Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
JackSparrow_665

Russian Bias and USN Bias: How do you feel about it?

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

269
[B-G-N]
Members
381 posts
539 battles

I want to see what you guys think about Russian Bias and USN Bias. There are no wrong opinion or answers. 

This is just my opinion:

My problem with Russian ships are that they exist. Wargaming introduces a ridiculous amount of fake ships for the Russian line and that's a veritable fact. Take the Russian BB line for example. It has 1 completed battleship (Gangut) and 1 battleship that had been designed and built but never completed (Sovetsky Soyuz). Using this method of creating ship-lines, the Pan-Americans would have a more realistic BB line (they had many dreadnoughts and super dreadnoughts.) Hell, we could have a Spanish BB line, or even a Pan-European BB line. By comparison, most U.S. ships are real with the fake ones, such as the Montana, having blueprints to verify their existence. I could literally find nothing about the Smolensk or Kremlin apart from WOWS content. Either Wargaming found some obscure blueprints locked up in a Soviet safe some 50 years ago or they just made it up. I mean there is literally nothing on them, not even a basis. The US ships might seem OP, but their real life counterparts match up with their in-game counterparts in terms of stats.

Take the Worcester for example. Let's compare the real Worcester with the in-game Worcester:

Hitpoints: I can't really compare this. Hitpoints are kind of based on what tier the ship is put in so moving on.

Armament: Intrestingly, in WOWS the Worcester has 152 mm guns with the same designation as the 150 mm guns they had in real life. Either way 2 mm doesn't make much of a difference, if any at all.

Speed: Both real life and in-game Wooster had a speed of 33 knts.

ROF: In game, the Worcester has a ROF of 13.04 shots/min, which was the theoretical ROF of the real-life Wooster. However, the Wooster never achieved this reload speed. This is quite common in-game. For example, the Kirov has a ROF of 4.44 shots per minute when in reality it only had a ROF of 2 shots per minute. This is mainly based around how good the crew was and since there is no crew in WOWS, welp.

Armor: the armor of the Wooster in-game and in real life match up quite nicely, although armor works differently in WOWS that it does in real life.

AA defense: pretty similar with some minor changes overall.

As you can see, most US ships match up with their capability in real life. Even if the USN is the best country in WOWS, it kind of deserves the spot. It was the best navy in the world by the end of WW2, only matched initially by the British and Japanese, which are both very good ship lines in game. The Russian navy ...... existed during WW2 and saw service..... but.............I don't even think it's comparable to the Italian Navy. 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,433
[MERCB]
[MERCB]
Members
4,358 posts
20,047 battles

Really don't care 

Plenty of other problems with the game to be concerned about

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
353
[PVE]
Members
1,442 posts
39,299 battles

If I find the ship fun to play I don`t care what flag is on it!

All these post about Russian Bias is just crap.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,374
[WOLFG]
Members
9,582 posts
8,569 battles
5 minutes ago, cecill611 said:

If I find the ship fun to play I don`t care what flag is on it!

All these post about Russian Bias is just crap.

Da.

Seriously, I agree.  Is it really that important that a bunch of 1s and 0s show respect the U.S. (IJN, KM, RN, RM)?

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
730
[WOOKY]
Beta Testers
1,578 posts

Izmail was launched.

 

the soviets had many black sea and baltic sea projects that, while not built, have blueprints and concepts available, and I'm sure the other ships in the tree were based on one or more of these projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,953
[TBW]
Members
10,287 posts
17,483 battles

It really doesn't matter to me if the game is bias, I play all of the nations and ship types. I mean really, if a tier 8 is just fine against a tier 10, then it shouldn't matter if one ship is more op than another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,641
[SIDE]
Members
4,681 posts

I'm SOOO frigging glad somebody finally made a thread about this. It's about time somebody came out and said something was wrong with this game. Thread after thread of "this is good" and "I wish this game was at least a little messed up". What an original post. Bravo!

Kudos twice for not using search function or simply chiming in on one of the 1300 threads just like this. Oh wait, you are the first. Nevermind.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
[TASC]
Members
411 posts
9,638 battles

ok i will play as intended. and if we are having fun talking about this in a calm and reasoned manner any who don't want to don't have to read this. 

it is not only that many of the ships were never built. that brings up that in operational use problems were found that were fixed in the next set of ships. because all ships are a trade off of speed, weight, and what do we have the ability to build or buy. for those who don't know already a great ship history channel (an example)

 

another part of the dislike for me is a lot of the high tier Russian ships are cold war era. if we are going that way can i have an Aegis radar on my Des moins or alaska? let me spot planes and ships on the entire map. lol 

i will admit to the guns and armor not working as naval rifles and armor really do. ( i.e. angling the armor doesn't make any useful difference to the shell hitting you. ) but not for the reasons most think. i come from a miniature gaming back ground and have helped several companies get games made. if the hulls and armor and shells worked as in real life ( even adjusting for model scale, vs ship scale, vs gun scale, yes those can all be different in a miniature game ) it would give WG more points for balancing ships that what we have now. that would make a better game for the players and make things easier for WG as the make more ships . 

i will stop here and see where this goes. 

have fun all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
625 posts
19,884 battles

Russian bias is not a thing.

Every russian ship in game was an actual design to this point. Some more obscure than others, but all quite real- unlike some American ships that are outright fake.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2
  • Confused 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,299
[VCRUZ]
Members
4,049 posts
9,180 battles

Honestly i dont care. By this point we have só many paper ships in the game from all nations that it doenst really matter anymore. The only thing i care is that ships, paper or real ones, to be balanced.

 

Also, ship diversity makes the game more fun. Different ships, with different traits that play in different ways. I remember when it was just IJN and USN, there was a "boring" factor because all games where the exact same ships. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[TF_64]
Members
158 posts
3 hours ago, JackSparrow_665 said:

Armament: Intrestingly, in WOWS the Worcester has 152 mm guns with the same designation as the 150 mm guns they had in real life. 

The dangers of Wikipedia. Worcester didn't have 150mm guns. It had 152mm guns. 

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-47DP_mk16.php

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,526
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,135 posts
18,987 battles
3 hours ago, JackSparrow_665 said:

Hitpoints: I can't really compare this. Hitpoints are kind of based on what tier the ship is put in so moving on.

Hit points is based based on tonnage, not tier.

As for what biases there exist in the game - both USN and the Russian navy have overpowered ships. But which nation is more OP? Well, certain nation's design styles might fit certain server's meta more. Russian ships are quite strong in the NA server meta, USN ships are very strong in the RU server meta, as I understand. On the Russian server they believe in a USN bias, here we believe in a RU bias. Which one is correct? I'd take either with a grain of salt, tbh.

Now where I do believe a bias exists is on the forum. Smolensk is much whined about but if Smolensk had a USN flag and Worcester a Russian flag, most of that whining would be about Worcester I believe.

Finally, I really do not care about how much paper there is in a nation. As long as paper doesn't displace historical steel, paper is fine imo. Year of design also doesn't matter to me, combat capability does. I'm sick and tired of the stupid "Waah waah the Russians get 1950s ships waah waah why don't we waah waah" whines. The Russian ship building tech was so far behind USN one that they need 1950s era ships to keep up on a 1v1 basis with USN ships from the 1940s. Nobody is complaining about Friesland being a 1956 commissioned ship saying that since Friesland exists the USN should get 1956 tech as well, so why is that ok and Russian 1950s era ships are not?

Edited by Lert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,858 posts
36,638 battles

First of all, the Soviet Union could have built a Navy on the design inspiration of US Navy ship design. They did design and build the guns for instance.

They did a few drawings.

But the big reason that none of the ships be they designed or not get built was because of Operation Barbarossa.

That changed everything. Priorities and an incompetent, slightly paranoid Stalin ruined the Soviet Navy.

History unfolded the rest.

Present day. WG has to build tech trees for the players but feels that some if not all are woefully inadequate.

WG has loyal Russian players that play a certain playing style. WG wants to make them happy just like any other demographic not unlike any company should if the country they operate in had nationalistic pride in a game.

This is to increase interest and consequently more Russian customers.

Does anyone honestly think a Russian warships player is okay with just playing the Iowa when WG can offer them something both fun and intriguing?

In this case, WG sold a dream to Russian players of a moment in time when the Soviet Union almost built modern Battleships and cruisers, but that dream was crushed in WW2 no thanks in part to the consequences of war and Stalin's poor decisions.

Imagine what that Navy would have been like if Kuznetzov had run the country?

Yes, it is speculative fiction, but a dream none the less.

To this day, people in Russia probably have more respect for Kuznetzov than Stalin.

So that is WG's marketing plan. Make Russian players have something to believe in. A dream that died, but WG wanted to bring back to life.

Can you blame them? It was a bloody war. Why not? They did it for other countries to test the waters.

While I myself am an American, I can fully identify the reason why?

Sure, the marketing of other nations' lines and the eventual Russian one was not well received.

But can you fully expect a Russian company to be very good at capitalism when it was just barely introduced in 1990?

What I do find interesting about WG is that they try to balance the game constantly. But mainly because even they know that nothing they make will ever be perfect. It's a constant reminder of the game always evolving.

The game has evolved.

So when I see posts like this about Russian bias, I have to facepalm.

For goodness sake, they are trying. They are not going to get it right the first time. Understanding customer service is new to them because they themselves had really bad customer service for more than 70 years under a political idealogy that they themselves admit sucks. Especially when that political idealogy lead them to believe that the bad customer service was in fact good customer service.

When you don't have good examples to work with, then of course they will suck at it.

WG will keep balance in the game. I hope they get someone to help them on the customer service end and with marketing help. It seems they need it.

I wish I could help. But I don't have a degree in marketing. But I do have 20 years plus experience in customer service.

And maybe other players have similar experience.

This is a case of helping them help you here.

Ships will still keep coming out. That is reality of introducing new content.

We can argue about their existence all we want, but this game is an arcade centric simulation of ships in a certain time period.

I urge players not to just hurl rotten veggies about change, but rather politely argue about such content in a constructive manner.

I am a customer, but I am always going to say something about the content. It's up to WG to consider what I tell them and take action on it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,908
[WOLF9]
Privateers
13,769 posts
4,631 battles
4 hours ago, JackSparrow_665 said:

My problem with Russian ships are that they exist.

It's an issue, but that's not my major problem with Russian bias.  While I didn't like what WG introduced as the "RU BB line" as obviously super-powered and with radar, a gimmick that only one other in-game BB - now retired - ever had, I assumed that the released versions would be toned down to be comparable in game power with like-tier ships.

It turned out to be a false assumption.  They lost the radar but, starting at test, many rumors and reviews claiming OP emerged.  Many observations of my own of their power.  Then KoTS.  Among the best, most knowledgeable players in the game, they chose to play 60-80% Russian ships.  This tells me that the Russian lines are clearly better than the other lines.

So instead of, "Okay the Russians have an ahistorical fleet representation in-game, but it terms of gameplay, they're just another fleet,"

we have, "The Russian fleet, which essentially never existed and was invented in a smoky back room, is the best fleet in the game."  That chaps my [donkey]. 


As for "USN bias", IMO there is anti-USN bias among the players, as per @Kingpin61 above.  Others have tried to demonstrate a WG 'USN bias' because some high-tier ships are very good, arguably the best at tier.  I reply that USN ships - and most other fleets - have been developed to closely track real-world ships and designs.  They are, generally, what they were.  It's when WG wanders off into paper ships that things start to get a little .. wonky.  There are very few paper USN ships so, "No, I don't buy it." 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
625 posts
19,884 battles
12 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

IMO there is anti-USN bias among the players, as per @Kingpin61 above

I'm sorry? Are you saying there's anti-USN bias among the playerbase as a whole? That's laughable.

 

This playerbase is hilariously biased against any Russian ships existing, and that's universal. 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,908
[WOLF9]
Privateers
13,769 posts
4,631 battles
Just now, Kingpin61 said:

Are you saying there's anti-USN bias among the playerbase as a whole?

No, I pointed at YOU as an example of colossal bias.  There are others, but few quite so .. obvious.   I said nothing about the player base as a whole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
292
[GT99]
Members
750 posts
12,071 battles

To be honest from what I have seen there are only the same handful of people that care. They are a Russian developer, of course, they will try to cater to their market. A US publisher would do the same thing. A UK publisher would do the same thing. It is a video game so why does it matter. As long as the vehicles are fun to use (I know some aren't) I don't care what line they come from. If one line is not strong then another line will be and so on, whether it is RU or another. Then you would be complaining about UK or US or PA or IJN bias. FFS when does it stop? If you like the game play it, if not then don't support it. The bias childishness needs to go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
625 posts
19,884 battles
26 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

No, I pointed at YOU as an example of colossal bias.  There are others, but few quite so .. obvious.   I said nothing about the player base as a whole. 

????

 

The only part of my comment that could possibly cause you to think I'm biased against the USN was my noting the (verifiably true) fact that the Russians have no fake ships in game whereas the USN do. If that counts as anti USN bias, then.... fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,590
Members
6,621 posts
20,629 battles
4 minutes ago, CrownoftheFleet said:

8.5 at T7. Does any other nation have radar at T7?

Belfast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×