Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
RobertViktor68

CE Change discussion

33 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

281
[TSPC]
Beta Testers
1,104 posts
10,102 battles

In a previous post, yesterday, I started a seven-page-thread on the proposed change to CE mentioned in the dev blog.  Something came up over and over...... "there are several BBs that can out spot a CA".

I really need an example here.  It's got to be within 1 tier of each other.  Both have to have full stealth builds.  If it's just the Conqueror then the CE change is stupid..... just fix the Conq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,409
[PNG]
Supertester
5,658 posts
6,455 battles

Montana/Yamato/République all outspot Moskva and Stalingrad.

 

In addition, building either Moskva or Stalingrad for full stealth yields no combat benefits for either because they are still outspotted by cruisers no matter how much they put into stealth.

Range Hindenburgs may choose to run rudder mod and are outspotted by stealth battleships as well in standard maneuvers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
281
[TSPC]
Beta Testers
1,104 posts
10,102 battles
5 minutes ago, Compassghost said:

Montana/Yamato/République all outspot Moskva and Stalingrad.

 

In addition, building either Moskva or Stalingrad for full stealth yields no combat benefits for either because they are still outspotted by cruisers no matter how much they put into stealth.

Range Hindenburgs may choose to run rudder mod and are outspotted by stealth battleships as well in standard maneuvers.

Hardly enough examples for a change.   Just because "stealth" for Moskva or Stalingrad "yields no..... benefits"?   I'm not buying this argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
96
[EQRN]
Members
309 posts
8,672 battles

I think the CE change, AP on DD change, torp bulge damage are preludes to an HE nerf.  No facts, just a sneaking suspicion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
426
[-BRS-]
Members
1,609 posts
13,239 battles

I don't know what the big deal is, it a change cross the board for everybody and it's minor

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46
[RNJR]
Members
200 posts
4,157 battles

Absolutely yes  - BBs should never ever have the same or better stealth than cruisers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,554
[HINON]
Supertester
18,966 posts
12,487 battles
8 minutes ago, silverdahc said:

I don't know what the big deal is, it a change cross the board for everybody and it's minor

^

4 minutes ago, Swift_Scythe said:

Absolutely yes  - BBs should never ever have the same or better stealth than cruisers.  

Why? Mast height is what matters, since a mast top is the first thing you see over the horizon. Where is it written that all battleships ever have taller masts than all cruisers ever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[KENT]
Members
51 posts
350 battles

I don’t really want to write a lot about it, but, in my opinion, such change is just going to make people play less agressive (seriously?!). But, unlike the removing of 9.9 km Worcester radar, which made the ship kinda boring, but still strong, this thing won’t fix any kind of cancer/toxicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
74
[CUTE]
Members
155 posts
12,388 battles
19 minutes ago, RobertViktor68 said:

Hardly enough examples for a change.   Just because "stealth" for Moskva or Stalingrad "yields no..... benefits"?   I'm not buying this argument.

Moskva/Stalingrad having a larger detection radius is part of their balancing.  on top of having the 11.7km radar.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,409
[PNG]
Supertester
5,658 posts
6,455 battles

Concealment isn’t only about two ships detecting each other, it’s about how fast you can detect them. Reducing Concealment expert power for larger ships gives smaller ships a few seconds earlier warning to react to a potential threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
[BOTES]
Members
137 posts
3,108 battles

I just don't like that fights will be pushed out a little further as everyone tries to stay at a range that allows them to disengage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,437
[5BS]
Members
4,528 posts

Sigh, I posted it in the other thread but will quote it here:

1 hour ago, _RC1138 said:

ltQnDpj.jpgXhYfVuA.jpgiz5nNMI.jpgQCaEqDF.jpgNa7sVRP.jpgdwgcvQj.jpgVBKrsoy.jpgWin5MmW.jpg

 

You're welcome to sift through that and figure out which BB's can outspot which cruisers under what conditions. Suffice to say, most crosses are for non-stealth focused built Cruisers against the stealthiest, stealth built BB's (so for example, USN BB's, RN BB's vs. RU CA/CL's, KM CA/CL's). A few exceptions exist, like the Bismarck/Tiripitz being stealthy for their place in the KM BB line and thus able to outspot non-Stealth built cruisers, but by and large, in a non-Built Cruiser vs. a built BB, there's a great deal of crossover, but when it's both built for stealth, I'd say at a glance only a few, maybe 3-4 can expect to outspot more than 1 or two cruisers in their tier spread (and almost always it will be an RN/USN BB vs. the Hinde and Moskva). In most cases it's the T8 BB's that have the 'best' breathing room stealth area as they are typically still physically small enough to be of similar scale to T7 even T6 BB's, but because T8 get's the CSM1, they get a free boost of 10%. Very few T9 and really only 1 T10 BB's are capable of expecting serious drops on cruisers (Conqueror is the standout at T10, and Lion, Missouri/Iowa, Alsace, and Kron are the only ones to expect this and yes, Kron is a BB for the umpteenth time, I don't care what shenanigans WGing played).

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
281
[TSPC]
Beta Testers
1,104 posts
10,102 battles
53 minutes ago, silverdahc said:

I don't know what the big deal is, it a change cross the board for everybody and it's minor

ok, hardly a change..... so, why change at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,409
[PNG]
Supertester
5,658 posts
6,455 battles

This change will increase the chance for a destroyer to take evasive action if they meet a cruiser at close range.
Make life easier for cruisers by reducing the stealth bonus granted to Battleships.
Will allow for more variation for specialization by making the skill 'Concealment Expert' less dominant.
Also, this change will remove inconsistencies, such as a ship of an enormous size recieving an greaterbonus to it's stealth than that of a smaller ship type.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[90THS]
Members
108 posts
527 battles
10 minutes ago, RobertViktor68 said:

ok, hardly a change..... so, why change at all? 

WG in a nutshell.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
426
[-BRS-]
Members
1,609 posts
13,239 battles
15 minutes ago, RobertViktor68 said:

ok, hardly a change..... so, why change at all?

 :cap_hmm:Because they hired an economist that needed the streamline something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,764
Members
9,868 posts
1 hour ago, Lert said:

^

Why? Mast height is what matters, since a mast top is the first thing you see over the horizon. Where is it written that all battleships ever have taller masts than all cruisers ever?

Reality has little to do with an arcade game....:Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,056
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,213 posts
8,798 battles
1 hour ago, RobertViktor68 said:

ok, hardly a change..... so, why change at all?

Simplify the systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,599
Members
17,819 posts
5,087 battles
5 hours ago, Compassghost said:

Range Hindenburgs may choose to run rudder mod and are outspotted by stealth battleships as well in standard maneuvers.

Even if you run the stealth mod, Conq still outspots you, as well as outspotting Henri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,599
Members
17,819 posts
5,087 battles
2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

Simplify the systems.

Yeah, just like they did with the hydro.

Also, if it provides less benefit to BBs, maybe fewer BBs will take it.

Edited by Skpstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,056
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,213 posts
8,798 battles
1 minute ago, Skpstr said:

Yeah, just like they did with the hydro.

Also, if it provides less benefit to BBs, maybe fewer BBs will take it.

I was thinking more about simplifying the game code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,021 posts
2,958 battles

Why is every non-DD ship int he game getting nerfed because ships like the Conqueror are stupidly overpowered with an outrageously low concealment. No one is complaining about Hindenburg or Henri stealth builds, so why are they getting nerfed simply because WG won't fix the Conquerors concealment.

Edited by goldeagle1123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,599
Members
17,819 posts
5,087 battles
4 minutes ago, goldeagle1123 said:

Why is every non-DD ship int he game getting nerfed because ships like the Conqueror are stupidly overpowered with an outrageously low concealment.

Maybe WG is trying to rein in concealment?

4 minutes ago, goldeagle1123 said:

No one is complaining about Hindenburg or Henri stealth builds....

Same reason no one complains about flying pigs lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,021 posts
2,958 battles
15 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Maybe WG is trying to rein in concealment?

Same reason no one complains about flying pigs lol.

The ideal build for both Hindenburg and Henri includes CE. As a cruiser, you always want your detection as low as possible. Whether it be because you want to be actually stealthy (IJN cruisers), or just so you aren't detected from low orbit (Henri, other high detection cruisers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×