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

Russian Bias: Truths and Myths.

130 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,668
[O7]
Members
1,030 posts
4,406 battles

A lot of people messaged me today asking a simple, yet very controversial question: "Is there Russian Bias in WoWS?", or rather, they wanted to know if they should just pause their progress and start on Russian lines. 

Before I start, let me get a disclaimer out of the way. If your definition of Russian Bias is that Russian developers are making a lot of paper Russian ships instead of historical "insert ship line here", I have nothing to discuss. I am only here to talk about balance and gameplay.

You may have heard WG's response, but that is obviously biased, you may have heard CC's response, but that is also biased because CCs say things people want to hear to gain popularity, and you might have heard the average forum poster's response, which is often incorrect and based on myths and rumors.

As for myself, if I had to give a binary answer to the question today, I would answer "Yes", but not for any common reasons that people came up with. Today I will list what is true and what is not, and explain why, it is up to you the individual to decide either the bias exists or not, I am simply going to clear up some myths so that unicums dont face palm whenever someone screams Russian Bias with a ridiculous reason. 

That said, lets begin clearing up reasons that support Russian Bias which are NOT true.

Russian Bias exists because Stalingrad is overpowered

This is probably the most ridiculous and blatantly false statement. Stalingrad's problem is that its weaknesses negate its strengths while its strengths does not negate its weaknesses.Take for example, its AP pen, an excellent strength. However, it doesnt have OM and it is out spotted by every surface ship, which means they can just angle and completely negate the penetration. Another example would be its tankiness of having 50mm bow. This is again negated easily because it is outspotted which means a ship can easily get to its side and kill it. It doesnt turn, it doesnt accelerate, and it have a bigger citadel than Minotaur. Even if it has its sides protected by team/island, it will get easily burned down because huge SS, no way to go dark, long fire duration, and no hope to win the trade back with its abysmal DPM. Stalingrad is only good against potatoes who doesnt understand angle and/or concealment. Anyone who thinks Stalingrad is overpowered likely made these basic potato mistakes and was punished for it, but instead of owning up to his/her mistakes, Russian bias is a convenient excuse.

Russian Bias exists because Kremlin is overpowered

Kremlin is overpowered...when compared to most other Battleships of its tier. But what people failed to understand in this is that Kremlin as a ship is balanced against the meta, it wasnt that Kremlin was overpowered, it was that the rest of the T10 Battleships (excluding Thunderer) are underpowered. Battleships need one of two things to be competitive in the current meta, either it needs to be able to tank HE spam (Kremlin), or it needs to be able to stay at range with accuracy and power (Yamato/Thunderer). Additionally, Kremlin is a very poor example to use because it have received 2 nerfs and about to receive another. We all know that the AA nerf was hardly relevant and 0.05 sigma nerf is also very small, but many have forgotten about the nerf to its alpha damage and shell penetration curve. 

Russian Bias exists because Smolensk is overpowered

Unlike Stalingrad, Smolensk is indeed overpowered. Unlike Kremlin, Smolensk is overpowered in the meta as well. So why is this ship not a valid reason of Russian Bias? Because Worcester exists. I will say this once again, if Worcester was flying a Russian flag and Smolensk an American one, your daily HE spam thread would all focus on Worcester and none on Smolensk. Two HE spammers, one have 32mm of pen allowing it to damage bow and stern, one have a citadel that does not extend above the water line at the magazines, one have armor that isnt OMed by large cruisers, one have an actual respectable HP pool, and finally, one have the power of vision control and is not completely shut down by a DD. 

"Russian Bias exists because ship X is Russian and is overpowered" is by far the most common reasoning I see, but what exactly are you trying to prove here? Every nation have overpowered ships, even the German line, which gets the short ends of the stick, have overpowered ships like the T61. Russian have overpowered ships of course, but they do not have the most overpowered ship, nor the highest number of overpowered ships, nor the highest ratio of overpowered ships. All 3 titles belongs to, you guessed it, the USN. While Russian Bias may be controversial, USN Bias is an actual thing and the amount of people ignoring this is absolutely baffling. 

Russian Bias exists because the new upcoming RU CLs have stealth radar

Well, first of all, they are in Dev Blog and are subject to change. Stalingrad during dev blog had only AP but before it was sledge hammered it was OP even with only AP. GZ in dev blog can delete a full HP BB with 3 left clicks, but none of those made it live. If they do make it to live, however, then this very much becomes a valid argument (as some ships have slipped past, seeSmolensk)

But this argument was mainly formed because of their ability to stealth radar, there is absolutely no denying that stealth radar is a brokenly powerful mechanic, but many people just simply heard it from others, and have no knowledge of why it is powerful. Stealth radar is, first and foremost, a binary thing. You either can stealth radar or you cant. The reason why it is so powerful is because it gives the user absolute vision control. This is insane on USN cruisers like Baltimore because with stealth radar, it can out spot any ship it cannot out fight, and never be out spotted. Think about it, a Baltimore would have no fears, it can out spot whatever it cannot fight, and wait for the right opportunity to fight them at a advantage, but ships that cant out fight Baltimore are just screwed because stealth radar denies the out spotting. This is why stealth radar is broken on Baltimore yet manageable on Chappy. A Chappy, despite having stealth radar, still fears the Baltimore because when they spot each other, the Chappy cannot out fight the Balti nor out spot it.

But, here is what you can argue for Russian Bias

Russian Bias exists because of Russian Destroyers

Why? If you want to talk Russian Bias just bring up the destroyers, which are the actual most overpowered line of all Russian lines yet it amazes me how nearly no one talks about them. Imagine being a French DD, with smoke and actual DPM. There are two very solid reasons to use the RU DDs, first of all, it is not just a single ship that is overpowered, the entire line is overpowered as a whole. Its not just that Grozovoi at T10 being one of the best Destroyers in the game, but also the ships that leading up to it. 

Another easy way to argue this is the interaction between two very similar ships: Udaloi and Tashkent. Previously they were balanced, but out of the blue WG decide to give Tashkent the Khaba shell velocity, penetration, and damage. This made Tashkent overpowered and simply a better Udaloi because of its superior speed and range. But instead of nerfing Tashkent, WG decided to instead buff the Udaloi by giving it the ability to have both smoke and heal, I dont think i need to explain how powerful that is. 

Russian Bias exists because of Gremmy

Ah yes, this ship that many forgets because its a T5. A ship tier for tier that can make the Belfast seem like crapin comparison. Gremmy, is quite simply, the most powerful surface ship tier for tier. Only out classed by CVs that is Enterprise and Hosho. The main problem with this ship is that it dodges the meta nerfs while other ships that are in the same category are nerfed indirectly as a whole or by meta shifts. For example, no one talks about the Nikolai being overpowered anymore, the ship was a god back in the days, but now its free food for T4 CVs.

Russian Bias exists because of Allies Bias

One of the strongest arguments you can make. USN is the most powerful sure, but Russian comes in second, and both of them are allies. Meanwhile the axis powers of Germany (which gets completley shafted), Japan (which has been powercrept with little to no compensation buffs), and Italy (underwhelming cruiser line and Roma). Now of course they each still had good ships, Germany with T61, Japan with Kitakaze, and Italy with GC but overall their numbers of good ships is abysmal compared to the allies. Even British is a good nation overall despite lack luster cruisers. (It have amazing destroyers and a few but very good BBs). 

 

So whats the bottom line here? Either you believe Russian Bias to be real or not is up to you, but hopefully after reading this you would realize that jumping on the band wagon and spreading news that Kremlin/Smolensk is overpowered is the same as saying water is wet. We know they are overpowered but overpowered doesnt mean bias. Instead be smart about it and talk about how Smolensk escaped the Dev Phase without being hit with a nerf hammer and how a Russian Battleship is the first to become a meta Battleship that can strive in the current meta (and competitive at that). Finally, stop ignoring the elephants in the room, USN have far more overpowered ships and the actual good ships in the Russian tech tree are not in the Battleships but rather in the Destroyers.

  • Cool 20
  • Funny 2
  • Confused 2
  • Boring 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,635
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,662 posts
14,743 battles

Worcester as OP as Smolensk?

Ah that's why I remember that KOTS final with 2 Smolenks on each side and 90% Russian ships overall...

  • Cool 14
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
809
[BONKS]
Members
694 posts
3,405 battles

@DolphinPrincess well written. I would also add that a lot, I mean A LOT of the player base do not understand the difference between the term Broken and Over Powered which also adds to a lot of the rant threads on said topic. 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,752
[KWF]
Members
4,370 posts
6,405 battles

Won't bother much with most of the points, will just briefly touch the VMF DD subject. Because right now Kiev, Tashkent, Udaloi have got to be some of the best "sleeper" ships in the game. 

Tashkent gives up a single turret and the 50mm breastplate of Khaba to get usable torpedoes, 15.2km range with AFT, the DD overpen rule, competitive rudder and concealment. Why even bother playing Khaba when you can all this a tier lower...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,668
[O7]
Members
1,030 posts
4,406 battles
2 minutes ago, mofton said:

Worcester as OP as Smolensk?

Ah that's why I remember that KOTS final with 2 Smolenks on each side and 90% Russian ships overall...

Competitive is not about using the most overpowered ships, its about using the best ship for an intended role.

Every team have a plan, a tactic, and a well laid out strategy that the team is trying to achieve as a whole.

Each ship is picked to be the best at doing that particular role, for example, if your battleship role is to spam AP at enemy BB at 20km, you would choose Yamato over Kremlin even if Kremlin is more powerful.

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
975
[KAPPA]
Members
3,110 posts
8,239 battles

Thank you. Finally someone touches on the topic.

Sure, I might disagree with Smolensk being OP outside of OP combo divisions (Much like Belfast, really, especially since the smoke nerf), but very well put despite that differing opinion. Glad someone was willing to touch on the topic that is allies bias. It's something I had felt to about sum things up for a while now, especially with so many US ships looking a bit OP yet nobody batting an eye.

Like Georgia, who probably isn't far off from having half the gimmicks of the entire BB population. Just one more, and I expect she'd have been removed from sale by now.

The only US ship I remember cries of OP about would probably be Ohio pre-nerf, and that probably had more to do with a paper ship they couldn't get being OP than actually caring if it's OP.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
188
[BBMOD]
Members
348 posts
5,767 battles
33 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Tashkent gives up a single turret and the 50mm breastplate of Khaba to get usable torpedoes, 15.2km range with AFT, the DD overpen rule, competitive rudder and concealment. Why even bother playing Khaba when you can all this a tier lower... 

Currently grinding the Khab UU. I ask this question after every match in the Khab...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
358
[RBMK]
Members
213 posts
14,099 battles
47 minutes ago, DolphinPrincess said:

But what people failed to understand in this is that Kremlin as a ship is balanced against the meta, it wasnt that Kremlin was overpowered, it was that the rest of the T10 Battleships (excluding Thunderer) are underpowered.

Yeah but you dont balance a ship to suit the meta, you balance it compared to its same tier and type ships.

 

54 minutes ago, DolphinPrincess said:

if Worcester was flying a Russian flag and Smolensk an American one, your daily HE spam thread would all focus on Worcester and none on Smolensk

Ah it did until it got the radar nerf, why do you think it got that nerf? Also a smol is basically a wooster WITH smoke, better range and better ballistics. I mean 19km smoke HE spam machine is FAR more broken than wooster.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,252
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,103 posts
4,084 battles
7 minutes ago, DolphinPrincess said:

A lot of people messaged me today asking a simple, yet very controversial question: "Is there Russian Bias in WoWS?", or rather, they wanted to know if they should just pause their progress and start on Russian lines. 

Before I start, let me get a disclaimer out of the way. If your definition of Russian Bias is that Russian developers are making a lot of paper Russian ships instead of historical "insert ship line here", I have nothing to discuss. I am only here to talk about balance and gameplay.

You may have heard WG's response, but that is obviously biased, you may have heard CC's response, but that is also biased because CCs say things people want to hear to gain popularity, and you might have heard the average forum poster's response, which is often incorrect and based on myths and rumors.

As for myself, if I had to give a binary answer to the question today, I would answer "Yes", but not for any common reasons that people came up with. Today I will list what is true and what is not, and explain why, it is up to you the individual to decide either the bias exists or not, I am simply going to clear up some myths so that unicums dont face palm whenever someone screams Russian Bias with a ridiculous reason. 

That said, lets begin clearing up reasons that support Russian Bias which are NOT true.

Russian Bias exists because Stalingrad is overpowered

This is probably the most ridiculous and blatantly false statement. Stalingrad's problem is that its weaknesses negate its strengths while its strengths does not negate its weaknesses.Take for example, its AP pen, an excellent strength. However, it doesnt have OM and it is out spotted by every surface ship, which means they can just angle and completely negate the penetration. Another example would be its tankiness of having 50mm bow. This is again negated easily because it is outspotted which means a ship can easily get to its side and kill it. It doesnt turn, it doesnt accelerate, and it have a bigger citadel than Minotaur. Even if it has its sides protected by team/island, it will get easily burned down because huge SS, no way to go dark, long fire duration, and no hope to win the trade back with its abysmal DPM. Stalingrad is only good against potatoes who doesnt understand angle and/or concealment. Anyone who thinks Stalingrad is overpowered likely made these basic potato mistakes and was punished for it, but instead of owning up to his/her mistakes, Russian bias is a convenient excuse.

 

I agree, individual ships don't make a nation OP. There's Belfast which is one of the most busted ships ever put on the server, but no one claims the RN is OP. Stalingrad is OP, but there's two reasons it's not hated like Smol. 1st it's not that common being a Steel ship. 2nd you can see it, and it's a hell of a lot easier to counter something you can see. 

7 minutes ago, DolphinPrincess said:

Russian Bias exists because Kremlin is overpowered

Kremlin is overpowered...when compared to most other Battleships of its tier. But what people failed to understand in this is that Kremlin as a ship is balanced against the meta, it wasnt that Kremlin was overpowered, it was that the rest of the T10 Battleships (excluding Thunderer) are underpowered. Battleships need one of two things to be competitive in the current meta, either it needs to be able to tank HE spam (Kremlin), or it needs to be able to stay at range with accuracy and power (Yamato/Thunderer). Additionally, Kremlin is a very poor example to use because it have received 2 nerfs and about to receive another. We all know that the AA nerf was hardly relevant and 0.05 sigma nerf is also very small, but many have forgotten about the nerf to its alpha damage and shell penetration curve. 

Got to disagree. Kremlin is flat out OP. You're right, BBs need tankiness or accuracy and power. Kremlin has both. Lots of both. She's the tankiest T10 BB with plating. And while Yamato is more powerful/accurate, Kremlin isn't far behind, and is ahead of all other T10 BBs. She's very accurate until near max range, the "inaccurate at long ranges" thing is complete [edited]. RU BBs have no issues hitting things at 16-18km. And Kremlin has better traverse and rudder shift than Yamato. The two nerfs changed nothing, and until WG actually makes RU BBs ineffective at long range, they'll still be OP. Because it's not just Kremlin, Soyuz and Vlad are probably near the top of their tiers, and Sinop makes every other T7 BB (except maybe Scharn and Gneis) irrelevant. From T7 up RU BBs are if not flat out OP, borderline OP. That's what gets RU bias claims started.

7 minutes ago, DolphinPrincess said:

Russian Bias exists because Smolensk is overpowered

Unlike Stalingrad, Smolensk is indeed overpowered. Unlike Kremlin, Smolensk is overpowered in the meta as well. So why is this ship not a valid reason of Russian Bias? Because Worcester exists. I will say this once again, if Worcester was flying a Russian flag and Smolensk an American one, your daily HE spam thread would all focus on Worcester and none on Smolensk. Two HE spammers, one have 32mm of pen allowing it to damage bow and stern, one have a citadel that does not extend above the water line at the magazines, one have armor that isnt OMed by large cruisers, one have an actual respectable HP pool, and finally, one have the power of vision control and is not completely shut down by a DD. 

"Russian Bias exists because ship X is Russian and is overpowered" is by far the most common reasoning I see, but what exactly are you trying to prove here? Every nation have overpowered ships, even the German line, which gets the short ends of the stick, have overpowered ships like the T61. Russian have overpowered ships of course, but they do not have the most overpowered ship, nor the highest number of overpowered ships, nor the highest ratio of overpowered ships. All 3 titles belongs to, you guessed it, the USN. While Russian Bias may be controversial, USN Bias is an actual thing and the amount of people ignoring this is absolutely baffling. 

 

I disagree here to. Smol isn't OP. It is however terrible game design. So terrible that WG acknowledged it by taking the drastic step of removing HE from RN CLs. The reason people hate it is because there is no counter. As long as someone is doing some kind of spotting, the Smolensk can sit in smoke far out of radar range and farm away with great shell velocity and ROF. And when it get spotted, unless BBs happen to have HE loaded there's an even chance all you get is overpens. Yeah, that's why people hate it, not because it's Russian, because it's almost impossible to counter and when you get the chance, often you can't. It should be removed, but it's not OP, as alone it's not that great.

And I don't get why people are always comparing Wooster and Smolensk. Yes they're both high ROF HE spammers. But other than that they're very different. Swap Wooster's radar for smoke and yes, that's busted. But there's a reason WG didn't do that. Wooster requires FAR more skill to get into position for good farming. Finding a good island that's actually supporting the team is a lot harder than just plopping a smoke screen down anywhere. Wooster actually takes damage when BBs hit it. And while having radar, you have to be in close to use it. And what's more Smolensk is a solo ship. Wooster has hydro, radar, and DF to help the team. And what's more, Wooster has to be closer to hit things, and even then the arcs make it difficult. That's the difference. Smolensk is braindead easy to play. Plop a smoke out of radar range, have someone (doesn't matter who, any BB will do) spot, and you can just farm away. Wooster is a far more dangerous ship potentially, but to unlock the full potential of that ship requires a pretty good player. Wooster has a relatively high skill floor, and so a high ceiling. But any moron can make Smolensk work, and so guess which one pisses people off more often. If you gave smolensk radar instead of smoke, and wooster smoke instead of radar, then the roles would be reversed. But swapping flags wouldn't change the hate people have for Smolensk. It's not the nation, PR is easily the most hated ship in the game, and it's American.

And yes, one OP ship doesn't make a nation bias. But a history of OP ships does. And I'm not sure how you count, but in terms of OP ships the USN has GA (borderline, very counterable), maybe Benham, Black (steel), and maybe Flint, though not so much anymore. MO is strong, but not OP (gamplaywise, the credit earning is busted). Oh, and Ohio, but that's behind the RB wall and very rare. And all the RB ships are looking to be really good. So I'm not really sure how you can say that the USN has the most OP ships. I'd argue that Belfast is the most OP ship ever, Musashi isn't exactly bad, and Kremlin is definitely up there. And need I remind you that Poeba is still hanging around?

7 minutes ago, DolphinPrincess said:

 

Russian Bias exists because the new upcoming RU CLs have stealth radar

Well, first of all, they are in Dev Blog and are subject to change. Stalingrad during dev blog had only AP but before it was sledge hammered it was OP even with only AP. GZ in dev blog can delete a full HP BB with 3 left clicks, but none of those made it live. If they do make it to live, however, then this very much becomes a valid argument (as some ships have slipped past, seeSmolensk)

But this argument was mainly formed because of their ability to stealth radar, there is absolutely no denying that stealth radar is a brokenly powerful mechanic, but many people just simply heard it from others, and have no knowledge of why it is powerful. Stealth radar is, first and foremost, a binary thing. You either can stealth radar or you cant. The reason why it is so powerful is because it gives the user absolute vision control. This is insane on USN cruisers like Baltimore because with stealth radar, it can out spot any ship it cannot out fight, and never be out spotted. Think about it, a Baltimore would have no fears, it can out spot whatever it cannot fight, and wait for the right opportunity to fight them at a advantage, but ships that cant out fight Baltimore are just screwed because stealth radar denies the out spotting. This is why stealth radar is broken on Baltimore yet manageable on Chappy. A Chappy, despite having stealth radar, still fears the Baltimore because when they spot each other, the Chappy cannot out fight the Balti nor out spot it.

Yes, but USN CAs never had stealth radar after the split. It was USN CLs, which the same arguments apply for that you just pitched for RU CLs. WG removed stealth radar (killing Wooster's effective radar in the process) because they said it wasn't good for the game, making ships that had it too strong. And now they're talking about giving it to the RU CLs. This is pretty much the nail in the coffin for me on RU bias. Remove something from the USN, and then turn around and give it to a Russian line. There is absolutely no reason why if stealth radar is OK for RU CLs it's not OK for the USN CLs. WG either needs to remove the stealth radar from the RU CLs in testing, or give it back to the USN.

7 minutes ago, DolphinPrincess said:

But, here is what you can argue for Russian Bias

Russian Bias exists because of Russian Destroyers

Why? If you want to talk Russian Bias just bring up the destroyers, which are the actual most overpowered line of all Russian lines yet it amazes me how nearly no one talks about them. Imagine being a French DD, with smoke and actual DPM. There are two very solid reasons to use the RU DDs, first of all, it is not just a single ship that is overpowered, the entire line is overpowered as a whole. Its not just that Grozovoi at T10 being one of the best Destroyers in the game, but also the ships that leading up to it. 

Another easy way to argue this is the interaction between two very similar ships: Udaloi and Tashkent. Previously they were balanced, but out of the blue WG decide to give Tashkent the Khaba shell velocity, penetration, and damage. This made Tashkent overpowered and simply a better Udaloi because of its superior speed and range. But instead of nerfing Tashkent, WG decided to instead buff the Udaloi by giving it the ability to have both smoke and heal, I dont think i need to explain how powerful that is. 

Khaba was the poster child for a long time. The 50mm plating is still ridiculous, but the ship overall isn't OP anymore. The line is still annoying as hell, but with the MN DDs, I think using RU DDs to claim bias isn't relevant. Kleber however is still busted.

7 minutes ago, DolphinPrincess said:

Russian Bias exists because of Gremmy

Ah yes, this ship that many forgets because its a T5. A ship tier for tier that can make the Belfast seem like crapin comparison. Gremmy, is quite simply, the most powerful surface ship tier for tier. Only out classed by CVs that is Enterprise and Hosho. The main problem with this ship is that it dodges the meta nerfs while other ships that are in the same category are nerfed indirectly as a whole or by meta shifts. For example, no one talks about the Nikolai being overpowered anymore, the ship was a god back in the days, but now its free food for T4 CVs.

It was, the stealth firing nerf killed it. Even then it was only one ship. Now it's not that great.

7 minutes ago, DolphinPrincess said:

Russian Bias exists because of Allies Bias

One of the strongest arguments you can make. USN is the most powerful sure, but Russian comes in second, and both of them are allies. Meanwhile the axis powers of Germany (which gets completley shafted), Japan (which has been powercrept with little to no compensation buffs), and Italy (underwhelming cruiser line and Roma). Now of course they each still had good ships, Germany with T61, Japan with Kitakaze, and Italy with GC but overall their numbers of good ships is abysmal compared to the allies. Even British is a good nation overall despite lack luster cruisers. (It have amazing destroyers and a few but very good BBs). 

This is fair. History is told by the victor. The USN had some OP IRL designs by the end of the war if you consider fire control, and especially in CVs. RU, uh, not so much. But whatever. the RN and even MN also had significant naval forces. On the Axis side, Japan was really the only one who ever could be said to have a competitive navy. They were flat out better than the USN up about 1942. And really until 1944 they were a signficant threat. The Germans had some great ships. The Bismark and Tirpitz were better than anything the RN had individually. But Germany never really had the navy to compete with the RN. Same with the Italians. Good ships, but no match for the RN. Doubly so once the USN began lending naval support. So it's not surprising that there's a bit of bias towards the allies. The game is based on real life, and in real life the Allies had better navies. Is this a good thing in game? No, but nothing's perfect.

7 minutes ago, DolphinPrincess said:

 

So whats the bottom line here? Either you believe Russian Bias to be real or not is up to you, but hopefully after reading this you would realize that jumping on the band wagon and spreading news that Kremlin/Smolensk is overpowered is the same as saying water is wet. We know they are overpowered but overpowered doesnt mean bias. Instead be smart about it and talk about how Smolensk escaped the Dev Phase without being hit with a nerf hammer and how a Russian Battleship is the first to become a meta Battleship that can strive in the current meta (and competitive at that). Finally, stop ignoring the elephants in the room, USN have far more overpowered ships and the actual good ships in the Russian tech tree are not in the Battleships but rather in the Destroyers.

Are the devs intentionally making RU ships better? I don't think so. I think paper ships have a tendency to get idealized and with no practical experience on performance end up a bit better than they're imperfect but real counterparts. And since RU needs the most paper ships, it's not surprising that they seem to be a bit strong. I mean honestly, no DD with 50mm plating is going to be doing 50knts.

Let's look at it this way. If WG was based in any other country RU representation is probably a couple of premiums, maybe a cruiser or DD line. But they have complete lines, and now a split. I think it's safe to say WG is more generous when it comes to implementing RU ships.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,922
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,123 posts
7,969 battles

There are problematic Russian ships....but I'm still convinced the community by and large goes out of its way to look for things to justify a preconceived notion of Russian bias.  Sometimes a Soviet ship gets favorable treatment, but that doesn't mean the devs are deliberately unbalancing the game for nefarious jingoistic reasons.     

Edited by yashma
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,316
[WOOK3]
Members
4,213 posts
3,235 battles

I don't think it's jingoistic or deliberate. I think it's home team bias. They go out for a beer and a player walks up, "why Smolensk weak"?

They get bombarded on the Russian forums that their ships are weak. 

I don't think it's anything concious but it is real. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,118
Members
6,858 posts
15,321 battles

Is smolensk really overpowered from WG's perspective? 

No, because their definition is a ship that overperforms in the hands of players of all skill levels. Smolensk is not overpowered, stats show that low skill players perform worse in the smolensk. It is high skill floor, extremely high ceiling ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,121
[CVA16]
Members
5,384 posts
16,169 battles

Looking at the cumulative stats the Soviet BB line is better to much better than all the other lines in everything except survival. If you die a bit sooner/more often than others but help the team to win, do more damage, kill more ships etc. for a whole line, that sounds like there is some bias in the balancing or a hell of a coincidence.compare.thumb.JPG.947556e9e1897d81bffc60d0a9b5a1b6.JPG.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,287 posts
6,522 battles
24 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

And since RU needs the most paper ships, it's not surprising that they seem to be a bit strong. I mean honestly, no DD with 50mm plating is going to be doing 50knts.

Khabharovsk gets a lot of design hate for being "unrealistic" that she really doesn't deserve. Khab has a few hundred tons of armor, but this matters much less than turret and superstructrue weight as it is not high in the ship. The speed values are reasonable when compared to Mogador, Tashkent, or Capitani Romani and I think it's credible that the USSR could build a plant of sufficient power within Khab's dimensions.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
759
[-TDF-]
Beta Testers
1,226 posts
4,464 battles
28 minutes ago, yashma said:

There are problematic Russian ships....but I'm still convinced the community by and large goes out of its way to look for things to justify a preconceived notion of Russian bias.  Sometimes a Soviet ship gets favorable treatment, but that doesn't mean the devs are deliberately unbalancing the game for nefarious jingoistic reasons.     

I think it's a hard carry over from WoT where Russian tanks were considered OP because there drawbacks were never really an issue because of map design/gameplay meta. At least back in the day I haven't played in WoT since WoWs came out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,668
[O7]
Members
1,030 posts
4,406 battles
45 minutes ago, dieselhead77 said:

Ah it did until it got the radar nerf, why do you think it got that nerf? Also a smol is basically a wooster WITH smoke, better range and better ballistics. I mean 19km smoke HE spam machine is FAR more broken than wooster.

First of all, Wooster have better range than Smolensk. With AFT Smolensk sits at 16.56km, maxing at 19.2 with range mod

Wooster sits at 16.7km, maxing at 19.4 with range mod

Smolensk's better ballistics only comes at shell flight time, as its penetration and angle of impact are worse.

Even with a slightly better shell flight time, Wooster will still be able to land more effective hits because a Smolensk needs to hit the super structure to deal damage while Wooster just needs to hit the ship.

Finally, while having smoke is nice, it does not give Smolensk more survivalbility, as Wooster have more hp, better armor, and much smaller citadel. On top of that, Wooster have radar, giving it far superior versatility alongside the ability to decimate cruisers.

Smolensk is good, op even, but Wooster is in another league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
207
[MLPVA]
Members
350 posts
4,012 battles

Worcester is a strong ship, yes, but at least it has the decency to die when I catch it broadside in the open in my Großer Kurfürst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,176
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,910 posts
11,586 battles

i only see Kremlin as OP, but come on, can you blame people? that ship has pretty much everything going for it, armor that can shatter just about every HE shell and bounce BB shells, 18 inch gun turrets that turn faster than most cruiser guns, AA that makes a CV think twice, highest HP pool in the game, DCP that reloads quickly, granted its got limited charges, and it seems its still pretty accurate at long range, when its supposed to be horrible at long range, the thing is a beast

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
446
[NMKJT]
Members
2,674 posts
7,469 battles
13 minutes ago, Stand_Alone97 said:

I think it's a hard carry over from WoT where Russian tanks were considered OP because there drawbacks were never really an issue because of map design/gameplay meta. At least back in the day I haven't played in WoT since WoWs came out.

IIRC the 1.0 map redesign made a lot of hills gentler and shallower, so the pancake meds still benefit a good deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
268
[B-G-N]
Members
381 posts
539 battles
1 hour ago, DolphinPrincess said:

A lot of people messaged me today asking a simple, yet very controversial question: "Is there Russian Bias in WoWS?", or rather, they wanted to know if they should just pause their progress and start on Russian lines. 

Before I start, let me get a disclaimer out of the way. If your definition of Russian Bias is that Russian developers are making a lot of paper Russian ships instead of historical "insert ship line here", I have nothing to discuss. I am only here to talk about balance and gameplay.

Ok. But most of the complaints for Russian Bias are centered around here in the first place. There is Russian Bias in WOWS because the Russians aparently have an entire line of BBs with only 1 real ship in the line and 1 ship that was 1/5 completed before it was broken up. Under this logic, Pan-American battleships would be a better BB line because at least they had dreadnoughts and super dreadnoughts. But you stated that this isn't about this so moving on. 

1 hour ago, DolphinPrincess said:

 

Russian Bias exists because Kremlin is overpowered

Kremlin is overpowered...when compared to most other Battleships of its tier. But what people failed to understand in this is that Kremlin as a ship is balanced against the meta, it wasnt that Kremlin was overpowered, it was that the rest of the T10 Battleships (excluding Thunderer) are underpowered. Battleships need one of two things to be competitive in the current meta, either it needs to be able to tank HE spam (Kremlin), or it needs to be able to stay at range with accuracy and power (Yamato/Thunderer). Additionally, Kremlin is a very poor example to use because it have received 2 nerfs and about to receive another. We all know that the AA nerf was hardly relevant and 0.05 sigma nerf is also very small, but many have forgotten about the nerf to its alpha damage and shell penetration curve. 

 

Ok yeah, other battleship lines are underpowered. We've been asking Wargaming to buff the other lines but they haven't really aside for some minor buffs to the Germans. Even with the three nerfs, the Kremlin is still one of the best, if not the best, battleship at tier 10. That says something doesn't it. The main problem with the Kremlin isn't how balanced it is in-game. The main problem goes back to the Russians having a "balansed" battleship, tovarisch.

2 hours ago, DolphinPrincess said:

Russian Bias exists because Smolensk is overpowered

Unlike Stalingrad, Smolensk is indeed overpowered. Unlike Kremlin, Smolensk is overpowered in the meta as well. So why is this ship not a valid reason of Russian Bias? Because Worcester exists. I will say this once again, if Worcester was flying a Russian flag and Smolensk an American one, your daily HE spam thread would all focus on Worcester and none on Smolensk. Two HE spammers, one have 32mm of pen allowing it to damage bow and stern, one have a citadel that does not extend above the water line at the magazines, one have armor that isnt OMed by large cruisers, one have an actual respectable HP pool, and finally, one have the power of vision control and is not completely shut down by a DD. 

A better comparison would be the Colbert. The Worcester gets deleted so quickly it's laughable. 

2 hours ago, DolphinPrincess said:

Russian Bias exists because the new upcoming RU CLs have stealth radar

Well, first of all, they are in Dev Blog and are subject to change. Stalingrad during dev blog had only AP but before it was sledge hammered it was OP even with only AP. GZ in dev blog can delete a full HP BB with 3 left clicks, but none of those made it live. If they do make it to live, however, then this very much becomes a valid argument (as some ships have slipped past, seeSmolensk)

But this argument was mainly formed because of their ability to stealth radar, there is absolutely no denying that stealth radar is a brokenly powerful mechanic, but many people just simply heard it from others, and have no knowledge of why it is powerful. Stealth radar is, first and foremost, a binary thing. You either can stealth radar or you cant. The reason why it is so powerful is because it gives the user absolute vision control. This is insane on USN cruisers like Baltimore because with stealth radar, it can out spot any ship it cannot out fight, and never be out spotted. Think about it, a Baltimore would have no fears, it can out spot whatever it cannot fight, and wait for the right opportunity to fight them at a advantage, but ships that cant out fight Baltimore are just screwed because stealth radar denies the out spotting. This is why stealth radar is broken on Baltimore yet manageable on Chappy. A Chappy, despite having stealth radar, still fears the Baltimore because when they spot each other, the Chappy cannot out fight the Balti nor out spot it.

Russian Bias exists because the Russians are getting another cruiser line when their existing cruiser line is 70% fake already. I have barely seen anyone complain about Russians have radar.

2 hours ago, DolphinPrincess said:

"Russian Bias exists because ship X is Russian and is overpowered" is by far the most common reasoning I see, but what exactly are you trying to prove here? Every nation have overpowered ships, even the German line, which gets the short ends of the stick, have overpowered ships like the T61. Russian have overpowered ships of course, but they do not have the most overpowered ship, nor the highest number of overpowered ships, nor the highest ratio of overpowered ships. All 3 titles belongs to, you guessed it, the USN. While Russian Bias may be controversial, USN Bias is an actual thing and the amount of people ignoring this is absolutely baffling. 

The USN is exceedingly average. Like it's just so average. The USN ships remind of the AK-47 from Call of Duty. The AK-47 wasn't good at really anything, but it wasn't bad at anything either. The USN feels that way too. It's advantage is in being so exceedingly average that it really doesn't have any disadvantage (except for speed). Also, the USN deserves its spot. It was the premier navy in the world by the end of WW2 and most of its ships, while seemingly overpowered, actually match up to their stats in game and they were REAL ships.  

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,839
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,417 posts
14,165 battles

To me the "Russian Bias" is because they are trying to appeal to their largest market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
2 hours ago, DolphinPrincess said:

 Stalingrad is only good against potatoes

so it is overpowered.

this has nothing to do with Russian biais, but Stalingrad is OP, because

  1. it has the influence of a BB with the MM of a cruiser (which makes it OP in Clan Battles, for example).
  2. in the hands of a good player, it has devastating performance advantages
  3. in the hands of Stalingrad owners, this battlecruiser performs, on average better than other t10 cruisers which are owned by the same players.
  4. All of the Supercruisers are overpowered, not because of any Russian Biais, but because they have no tech tree equivalents. They fulfill the definition of both pay2win and unicum sealclubbers (either fat wallets or very good players get their hands on them, to the detriment of the general playerbase).
2 hours ago, DolphinPrincess said:

One of the strongest arguments you can make. USN is the most powerful sure, but Russian comes in second, and both of them are allies.

only as far as t8,

t9 and 10 enter Cold War territory. Epeen becomes a bigger issue (pun intended). Which is where the USN fan playerbase also becomes an issue; of its own making./

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
569
[LEGIT]
Members
2,330 posts
31,754 battles

From wargaming.net wiki:

Murmansk:                                       

Superior to sister-ships Omaha and Marblehead in almost every aspect.

Omaha       

Inferior to sister-ship Murmansk in almost every respect.

 Marblehead

Inferior to Omaha and Murmansk in almost every aspect.

I used to love playing Omaha in the IJN vs USN only days.  Now it's been powercrept to being almost useless.  And the the Murmansk, which I have and play a bit, makes the Omaha  look like an Emerald compared to a Leander.  Clearly Russian bias.

HOWEVER; there are numerous premium ships out there that outshine Russian ships in many respects.  i.e. Irian, Georgia, Massachusetts, Alaska, Sims B, possibly Jean Bart...

Many of the outstanding premiums are USN ships.

And some tech tree ships - the Helena and Fiji can well hold their own against Russian ships.

There is Russian bias in some ships.  But to be fair,  there seems to be USN bias in others.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,668
[O7]
Members
1,030 posts
4,406 battles
5 minutes ago, JackSparrow_665 said:

Ok yeah, other battleship lines are underpowered. We've been asking Wargaming to buff the other lines but they haven't really aside for some minor buffs to the Germans. Even with the three nerfs, the Kremlin is still one of the best, if not the best, battleship at tier 10. That says something doesn't it. The main problem with the Kremlin isn't how balanced it is in-game. The main problem goes back to the Russians having a "balansed" battleship, tovarisch.

A better comparison would be the Colbert. The Worcester gets deleted so quickly it's laughable. 

Russian Bias exists because the Russians are getting another cruiser line when their existing cruiser line is 70% fake already. I have barely seen anyone complain about Russians have radar.

The USN is exceedingly average. Like it's just so average. The USN ships remind of the AK-47 from Call of Duty. The AK-47 wasn't good at really anything, but it wasn't bad at anything either. The USN feels that way too. It's advantage is in being so exceedingly average that it really doesn't have any disadvantage (except for speed). Also, the USN deserves its spot. It was the premier navy in the world by the end of WW2 and most of its ships, while seemingly overpowered, actually match up to their stats in game and they were REAL ships.  

You have to consider the balance to the game, not just its peers. 

The Hermes is currently the weakest of the T4 CVs but you wouldnt call a ship that can still decimate any surface ship without any risk to be underpowered

Only the worst Worcesters can get deleted, this goes for every ship. Even Kremlin can die in 2 seconds if it ate a full broadside Shimakaze torp salvo.

Worcester, when compared to Smolensk and Colbert, is much tankier. The ship has more hp, is better armored, and have a much smaller citadel.

Again I am not going to talk about fake and real ships.

USN, as I said, have the most overpowered ship in the game (Enterprise), the highest amount of overpowered ships, and the highest ratio of overpowered ships. To call USN average is like calling Russian ships junk. Because if USN ships are actually average, every other nation, including the Russians, would be garbage.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,287 posts
6,522 battles
40 minutes ago, DolphinPrincess said:

inally, while having smoke is nice, it does not give Smolensk more survivalbility, as Wooster have more hp, better armor, and much smaller citadel.

In the context of a cruiser fighting Smolensk, yes(or some DD's, though a DD fighting Smolensk at the sort of ranges that it matters is... interesting). In the context of a battleship, I would say it is a very narrow competition. Smolensk's thin armor and more importantly narrow hull means that it stands a very high chance of forcing a BB(other than UK) to overpen it. Actually many cruisers can overpen Smolensk if they have high-velocity guns. Smolensk's citadel durability is for the most part superior to that of Worcester and very annoying(which is I think the real reason many hate her- Smolensk doesn't necessarily win matches but it is a real pain to fight).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×