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

USS Alaska Imprssions

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,539
[HINON]
Members
9,354 posts
26 minutes ago, Vulgarr said:

 

 

Prepare for the inevitable panic about a work in progress ship in 3. 2. 1. . . .

 

1YtJekI.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
60
[FTH]
[FTH]
Members
310 posts
11,642 battles

I dunno, at this point I think the uproar is going to be about the fact it still isn't out yet, lol

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
490
[SAA]
Members
915 posts
28,025 battles

Nice work as usual Vagar!  I would have said it was just RNG, but you do mention that it was over several matches.  I was just wondering how many matches did you play and do you think there might be a different strategy that would help its performance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
126
[--V--]
Members
504 posts
10,889 battles

Well it is 12" guns against a difficult to citadel Missouri.  Sounds to me like this is a 12" HE Spammer.  Just what we need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
96
[FAILD]
Beta Testers
893 posts
2,263 battles

Ok so I don't really have time to watch ALL of it. But do we know if it will be a free exp ship or simply a normal premium?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
60
[FTH]
[FTH]
Members
310 posts
11,642 battles

We still don't know so far...someone said placeholder at 1m FXP, but the way it's been going this last week, I took it with the whole salt block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoWS Community Contributors
305 posts
6,879 battles
2 hours ago, Turbotush said:

Nice work as usual Vagar!  I would have said it was just RNG, but you do mention that it was over several matches.  I was just wondering how many matches did you play and do you think there might be a different strategy that would help its performance?

Over the last few months I have played dozens of matches. I lost count how many I have played in her. The AP does on occasion do well against a battleships superstructure. As I mentioned in the video I put several solid hits into an Iowa's superstructure in a previous game. One hit was for 18k dmg.  I don't remember the exact range but it was between 5-10km

Some have said "Why didn't you aim for the superstructure on the Missouri if you knew it could do that kind of damage."

To that I say, If I only tested the things in these ships that I know will work, and don't show you the things that don't work. Then I wouldn't be doing my job in showing you, the community, what is in store.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,596 posts
8,731 battles

Hey

Like many waiting for the Alaska but I will not spend 1 million free XP for it.  For me 750K is the max, especially if it's nothing all that great; I don't think Kronstadt was actually worth 750K when you consider it's a cruiser and the Mo. and Musashi were the same price and these are cruisers.  For that price I can easily finnish grinding a couple of lines.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,185
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,913 posts
15,363 battles

That DD pushing into 4-5 enemy ships knowing full well it's detected, range of all the threats is less than 10km.  Still pushes.  WTH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
235
[TARFU]
[TARFU]
Members
1,032 posts
6,441 battles

Here's what a guy on Facebook wrote under an Alaska update, is it true?  Would she be OP if she had that extra penetration she ought to have? I doubt it. The only thing that would change is her AP would actually be use able upclose, vulgar would've actually been able to citadel that ship.

"Chris Coyne: Based on https://wowsft.com/ Alaska is missing a significant amount of Gun penetration. Will this be addressed considering how little there is to make this ship stand out compared to Kron and Stalingrad? At 5km in game Pen is 518mm. Historic Performance was 542mm. At 10km In game is 419mm while Historic has it at 463mm. At 15km In game is 340mm versus historic performance of 395mm. At 20km Historically it could pen 323mm of armor. In game at max range of 18.97km the guns only have 292mm of pen. Missing 30-50mm of pen is a significant amount of firepower missing."

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoWS Community Contributors
305 posts
6,879 battles

I've got another video coming out tomorrow guys and it is a totally different style of play. Stay tuned and hold your final judgments for now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,185
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,913 posts
15,363 battles
8 hours ago, HorrorRoach said:

Here's what a guy on Facebook wrote under an Alaska update, is it true?  Would she be OP if she had that extra penetration she ought to have? I doubt it. The only thing that would change is her AP would actually be use able upclose, vulgar would've actually been able to citadel that ship.

"Chris Coyne: Based on https://wowsft.com/ Alaska is missing a significant amount of Gun penetration. Will this be addressed considering how little there is to make this ship stand out compared to Kron and Stalingrad? At 5km in game Pen is 518mm. Historic Performance was 542mm. At 10km In game is 419mm while Historic has it at 463mm. At 15km In game is 340mm versus historic performance of 395mm. At 20km Historically it could pen 323mm of armor. In game at max range of 18.97km the guns only have 292mm of pen. Missing 30-50mm of pen is a significant amount of firepower missing."

She would not be the only one like that.

 

Iowa's 16"/50 AP have less penetration than they really had.

Scharnhorst's 283mm guns lost a lot of penetration capability in WoWS.

German 406mm lost a lot of penetration capability also.

Probably more like this.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
60
[FTH]
[FTH]
Members
310 posts
11,642 battles

Not sure, but I do know the different between how you play in WoWS and R/L tactics is so far apart that it wouldn't shock me a bit if it was off. If memory serves right, Iowa's 2700 lb superheavies were supposed to have similar penetration to the 18"ers of Yam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,596 posts
8,731 battles
On ‎11‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 4:43 AM, HazeGrayUnderway said:

She would not be the only one like that.

 

Iowa's 16"/50 AP have less penetration than they really had.

Scharnhorst's 283mm guns lost a lot of penetration capability in WoWS.

German 406mm lost a lot of penetration capability also.

Probably more like this.

Hey

I think if the truth was really known; there are a lot of ships (BB's in particular) that have been nerf'd when it comes to damage done; so many misses at close range, ricochets, broken shells and especially over-pens these days as compared to a year ago.  Oh sure you can still get 100-200K but on any average day; it's surprising how aggravating it is anymore.  Even BB's shooting broadside cruisers don't see the damage you used to, or shoot a DD with HE and get 4-5 pens and he lives with a large chunk of health still.  Some may say RNG; but I think that is a cop out; the game is becoming more and more un balanced the longer we go.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6 posts
536 battles
3 hours ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

I think if the truth was really known; there are a lot of ships (BB's in particular) that have been nerf'd when it comes to damage done; so many misses at close range, ricochets, broken shells and especially over-pens these days as compared to a year ago.  Oh sure you can still get 100-200K but on any average day; it's surprising how aggravating it is anymore.  Even BB's shooting broadside cruisers don't see the damage you used to, or shoot a DD with HE and get 4-5 pens and he lives with a large chunk of health still.  Some may say RNG; but I think that is a cop out; the game is becoming more and more un balanced the longer we go.

 

Pete

Totally agree. All this constant searching for balance is ruining the game with every change. So weird to see companies destroy themselves. The persons recommending and approving these awful changes (cough CV rework)should be given a pink slip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,185
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,913 posts
15,363 battles
15 hours ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

I think if the truth was really known; there are a lot of ships (BB's in particular) that have been nerf'd when it comes to damage done; so many misses at close range, ricochets, broken shells and especially over-pens these days as compared to a year ago.  Oh sure you can still get 100-200K but on any average day; it's surprising how aggravating it is anymore.  Even BB's shooting broadside cruisers don't see the damage you used to, or shoot a DD with HE and get 4-5 pens and he lives with a large chunk of health still.  Some may say RNG; but I think that is a cop out; the game is becoming more and more un balanced the longer we go.

 

Pete

It's video game balance is all.  But there's numerous people around here that think this game is a Simulator, which is hilarious a.f. to me.

 

If people actually played more ship types outside of their invested personal babies in this game, they'd see the bigger picture of balance in the game.  Everyone imagines that it's easier on the "other side of the fence" but it's really not.  You're trading away one set of problems for another different set when you go try different ship types.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,596 posts
8,731 battles
On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 12:55 AM, HazeGrayUnderway said:

It's video game balance is all.  But there's numerous people around here that think this game is a Simulator, which is hilarious a.f. to me.

 

If people actually played more ship types outside of their invested personal babies in this game, they'd see the bigger picture of balance in the game.  Everyone imagines that it's easier on the "other side of the fence" but it's really not.  You're trading away one set of problems for another different set when you go try different ship types.

Hey

I play all types of ships except air craft carriers; so I think I have a grasp on playing the ship from T1 to T10, including many different nations.  But this game is anything but balanced and is only getting worse; especially when taken into context of how it played a year ago.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,185
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,913 posts
15,363 battles
4 hours ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

I play all types of ships except air craft carriers; so I think I have a grasp on playing the ship from T1 to T10, including many different nations.  But this game is anything but balanced and is only getting worse; especially when taken into context of how it played a year ago.

 

Pete

No, this game is quite reasonable in balance.  Yes, there's some outliers like Imperator Nikolai, Caesar, but in general things are alright.  You think Cruisers can ignore Battleship AP when to me as a Cruiser player, Battleships are still by far the single biggest threat.  BBs are the ones that have a very realistic chance of ripping away most of your NP in one gun salvo.

 

Yet here we are, BB players thinking their guns are ineffective.

 

Another example.  I lost count how many times BB players around here whine about HE & Fires, despite Battleships are the ones best able to withstand and RECOVER from such attacks.  I've provided many pointers in the past how one can simply play and mitigate the worst effects of Fires, even without specifically building a Survival Build Battleship.

FFS, I'm a Cruiser Main and I know how to do that kind of sh*t with my Battleships, but people around here keep looking at my posts as if I'm speaking Greek to them.  They just keep ranting how impossible it is, how the poor wittle Battleship cannot withstand such attacks, and say this with an open face knowing that most Cruisers in the game don't even have Repair Party to recover their HP from Fire damage.

 

I can go on and on and on and on AND ON about the different forms of combat with the different ships in this game, and how it's fine.

 

And don't get me started on the rampant "Conspiracy Theorists" in this game.  There's a lot of those dopey players in this game.  The last great one with a lot of morons that joined in, even some notable CCs, was the "WG nerfed muh Missouri Dispersion!" a while back.  Every week, we have a lot of conspiracy, tin foil hat threads in the game.  Every time we get some dopey idiots starting threads, "I think WG nerfed muh [insert game element] on my [insert ship here, typically a Battleship] this last patch!"  The truth is really just bad players now knowing what the f--k they're doing.

 

Things are fine, for now.  But I don't know about the CV Rework though.  That looks like a total sh*t show at the moment.  I see us Surface Ships getting served up on a silver platter by WG for the Carriers.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×