Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Shinzon1

Graf Zeppelin “Buff”

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

306
[USFF]
Members
434 posts
6,982 battles

@Sub_Octavian is there a chance we just call it good and “un-buff” the AP bombs? We appreciate the effort to compensate Graf after the speed changes but it’s not working out. I don’t know if a buff has ever been asked to be reverted but the new bomb mechanics seem worse than they were before. The bombs bounce, overpen or completely miss the target most of the time. Coupled with the speed boost “standardization” this CV feels worse in 8.4 overall. Thanks.

  • Cool 9
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,344 posts
3,206 battles
2 hours ago, Shinzon1 said:

@Sub_Octavian is there a chance we just call it good and “un-buff” the AP bombs? We appreciate the effort to compensate Graf after the speed changes but it’s not working out. I don’t know if a buff has ever been asked to be reverted but the new bomb mechanics seem worse than they were before. The bombs bounce, overpen or completely miss the target most of the time. Coupled with the speed boost “standardization” this CV feels worse in 8.4 overall. Thanks.

Gonna have to agree. I like the idea of a attack-from-the-side "dive" bomber, but between the circular reticle, only dropping two bombs at a time, and the planes being so fragile, it's just wildly unreliable on the GZ. It's not even terribly rewarding when you actually get both bombs to citadel the target, either, on the off chance RNG decides to cooperate.

The GZ DBs needed changes to enhance their RELIABLY, especially considering the inherent challenges of AP bombs and fragile planes. 3x3 or even 4x2 attack wings instead of 2x4 would be a good start. Even against targets with pretty weak AA, it's extremely unrealistic that your planes will survive long enough for 4 drops. Doubling the number of bombs dropped, but reducing the damage of each bomb to compensate, would help even things out, too.

If the reticle is to remain a circle, then it needs to be fairly small such that a well-aimed strike actually hits the ship, rather than the reticle covering a considerable amount if water on either side of it. The steeper dive made more sense for the circle, too, as it's direction-independent.

If you're heart-set on the flatter, more glide-bomb-like "dive", then the reticle needs to be adjusted to reflect that. A circle is a very sub-optional shape if the expectation is for you to usually attack from the sides. A wide, but very flat ellipse, like the reticle for USN rockets, would be much more appropriate. Well-aligned attacks from the sides would be able to fill all of the reticle with the target ship, rather than having a lot of water for the bombs to fall into. Enemy ships could reduce the damage of attacks by turning into the attacks, and thus spoiling the alignment of the reticle.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
158
[SRMC]
[SRMC]
Members
294 posts
12,846 battles

Wasn't it supposed to get a buff tho? If they dont want the AP bombs then buff the torps 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,580
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,304 posts
6,266 battles

Wait, THAT'S how you're supped to use them now? I'll have to test it out, but by TOG that sounds idiotic. So far I've gotten more citadels and penetration on a single BAD run with Enterprise's DBs post-change than I have with GZ's in every single attempt I've made.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,344 posts
3,206 battles
10 minutes ago, Landsraad said:

Wait, THAT'S how you're supped to use them now? I'll have to test it out, but by TOG that sounds idiotic. So far I've gotten more citadels and penetration on a single BAD run with Enterprise's DBs post-change than I have with GZ's in every single attempt I've made.

 

What is TOG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,673
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,735 posts
7,019 battles
14 minutes ago, Frenotx said:

What is TOG?

i think it's that retarded giant tank from world of tanks that was a meme some time ago.

a product of british fanfiction that the next war after ww1 would be the same thing.

TOG2_Tank_Bovington.jpg

Edited by Cruxdei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,580
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,304 posts
6,266 battles
19 minutes ago, Cruxdei said:

i think it's that retarded giant tank from world of tanks that was a meme some time ago.

a product of british fanfiction that the next war after ww1 would be the same thing.

Hey hey hey show some respect. HMS TOG II* is not simply some farce of engineering, it is the flagship of His/Her Majesty's Royal Landship Navy and a meme of a tank which transcends beyond WoT! I for one still hold out hope that TOGs majestically sailing the waves will one day be more than mere header-fodder, rather joining the prestigious ranks of April Fool's modes like bathtub boats and space battles!

Also it's still fun as hell to play during the times when I go temporarily insane and forget why I stopped playing WoT, what with being a massive near-tier 8 HP pool on tracks with a 17-pounder strapped to it and shoved into tier 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,250
[WOLF3]
Members
28,272 posts
24,681 battles

GZ's DBs are the worst bombers of High Tier.  It'd be better if the DBs were removed and the reserve aircraft slots went towards the Torpedo Bombers.

 

Before the DB changes, at least the trash DBs of Graf Zeppelin flew very fast and made excellent scouts, better than the Messerschmitts.  Now they don't even have that and are truly, 100% useless.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
416
[KAPPA]
Members
1,351 posts
7,816 battles

Admittedly, I've hit a point where I'm barely taking my CVs out anymore, but I do at least give them a chance after every change. Last time I had GZ out after this latest patch, I was struggling to make the DBs work. They were noticeably harder to land decent hits with than before, by a combination of increased over-pens, wonky dispersion, and most of all, fragility of planes. The only real good news is, I only barely noticed any change to the TBs and most of my other CVs are not terribly altered either, but the changes seem to have hit GZ's DBs particularly hard for some reason. I probably should state that I'm still living in co-op and scenarios and it for sure seems even harder to do any meaningful work with a CV in co-op than any other mode. GZ was my best CV for co-op due to her plane speeds, but that seems to have changed in favor of Kaga, for simply having the group size needed to land sufficient hits in the time I have to work with (thanks to what I now see as an over-population of human players in co-op making for even shorter matches than what was 'normal' for a long time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
690
[NUWES]
Members
3,243 posts
11,563 battles
7 hours ago, Frenotx said:

Gonna have to agree. I like the idea of a attack-from-the-side "dive" bomber, but between the circular reticle, only dropping two bombs at a time, and the planes being so fragile, it's just wildly unreliable on the GZ. It's not even terribly rewarding when you actually get both bombs to citadel the target, either, on the off chance RNG decides to cooperate.

The GZ DBs needed changes to enhance their RELIABLY, especially considering the inherent challenges of AP bombs and fragile planes. 3x3 or even 4x2 attack wings instead of 2x4 would be a good start. Even against targets with pretty weak AA, it's extremely unrealistic that your planes will survive long enough for 4 drops. Doubling the number of bombs dropped, but reducing the damage of each bomb to compensate, would help even things out, too.

If the reticle is to remain a circle, then it needs to be fairly small such that a well-aimed strike actually hits the ship, rather than the reticle covering a considerable amount if water on either side of it. The steeper dive made more sense for the circle, too, as it's direction-independent.

If you're heart-set on the flatter, more glide-bomb-like "dive", then the reticle needs to be adjusted to reflect that. A circle is a very sub-optional shape if the expectation is for you to usually attack from the sides. A wide, but very flat ellipse, like the reticle for USN rockets, would be much more appropriate. Well-aligned attacks from the sides would be able to fill all of the reticle with the target ship, rather than having a lot of water for the bombs to fall into. Enemy ships could reduce the damage of attacks by turning into the attacks, and thus spoiling the alignment of the reticle.

Agree 100%. GZs DBs need an improvement in reliability of its DBs. They were never particularly good after the rework but they are definitely even worse now. The 2x AP bomb set up makes them massively RNG dependent, then you add the circular reticule which is so wide that no ship fits under it fully and it is a recipe for ineffectiveness. If even one bomb migrates into that part of the circle 50% of your strike went down the tubes. The bombs also seem to overpen cruisers but skip off of BB armor a lot.  I am wondering if the shallower bombing run is causing the bombs to come in at a shallower angle. 

I really think they need to revert to the pre-patch bombing run and elongate the ellipse similar to the other AP DBs. 

Edited by Tzarevitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
803 posts
4,912 battles

I mean considering you didn't even get charged for DB planes, that tells you how bad they are and they made them even worse.

Its sad I could already hit 100k in half the time in Enterprise compared to Zeppelin but now its even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[RTXN3]
Beta Testers
5 posts
6,433 battles

For Realz. Before the "Buff" I could at land crits and pens reliably enough, but since the "buff" 9 times out of 10 the bombs bounce or over pen, coupled with the new attack run mechanics it's insanely difficult to land hits that matter at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
306
[SOAR]
Members
317 posts
5,141 battles

Its risk vs. reward

Incredibly weak planes across the board, useless fighters, TBers that do less damage than other CVs 2 tiers lower, the off chance you DO get your DBers close enough to dive on a cooperative target, and get even a citadel, the damage is less than that of a single shell from most other ships at that tier.

No, thanks.

They should refund our money for this "CV"

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
961 posts
4,611 battles

You can ask the man himself tomorrow, I understand that there will be a stream with Fem and Sub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
965
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,301 posts
12,978 battles
7 hours ago, Tzarevitch said:

Agree 100%. GZs DBs need an improvement in reliability of its DBs. They were never particularly good after the rework but they are definitely even worse now. The 2x AP bomb set up makes them massively RNG dependent, then you add the circular reticule which is so wide that no ship fits under it fully and it is a recipe for ineffectiveness. If even one bomb migrates into that part of the circle 50% of your strike went down the tubes. The bombs also seem to overpen cruisers but skip off of BB armor a lot.  I am wondering if the shallower bombing run is causing the bombs to come in at a shallower angle. 

I really think they need to revert to the pre-patch bombing run and elongate the ellipse similar to the other AP DBs. 

GZ's dive bombers had 2 modes of operations, drop early and high so you penetrate deck armor (with a high chance of missing and doing nothing), or drop late and penetrate belt armor (useful on cruisers, and still a high chance of missing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
599
[UEFN]
Members
1,348 posts
23,739 battles

fat hope!  There's a ZERO chance the GZ would ever get buff, this trash CV is only good for one thing.....being a collectable item as port queen, it is not for playing as it is complete garbage comparing to all other T8 CV out there.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,927
[-BUI-]
Members
2,422 posts
6,425 battles

GZ is just terrible all around.   There is literally nothing good about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377
[LLF]
Beta Testers
575 posts
37 minutes ago, Zenn3k said:

GZ is just terrible all around.   There is literally nothing good about it.

Well except for the secondaries, not gonna lie I have a secondary build on it :p but yes everything else sucks now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
399
[36]
Members
453 posts
10,924 battles

I very much enjoy playing secondary meme Graf in co-op mode, but even if I was a competent CV player (and I’m not) I don’t think I would play it in random battles. And yes, after the recent DB changes I can truthfully say that I preferred the original mechanic, just in case WG is taking notice of player opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,927
[-BUI-]
Members
2,422 posts
6,425 battles
1 hour ago, Kuramitsu said:

Well except for the secondaries, not gonna lie I have a secondary build on it :p but yes everything else sucks now.

That might give a newbie DD a rough time, but the small ones shatter a lot on anything bigger, especially when GZ is bottom tier, you lose about half your guns from shatters.

Edited by Zenn3k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×