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

Worst higher tier ship in the game?

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

629
[LBA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,349 posts
1 hour ago, Gavroche_ said:

Tashkent would be a perfectly balanced ship if it got cruiser matchmaking. In games when you have 3-4 DDs per side it does fine, but holy s*** does it suck to have to cap in your 8.9 detect no smoke tashkent in a single DD, CV game 'cause MM decided to pair you against a yugumo.

You say this but Khaba is doing great even in the current meta. Admittedly it's still not a capping ship so I think the specific circumstances you describe still wouldn't be great, but Khaba does prove possible for a gunship DD with poor concealment to do well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
250 posts
16,763 battles
7 hours ago, Sweetsie said:

In Europe it is also the worst, after calling the US the worst player base, would you consider Europe to be the best player base? And since they cant make it work... where do we go from here?

 YD1nhHb.png

The USN playerbase, not the US playerbase

People who play American ships and American players are completely different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,253
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,760 posts
12,155 battles
Just now, DoIphin_Princess said:

Stubbornness like this is why the majority of the playerbase will never improve.

That's not stubbornness.  The sheer arrogance that rolls from your post about how only the elites stats matter is utterly ridiculous.  Most people do not play in the same rarefied air that you do, and they never will.  It's unreasonable to expect that the game is going to revolve around players of your skill set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
250 posts
16,763 battles
1 minute ago, crzyhawk said:

That's not stubbornness.  The sheer arrogance that rolls from your post about how only the elites stats matter is utterly ridiculous.  Most people do not play in the same rarefied air that you do, and they never will.  It's unreasonable to expect that the game is going to revolve around players of your skill set.

What you don't understand is that I would had said the same thing even if I was a potato. The difference between a unicum and a potato is that a unicum is willing to accept that opinions can be wrong and fact are facts.

The reason why I sound so confident is because I am a data scientist in real life, I do data analysis for a living.

I can write a whole paper on why server averages mean nothing with linear regression analysis via minitab, but its easier if you just think about it this way:

If we were to assume that a low average win rate / damage means the ship is underpowered, then why would WG need to have a balancing department? Why not just buff/nerf all ships until they have near equal win rate / damage?

If you want more proof, take a look here:

image.thumb.png.07e1b5b3e7116883ab488fed2b53d8ca.png

These 2 are the exact same ships, yet one have 10% more win rate and 20k more average damage. Why do you think that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
539
[MIA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,290 posts
7,991 battles

Dimma Donskoi is the worst for me ever since they improved the FDG and Izumo. Other than torpedoes, it does not have anything going for it over Chapayev. Ibuki maybe too although I have not played it recently. Mogami is such a beast with its damage output that Ibuki feels like the biggest downgrade when going up a tier in the entire game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[WMD]
Members
421 posts
6,174 battles
3 hours ago, DoIphin_Princess said:

What you don't understand is that I would had said the same thing even if I was a potato. The difference between a unicum and a potato is that a unicum is willing to accept that opinions can be wrong and fact are facts.

The reason why I sound so confident is because I am a data scientist in real life, I do data analysis for a living.

I can write a whole paper on why server averages mean nothing with linear regression analysis via minitab, but its easier if you just think about it this way:

If we were to assume that a low average win rate / damage means the ship is underpowered, then why would WG need to have a balancing department? Why not just buff/nerf all ships until they have near equal win rate / damage?

If you want more proof, take a look here:

image.thumb.png.07e1b5b3e7116883ab488fed2b53d8ca.png

These 2 are the exact same ships, yet one have 10% more win rate and 20k more average damage. Why do you think that is?

While you clearly are correct (with good reason given your profession), data doesn't translate well into player experience. If players are having a poor experience in Buffalo, then maybe WG should look into why, and how to fix it.

The reality is most players are likely happy with their performance overall, but want to play ships that are fun, or at least comfortable. The potatoes(like me) provide funding for the game, and damage/win rate farms for their betters.  If WG can make a ship more fun/comfortable and not push it into being completely OP with a unicum skipper it's in their best interest to do it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,149
[SUGAR]
[SUGAR]
Members
3,351 posts
13,903 battles
4 hours ago, DoIphin_Princess said:

What you don't understand is that I would had said the same thing even if I was a potato. The difference between a unicum and a potato is that a unicum is willing to accept that opinions can be wrong and fact are facts.

The reason why I sound so confident is because I am a data scientist in real life, I do data analysis for a living.

I can write a whole paper on why server averages mean nothing with linear regression analysis via minitab, but its easier if you just think about it this way:

If we were to assume that a low average win rate / damage means the ship is underpowered, then why would WG need to have a balancing department? Why not just buff/nerf all ships until they have near equal win rate / damage?

If you want more proof, take a look here:

image.thumb.png.07e1b5b3e7116883ab488fed2b53d8ca.png

These 2 are the exact same ships, yet one have 10% more win rate and 20k more average damage. Why do you think that is?

 

5 hours ago, DoIphin_Princess said:

The USN playerbase, not the US playerbase

People who play American ships and American players are completely different things.

Interesting stuff, your playing results speak for themselves, they are so far beyond excellent it's hard to figure out what you do and how you do it.

On your example with the Alabama's, I assume the one is a test ship? The ST test ship was played by testers? And Alabama by the general population? I don't think anyone will argue that the same ship will perform better in better players hands. Comparing the players who play the same ship vs comparing the general population's results of one ship to other ships in it's peer group is completely different. Otherwise I am missing the entire point of your comparison. 

The one that has me really intrigued is the USN player comment. At quick glance you say those that play USN ships have worse players? Or that USN ships are worse? Does a player become worse when he decides to play a USN ship? Or does the draw of playing a USN ship have a "pull" that draws more potatoes to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
247
[SPCU]
Members
554 posts
4,697 battles
16 hours ago, Guardian54 said:

Of the Tier 8-9 ships I've played to date, it's a toss-up between Izumo and Neptune for worst ship. (EDIT: After Buffalo reload got buffed, that is)

Neptune agility is just too godawful for a huge barn of a light cruiser to survive with. And Izumo third turret arc is an abomination, plus it gets IFHE-penned painfully easily

Neptune can be rough... cant compete with mino handling/rof... buuuut... it actually has better armor than mino and used to be numero uno for aa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,253
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,760 posts
12,155 battles
4 hours ago, Sweetsie said:

 

Interesting stuff, your playing results speak for themselves, they are so far beyond excellent it's hard to figure out what you do and how you do it.

On your example with the Alabama's, I assume the one is a test ship? The ST test ship was played by testers? And Alabama by the general population? I don't think anyone will argue that the same ship will perform better in better players hands. Comparing the players who play the same ship vs comparing the general population's results of one ship to other ships in it's peer group is completely different. Otherwise I am missing the entire point of your comparison. 

The one that has me really intrigued is the USN player comment. At quick glance you say those that play USN ships have worse players? Or that USN ships are worse? Does a player become worse when he decides to play a USN ship? Or does the draw of playing a USN ship have a "pull" that draws more potatoes to it?

He's implying that USN ships have a high skill ceiling and a high skill floor.  He's saying that they are better than the stats show, because most players are incapable of playing the ship to it's fullest potential.

That's why if you go to reddit, you will see some folks screaming about how overpowered Baltimore is, even though it's statistically not so hot.

I too am a former analyst, although an intelligence analyst rather than a data analyst.  I completely understand how he's cherry picking stats which illustrate the overall potential, while ignoring stats that show the floor.

The floor is equally important, and perhaps more important to the vast majority of the playerbase.  He will have you believe that the floor is irrelevant and only the potential matters.

Edited by crzyhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,149
[SUGAR]
[SUGAR]
Members
3,351 posts
13,903 battles
1 minute ago, crzyhawk said:

He's imply that USN ships have a high skill ceiling and a high skill floor.  He's saying that they are better than the stats show, because most players are incapable of playing the ship to it's fullest potential.

I too am a former analyst, although an intelligence analyst rather than a data analyst.  I completely understand how he's cherry picking stats which illustrate the overall potential, while ignoring stats that show the floor.

The floor is equally important, and perhaps more important to the vast majority of the playerbase.  He will have you believe that the floor is irrelevant and only the potential matters.

I have been pondering his theories all morning. I enjoy his views as they are drastically different than almost everyone else's and his play is off the charts. I can see his point on how many "could" be enticed to play USN ships as they existed and their are many stories about each rather than playing a much lesser known ship or one that never existed. I do see some merit to that. ( a little)

In the Buffalo's case the numbers are so much lower it's hard to grasp. I have also read his arguments on the Stalingrad, and he does cherry pick stats. I just wish he wasn't so good at this game, it would make me more sure of my stance vs his. lols.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48
[WOLFG]
Members
160 posts
34 minutes ago, Xanshin said:

Neptune can be rough... cant compete with mino handling/rof... buuuut... it actually has better armor than mino and used to be numero uno for aa.

Neptune has my vote.  Absolutely hated it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2 posts
1,854 battles

The Izumo at Tier 9, it is so big, elephantine, and ineffective that it gets burned and torped from outer space.

The strategy with the Izumo, is to pick the red team's best battleship, and ram it for mutual destruction.  Your team will thank you for it...and the ordeal on the grinding quest to reach Yamato will at least serve a purpose.

 

 

Edited by ByrosOnline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,253
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,760 posts
12,155 battles

in Buffalo's case, imo, he's correct.  My hostile response to his original post, was the dismissive nature in which I took him applying towards us plebians, which is quite common from players of his skill level (and below there tbh).  I wouldnt take his skill level away, he's far and away a better player than I am.  I grant that freely.  What I disagree with, is the general unicum perspective that lesser players don't matter.  If that's not the direction he was going, then I owe him an apology.  I don't really think that though; I think he believes that only the opinions of the best players matter and everyone else is doing it wrong, either because they cant improve or are unwilling to improve.

As for Buffalo, it's criminally underrated, mostly because of perception.  People try to play it bow on, like t9 Baltimore and like Des Moines.  That's not what it's strength is.  I find that Buffalo, is best served by situations where you can get your broadside in use, and that's not sitting at a cap, bow in.  I like Buffalo personally, because it suits how I want to play.  I want to be moving and maneuvering; that's not bow on, DM play.  Broadsiding doesn't mean sailing around broadside waiting to get dev-struck, it means putting all the guns to use, as often as it's safely possible to do so.  It's not as easy to pull off, because opening those gun arcs to shoot all 12 guns can get you dev struck.  That comes back to the skill floor/skill ceiling I mentioned earlier.  Buffalo has a higher floor to reach its potential because you have a choice to make:  Expose your broadside to use it's strength (12 very nasty guns) OR play it safe, and sit bow on angled, but only use half the DPM at your command rather than 100% of it.

Now, you CAN play a Baltimore or a DM like a Buffalo, and get away with it.  It's debatable how good of an idea that is, but you can do it.  You can't on the other hand easily go the other way and play a Buffalo like a Balto or a DM.  That's kind of problematic because it doesn't reinforce how you should play the line.

Edited by crzyhawk
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
836
[XBRTC]
Members
2,282 posts
8,217 battles
6 hours ago, Sweetsie said:

 

Interesting stuff, your playing results speak for themselves, they are so far beyond excellent it's hard to figure out what you do and how you do it.

On your example with the Alabama's, I assume the one is a test ship? The ST test ship was played by testers? And Alabama by the general population? I don't think anyone will argue that the same ship will perform better in better players hands. Comparing the players who play the same ship vs comparing the general population's results of one ship to other ships in it's peer group is completely different. Otherwise I am missing the entire point of your comparison. 

Alabama ST was a reward ship given to supertesters as a thank-you. It is functionally identical to the regular Alabama that us plebs have. The only difference between them is in the name, and of course in the abilities of the players that use it.

 

6 hours ago, Sweetsie said:

The one that has me really intrigued is the USN player comment. At quick glance you say those that play USN ships have worse players? Or that USN ships are worse? Does a player become worse when he decides to play a USN ship? Or does the draw of playing a USN ship have a "pull" that draws more potatoes to it?

 

In general, most of the people that play on the NA server are Americans. I'd go so far as to say the vast majority of us are, in fact. As a result, the first tech tree that most of us play will be an American one. In general, the first tech tree that we play up will have utterly craptacular stats, because we're advancing up the line and learning as we go, and we don't really know what we're doing. By the time we get to our fourth or fifth tech tree, in theory, we have a much better handle on things and our stats tend to look better... but those poor American cruisers that were our first learning experience, well, they look like crap over the long term because they were the first ships we played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,225
[SYN]
Members
14,847 posts
11,306 battles

The T9 french cruiser that has benches for its rudder and subsequently keeps losing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
194
[70]
Members
1,055 posts
4,763 battles
6 hours ago, crzyhawk said:

It's not as easy to pull off, because opening those gun arcs to shoot all 12 guns can get you dev struck.  That comes back to the skill floor/skill ceiling I mentioned earlier.

Er, the Buffalo has godly turret arcs on the rear turrets. Also pretty good agility.

So shooting all 12 guns is very easy, and will still autobounce (hitting at over 45 degrees from normal, ricochet chance begins at 30 from normal) all enemy fire that doesn't either overmatch your plating (16 inch guns on up) or have improved autobounce.

Hence why, after its DPM was improved by the ROF buff, I deemed it no longer underpowered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,313
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
17,249 posts
15,762 battles
2 hours ago, MrDeaf said:

The T9 french cruiser that has benches for its rudder and subsequently keeps losing them.

A lot of the French Cruisers are like that.  They're the only Cruiser Line where Last Stand I consider a key feature.  Otherwise you're popping DCP for frivolous things that leave you at risk when it goes on cooldown.  Algerie, Charles Martel, etc.  It's been the same story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
661
[DAKI]
Beta Testers
2,899 posts
4,248 battles
On 3/15/2019 at 5:40 PM, DoIphin_Princess said:

Stat checked it?

image.thumb.png.6508d87f3f85a58657429013db02c943.png

Its tied with Roon for being the BEST T9 tech tree cruiser and better than the Alaska in just about every meaningful way. The only Cruiser that shines above it at T9 is the Krons.

What more can you ask for? Its got really good armor with the 27mm bow allowing you to easily fight the most common BBs like Bismarck/Tirpitz/Richi/Alsace/Monarch

It also have a 12 gun alpha with USN super heavy shells, its got the famous hydro+radar combo.

To top that off, it also have really good concealment allowing it to get close to dev strike enemy ships, and it have normal cruiser dispersion unlike Alaska.

i would rather have the 30mm belt that roon does, and the 50mm of pen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,253
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,760 posts
12,155 battles
2 hours ago, Guardian54 said:

Er, the Buffalo has godly turret arcs on the rear turrets. Also pretty good agility.

So shooting all 12 guns is very easy, and will still autobounce (hitting at over 45 degrees from normal, ricochet chance begins at 30 from normal) all enemy fire that doesn't either overmatch your plating (16 inch guns on up) or have improved autobounce.

Hence why, after its DPM was improved by the ROF buff, I deemed it no longer underpowered.

I do not disagree with you, I love the Buffalo as it fits how I like to play.  A lot of other folks are very uncomfortable with it because they try to play it bow on with the front guns only, and that's just not a strength of the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,253
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,760 posts
12,155 battles
6 hours ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

Alabama ST was a reward ship given to supertesters as a thank-you. It is functionally identical to the regular Alabama that us plebs have. The only difference between them is in the name, and of course in the abilities of the players that use it.

 

 

In general, most of the people that play on the NA server are Americans. I'd go so far as to say the vast majority of us are, in fact. As a result, the first tech tree that most of us play will be an American one. In general, the first tech tree that we play up will have utterly craptacular stats, because we're advancing up the line and learning as we go, and we don't really know what we're doing. By the time we get to our fourth or fifth tech tree, in theory, we have a much better handle on things and our stats tend to look better... but those poor American cruisers that were our first learning experience, well, they look like crap over the long term because they were the first ships we played.

The other servers had similar stats for USN ships the last time I checked though too (but it's been a while).  I am not sure that argument holds water elsewhere.

Edited by crzyhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
194
[70]
Members
1,055 posts
4,763 battles
45 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

I do not disagree with you, I love the Buffalo as it fits how I like to play.  A lot of other folks are very uncomfortable with it because they try to play it bow on with the front guns only, and that's just not a strength of the ship.

Remember when I absolutely hated it for having 13 second base reload and even started a thread on it having the exact same DPM as the Baltimore?

Then it got buffed to 12 seconds and I found it acceptable.

Still think it should be 11 or even 10 seconds though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,457 posts
13,506 battles

Bismarck and Tirpitz. There's no reason to play them anymore, they play so badly in the current "spam HE from range, 45 CVs in queue" meta. I'd love to play then but Massachusetts exists and does literally every single thing better. Except torpedo something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×