit and watch my teammates do the stupid thing.

I think the biggest problem with the seattle is that I can do 50k damage and have done more than 3/4ths of my team 60% of the time despite them having more gun and useable armor. It's a very weak ship. Compared to cleveland it's trash. It has its moments but I'm not going to pretend for a second that doing 80k+ damage is relevant to winning when it dies the moment it's caught without an island meanwhile you have a bunch of teammates in montanas and yamatos who fire one salvo and then eat torps like timmy eats hot dogs and now the other team has a bunch of ships that are still fresh and can just beeline for you because they know there's nothing you can do about it. I feel like after I get the hull upgrade I'll be able to evasive tank fire like I used to but it's 2.8m credits. I have the indianapolis now so at least I can grind credits, finally.

I can see that you are clearly fighting against the grain here, whether it's intentional or not I don't know, but you are.

First and foremost, you say you can't afford the B hull because the Seattle doesn't make money.. Well, that's subjective, but ok, I'll run with it. Do what most people do and play mid Tiers. Seriously, at some point you had to save money to buy the Seattle and even if you sold the Cleveland, you only got half of the credits you paid for it. So you are either intentionally doing it wrong or trying to conflate your argument.

Second, you're over exaggerating your concealment. You are not automatically spotted, this is where positioning and map knowledge comes into play. Also the "there's always a plane in the air" is a non-starter. I routinely pop Defensive AA when there isn't a CV in the match, but there is a spotter or catapult fighter, just to get rid of it faster and, as a bonus, your DD's will thank you for it.

Third, I hope you realize that the server average damage for the Seattle is around 60k and like I posted earlier, it's either at the top or near the top for Tier 9's. So I have to ask, when did being server average, but top server average become a "bad thing"? 

Don't complain about the islands, believe it or not, they are your friends and if you have a competent DD that's either capping/spotting or spotting/killing or even smoking you (I don't run divs this is something that has really just started to pick up), then you and that DD can lock the area down. The only trick is to be able to 1) land your hits and 2) make sure you have IF HE (this way when they are on fire and even repair, you simply keep hitting them with HE).

Lastly, with regards to her rudder shift time, she has one of the faster ones in Tier 9. Keeping in mind that after the Steering Gear Mod. , the Seattle's rudder shift time is right around 7s and compared to some of the rest. The Ibuki is slightly faster (w/ the Steering Gear), The Buffalo is slower, Room and Neptune are slower as well regardless of Steering Gear Mod.

The ship is great once it clicks. By that I mean it's great for area denial and even kiting. Remember, this line has a very fast reload, so who cares if you only get 2 or 3 turrets to fire for a couple of salvos? Which is better, trying to angle and finagle the ship to get all 4 turrets on the target and risk a citadel or keeping nimble and kiting your target and firing only 2 at a time? 

It takes a bit of an adjustment, I know it did for me, but once it did, I don't think I've had a game that I would consider "bad" in it. And two games fairly close in the same day at 175k and the other at 174k. Funny thing is, is that the 174k a dead BB was certain that their Conq. or Repub. (can't recall which type it was) was going to wreck me in the final minutes and win the match.

Well nope, it was a team effort, but the Seattle can wiggle wiggle wiggle, even at close range and still deal damage.

Hope your luck turns around for you and anyone else who is having trouble with her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
70
[HDM]
Members
386 posts
13,248 battles
On 6/30/2018 at 2:01 AM, Carl said:

 

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.

The Cleveland has the exact same guns as the Seattle with better arcs, and has secondaries.  It's a far better ship in every metric other than not having a heal. If WG didn't have their heads up their own asses they would have given us the real upgrade to the Cleveland, the Fargo.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
3,005 posts
10,086 battles
On 7/7/2018 at 8:56 AM, DukeRamulots said:

The Cleveland has the exact same guns as the Seattle with better arcs, and has secondaries.  It's a far better ship in every metric other than not having a heal. If WG didn't have their heads up their own asses they would have given us the real upgrade to the Cleveland, the Fargo.

Except you are cherry picking your argument and yes, I down voted you for that reason. You left out, Seattle has more Health, slightly further range, thicker armor (both on the bottom end and on the top end) and better AA. Let's not forget the Damage per minute please. So if it has the "same exact guns", which it does, then how does it have a 16k advantage at the moment (granted not as many battles, but time will tell) over the Cleveland? They see the same MM, all the claims of "instant exploding", if they rang true, would show a lower average damage would they not? WoWs-numbers

Oh and it really is a good feeling when an "average player" like myself can go into their first battle of the day and knock out the first and second way-points in one battle with regards to daily crates, using the Seattle.

Spoiler

5b413688586e1_WorldofWarshipsScreenshot2018_07_07-14_38_13_68.thumb.png.5147589285f3cdb0d8aa549b9b18f05b.png

5b4136a73a085_WorldofWarshipsScreenshot2018_07_07-14_38_24_22.thumb.png.35b78651ef845f66eb677ecd1ec634a8.png

5b4136acc42a5_WorldofWarshipsScreenshot2018_07_07-14_38.31_38.thumb.png.c8345c954ac1e37b039cb3cacde6793c.png

Spoiler

5b4136c186982_WorldofWarshipsScreenshot2018_07_07-14_38_39_21.thumb.png.7c626e4abb9b0a2b21b3808e612edc61.png

5b4136ca931a4_WorldofWarshipsScreenshot2018_07_07-14_41_57_92.thumb.png.2cbc6a924c97e882e6aadb13c805de23.png

Again, I am nothing more than an average player. I've said this multiple times in this thread. If I can do it, why not others? I see the same people everyone else does, so the "it's my team *always*" doesn't fly...

EDIT: Oh rawr, I made someone so angry with the factual numbers they down voted me. lol Love the notification system.

Edited by BURN_Miner
  • Cool 2
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
205
[70]
Members
1,092 posts
5,642 battles
On 7/7/2018 at 2:03 AM, BURN_Miner said:

It's 2nd in Win Rate (only to the Kron)

3rd in Average Frags (Kron is first and Neptune is second. Neptune averages 0.80 and the Seattle averages 0.79)

3rd in Average Damage (Kron is first Saint_Louis is second with 60,541 and the Seattle sits at 59,126 which the 4th is the Dimi at just over 55k)

2nd in Average Experience (Kron is first, Seattle sits at 1,600 and the 3rd is the Saint-Louis at 1,489)

3rd in Average Planes Destroyed: Neptune is first - 2.03, Baltimore (pre-USN split) 1.88, Seattle 1.72 (this is how WoWs-numbers read the stats off, so I don't think it can differentiate the split quite yet, however the Seattle may be second post split, who knows).

2nd in Kills/Deaths (Kron is first 2.11, Seattle - 1.62, Saint-Louis - 1.51)

 

So lets look at this without the premium in there shall we?

1st in Win Rate

2nd in Average Frags

2nd in Average Damage

1st in Average Experience

2nd in Average Planes Destroyed

1st in Kills/Deaths

Ask yourself who has Seattle already this soon after the update.

The answer is "better than average players".

Expect those stats to drop down a few ranks once it stabilizes.

Besides, the feedback probably isn't so much "seattle is trash" as "Cleveland was better for tier" which, well, it kind of is.

15 hours ago, BURN_Miner said:

Except you are cherry picking your argument and yes, I down voted you for that reason. You left out, Seattle has more Health, slightly further range, thicker armor (both on the bottom end and on the top end) and better AA. Let's not forget the Damage per minute please. So if it has the "same exact guns", which it does, then how does it have a 16k advantage at the moment (granted not as many battles, but time will tell) over the Cleveland? They see the same MM, all the claims of "instant exploding", if they rang true, would show a lower average damage would they not? WoWs-numbers

Oh and it really is a good feeling when an "average player" like myself can go into their first battle of the day and knock out the first and second way-points in one battle with regards to daily crates, using the Seattle.

1. Seattle has 0 base DPM over Cleveland. They are the EXACT SAME there.

In fact I argue even the +12% ROF mod isn't any better than Cleveland because Cleveland has better firing angles, better agility to take advantage of said angles, is less prone to being deleted due to magic citadel shenanigans, is simply a much smaller ship and thus much harder to hit, meaning it has to spend less effort dodging, and, most importantly, Cleveland has a turret traverse rate that's not cancer for a light cruiser.

Fargo would trounce Seattle easily if it had even just slightly polished Cleveland stats, like 6 second reload (from 6.5) and something like 0.5 second better rudder, 0.3km better base stealth, etc.

2. Massive flag and camo stacking plus premium account doesn't prove a thing, especially with a lucky match. My Cleveland prints 2000+ base XP matches like toilet paper and somehow my Buffalo got a Kraken yesterday (not to mention my Buffalo has twice beat DMs in single combat). That doesn't make Cleveland a Brokenly-OP ship (it cannot stand against Russian laser cruiser guns, nor fight in the open all that well, but it COULD use a minor nerf in agility...) nor does it make Buffalo an adequate Tier 9.

Edited by Guardian54
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
3,005 posts
10,086 battles

@Guardian54 Um ya, I addressed the proverbial "new car smell" on the Seattle, but with regards to your claim of "massive flag stacking", well that's false.

I ran the exact same flags on my Cleveland that I did on my Seattle, why wouldn't I? To assert that I would simply do it for the sake of arguing "this" is quite literally laughable.

You can state that the same guns yield the same results thus the Seattle will come down to Cleveland numbers, but I will ask you this. Why is it that the Kirov (Tier 5 USSR Cruiser, which has 180 mm turrets, in fact the "exact same turrets as the Tier 9 Dmitri with the exception of the *m* in it") yet there is a roughly 28k difference in average damage? 

I mean one would think that after this amount of time and games either the Kirov would gain or the Dmitri would faulter, yet neather has happened. But I guess no matter what anyone says or shows, there is always an excuse.

I get it, I've been down this road a few times dating back to OBT when people claimed the New Mexico was "trash". Turns out they were trying to play it like the Fuso and at max range. Yet even as I tried to tell them this, show them and even attempt to help them, I got the same response you and other posters in this thread have given. "What was WG thinking?", "This ship is trash/garbage", "This ship explodes when anyone looks at it"... Heck I've heard people complaining that the Seattle can't brawl anything outside of a DD..... 

I mean wow... lol So anywho, go ahead and keep posting the displeasure, I'll go ahead and keep enjoying my success in it while having a quick grind to the Worcester. I'll be keeping the Seattle though once I get the Worc though.

Keep an eye on those numbers and as a poster was leading towards in another thread, in a few months or a year maybe two, heck possibly never, will the data ever catch up to validate the fact that the new USN CL line is performing well...

Have a good one guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
205
[70]
Members
1,092 posts
5,642 battles
1 hour ago, BURN_Miner said:

1. I ran the exact same flags on my Cleveland that I did on my Seattle, why wouldn't I? To assert that I would simply do it for the sake of arguing "this" is quite literally laughable.

2. You can state that the same guns yield the same results thus the Seattle will come down to Cleveland numbers, but I will ask you this. Why is it that the Kirov (Tier 5 USSR Cruiser, which has 180 mm turrets, in fact the "exact same turrets as the Tier 9 Dmitri with the exception of the *m* in it") yet there is a roughly 28k difference in average damage? 

3. I get it, I've been down this road a few times dating back to OBT when people claimed the New Mexico was "trash".

4. Keep an eye on those numbers and as a poster was leading towards in another thread, in a few months or a year maybe two, heck possibly never, will the data ever catch up to validate the fact that the new USN CL line is performing well...

1. I meant that your "oh look at this XP! Over 12500 in one game!" claim is flag-inflated.

2. Tier 5 versus Tier 9 HP, armor, etc., Tier 5 MM which sees 4-7s and 9 MM which is always top or mid, and less enemy HP pool (e.g. for fires) at lower tiers makes this a laughably huge fallacy. Tier 8 vs 9 is much closer, and even then there's still the HP pool problem for flamethrower ships.

3. wth? NM is godly! QE and Bayern however are cancer because the turrets can't keep up with their own hull traverse and the accuracy is horrid (ran a test, 40% hits 10km on broadside Aobas for NM, under 30% for QE, you can see it on my QE complaint thread)!

4. We are saying it has horrible gun arcs and that Fargo would be a better and actually rational choice, which would explain why WG refused to use it (just because they gave Ibuki a cancer ROF...).

Edited by Guardian54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
437 posts
7,510 battles

The Seattle is the only tier 9 ship that loses range when you upgrade the hull... Yes. The Hull. Not the guns. This means that if you upgrade the HULL before the gun range, your firing range is only 13.4km's.

At most you are going to end up with a 15km range unless you invest in range modules. Cleveland is 15.6 with no upgrades to range. Firing time for Seattle can be around 5sec reload; Cleveland 6.5. Overall, I'd say that the ship is a downgrade when it comes to armament. 5 sec reload is a improvement, but at a cost of having to get closer to a target in a light cruiser... I don't think so.

Range: Just what the heck happened there anyways? Did the US rip off some of the barrel length when they "improved" the ship or did they decide that they simply didn't need to fire 1 whole kilometer further and just said "let's just not fire further than 13.4km's anymore"?

Then there's the Turning. 12sec Seattle vs the Cleveland's default of 9sec before upgrading the hull (I've got the rudder shift so I'm eyeballing it; with upgrade it's 5.8sec). Only after the upgrade does the thing turn better. But you've got to get closer to the enemy now too... So... do you take the range boost module or rudder shift? Not only that but the Seattle has a larger turning radius of over 100 meters when compared to the Cleveland. So, overall, worse.

Definitely worse AA. It's only redeeming feature are the 40mm's but they only come into effect at 3.5km's unless (again) you waste a module slot on improving that range. Even then, they are still worse overall compared to the Cleveland and just about worse than most other nations ships. Buffalo's got it beat. The only benefit this thing has is the AA consumable to make up for it's weaker AA makeup.

Citadel: Seattle has 109mm's of armor along its citadel, Cleveland has 127mm's. Seattle's citadel is the entire length of the ship... Cleveland's Citadel sits nice and low and is remarkably small. Even not having played the Seattle yet, I'm starting to get a gut wrenching feeling like I will be hating it the whole grind through.

OK... I've been going back and forth with the stats in the game... and honestly I was hoping to have had a impartial split of good vs. bad qualities... but seriously...

Ok, the "Survivability"... good news, the Seattle has more HP. Bad news, you might as well not even upgrade the hull. When you upgraded the Cleveland, it added over 6000hp to your ship. The Seattle's hull upgrade will only add 1800hp tops. So... you might survive a extra single HE round. Seattle's got 7000 more (total) HP than the Cleveland... I don't know if that's good or bad...

And last but not least, Concealment. Practically the same. Don't even have to bother with numbers.

So... here's the Seattle when compared to the Cleveland.

Better fire rate (Well thank god it's got something).

Worse Gun range. (seriously... again. the only ship in the entire game that loses range with a hull upgrade.)

Worse AA overall (Good thing it has the AA consumable... Cleveland's still better).

Worse Turning radius (No major difference in turning speed after upgrades and with modules).

Worse Survivability (honestly because I'm basing it on the looks of the citadel).

And Concealment isn't an improvement...

I don't know how much the guns overcome these shortfalls, but I'm not looking forward to this one.

Questions:

1: How well does the "citadel" armor do at bouncing shells. I'm talking about glancing shots making it through or how often do those AP rounds get into the citadel (tier 9 vs other high tier AP). Cleveland is pretty good at tanking/bouncing a few hits sometimes.

2: What stats did I make a mistake on? I've been eyeballing most of them because I didn't want to remove the upgrades and captain from my Cleveland. Mainly in the AA department and Concealment are the primary things that I might be wrong on.

3: if you had to compare it to the Cleveland, would you say that it is A: A exact clone of the Cleveland (basically playing this thing is the exact same as playing a Cleveland (in any tier) with no real difference felt), B: It's Worse than the Cleveland (Cleveland can hold its own better in higher tier matches), or C: It's a definite improvement over the Cleveland. <explanations for "practical use" would be nice because I don't see it regarding the stats.

Edited by Levits
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
205
[70]
Members
1,092 posts
5,642 battles
2 hours ago, Levits said:

Firing time for Seattle can be around 5sec reload; Cleveland 6.5. Overall, I'd say that the ship is a downgrade when it comes to armament. 5 sec reload is a improvement, but at a cost of having to get closer to a target in a light cruiser... I don't think so.

So... here's the Seattle when compared to the Cleveland.

Better fire rate (Well thank god it's got something).

Worse Gun range. (seriously... again. the only ship in the entire game that loses range with a hull upgrade.)

Worse AA overall (Good thing it has the AA consumable... Cleveland's still better).

Worse Turning radius (No major difference in turning speed after upgrades and with modules).

Worse Survivability (honestly because I'm basing it on the looks of the citadel).

And Concealment isn't an improvement...

I don't know how much the guns overcome these shortfalls, but I'm not looking forward to this one.

Questions:

1: How well does the "citadel" armor do at bouncing shells. I'm talking about glancing shots making it through or how often do those AP rounds get into the citadel (tier 9 vs other high tier AP). Cleveland is pretty good at tanking/bouncing a few hits sometimes.

2: What stats did I make a mistake on? I've been eyeballing most of them because I didn't want to remove the upgrades and captain from my Cleveland. Mainly in the AA department and Concealment are the primary things that I might be wrong on.

3: if you had to compare it to the Cleveland, would you say that it is A: A exact clone of the Cleveland (basically playing this thing is the exact same as playing a Cleveland (in any tier) with no real difference felt), B: It's Worse than the Cleveland (Cleveland can hold its own better in higher tier matches), or C: It's a definite improvement over the Cleveland. <explanations for "practical use" would be nice because I don't see it regarding the stats.

1. ROF(LMSO - Laugh My Stern Off) WHAT? It's 6.5s base ROF, exactly like Cleveland. You can get -12% i.e. down to 5.8 if you want +13% turret traverse time (which is already cancer) with that Tier 9 modification that Tier 8s can't have. Adding the -15% traverse time +5% reload brings it to an even 6 seconds.

If it was 5 seconds it wouldn't be crap.

2. RANGE: WG calculates based on primary director height.

3. AGILITY, CITADEL, ETC. Yep... though I didn't even know the citadel was WORSE. I just saw the box on armor viewer and came to forum to complain right away because LOLWUT compared to Cleveland Magic Citadel...

You can see my Seattle complaint thread for more analysis of this flaming !#()$!V(B@U%#$*!.

 

Answers to your questions:

1. I cannot remove a Cleveland in a battleship without losing over half my health to his fires and IFHE. I can delete a Seattle in 3 salvos if I'm monumentally unlucky with the first and second. All battleships cit it easily through stern or at any angle but autobounce on belt, but that's only different from Cleveland by being a MUCH BIGGER/EASIER TARGET. Heavy cruiser AP goes through Seattles unless autobounce. Even a destroyer using AP (i.e. got close enough using stealth) can easily win a gun duel if the Seattle starts off with guns pointed the other way and heading in the same direction as the DD.

2. You terminally screwed up ROF as I explain above. And the gun traverse arcs OMFGWTFBBQSAUCE

3. STRICTLY INFERIOR TO CLEVELAND, even before you notice the horror show gun arcs which are not displayed in port.

Edited by Guardian54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13
[-TD-]
Members
80 posts
8,880 battles

I've bounced/shatter more shell off every type of ship when playing matches IX and X in my seattle.,    Everytime you even attempt to support flag capturing duties you are singled out by everyone within 20km , You either have to find a hiding spot or wait for other ships to move head just so you can get in position, god forbid you play with Battleships that won't move at least into mid-range to help support....

1) They know they can delete you very easy 

2) Even at make firing range, You ruddership and speed + (engine startup/shutdown) is so slow you can't dodge a damn thing (85%) of the time.,

3) While this is with most ships,  If you have anytype of "packet loss" "Lag" you can forget about accurate shots or High arching shells landing..  Hell, you know you got it bad when the slowest ship in the game can dodge your shells....

4) like the Buffalo, you can forget about 10 km shots landing as your shells just take too long to get there.  over 10km  your shells just arch even higher.. (*sheesh*) and that Dispersion ack!

 

But, all in all.  The Seattle is f'ing tough ship to play;  My Atlanta plays better... "Speed","Turning radius","Turret rotation","Firing Distance"...Between the Seattle and the Buffalo I can't decide who's worst for a ship this high in Tier...

for some reason I thought "Light ships" would mean,  Better Speed, Turning,Turret and engine performance,  aren't they manly DD's stepped up,  You give up armor and weapons to move and turn faster,. Granted why would you move in with a light ships without torpodeos is beyond me...

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[IAN]
Beta Testers
32 posts
2,387 battles

Seattle is not necessary a terrible ship overall, but it's certainly not an enjoyable ship to play with when you compare it to Cleveland. Let me summarize my experience:

I grind enough xp on Cleveland to unlock Seattle right at the update, and the stock grind experience was not exactly pleasant. The cumbersome ship handling + gun arc are notorious combination. Then I figure the maneuverability improvement from the upgraded hull should levitate that, then the shocking realization that it reduces your fire range to a pathetic 13km ish...never recall a linear ship research module that further downgrade your ship...

Once I fully upgraded the ship + adjusting the module (ship accleration + range improvement helped to some degree), it doesn't fix the horrible gun arc. Sure, I can nullify that completely by using island hugging strategy, but you can't always do that in all the maps, especially in late games when you have to take the fight to open sea in some situation.

The ship is like a devil temptation. The ship is constantly teasing you to go potato broadside to ultilize the full dpm potential, but your cruiser conscience is telling you not to do so for a good reason.

Halfway into grind, I just use free xp and unlock Worcester. It was the best decision I ever made. I rather be using Cleveland in constant T10 matches, than to use Seattle again. 

 

TLRD: Seattle is not a bad ship, but it's not fun to use.  It will keep reminding you the fun you missed in playing Cleveland.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
437 posts
7,510 battles
5 hours ago, Guardian54 said:

2. You terminally screwed up ROF as I explain above. And the gun traverse arcs OMFGWTFBBQSAUCE

damn... you know what, after looking back and forth I had to have gotten something confused there; royally. lol Thanks for pointing that out and I'm right there with you. Can't even call this a polished turd. It is flat out a downgrade in every regard. Maybe we should be comparing it to the tier 7 Helena instead...

Edited by Levits
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
205
[70]
Members
1,092 posts
5,642 battles
4 hours ago, Levits said:

damn... you know what, after looking back and forth I had to have gotten something confused there; royally. lol Thanks for pointing that out and I'm right there with you. Can't even call this a polished turd. It is flat out a downgrade in every regard. Maybe we should be comparing it to the tier 7 Helena instead...

You might be interested in this thread:

And my Buffalo feedback thread too...

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/160730-buffalo-unworthy-of-tier-9-relative-to-tier-8-balti-and-dm/

Edited by Guardian54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×