Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT

curious statistics, more players own Puerto Rico, than own Venezia

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
4,302 posts

Twice as many people own the costly to obtain Puerto Rico as own the 100% free, Audacious.

While Puerto Rico owners have played more than twice as many battles as Audacious owners, despite PR only being 2 months old, and veteran Audacious being 9 months.

Audacious required either moderate but certainly not strenuous effort to aquire, or a moderate amount of free xp/ Puerto Rico required either/or/both insane effort/lots of money.

image.png.9bd7e59e84d83fa7f889503efecb1e92.png

image.png.9f552e8bdb62a6d4e78c15d1ddc70798.png

Now you may rightly say, who wants to play CVs? Only 4% of us. While cruisers are much more popular. But how do we explain that the 100% free Venezia, now 6 months old, has fewer owners than PR?

image.png.cadd539a99c6b1db2fd3f4eef329a298.png*

source :https://proships.ru/stat/na/s/99999-

before anyone says "NA Playerbase"  the EU server shows similar results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
158
[D3BT]
Members
371 posts
6,199 battles

How about Midway and Hakuryu? Maybe Audacious just isn't as popular as them because of the torps?

Edited by MudRaker227

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,952
[RLGN]
Members
14,245 posts
25,085 battles
Just now, MudRaker227 said:

Maybe Audacious just isn't as popular as Hakuryu or Midway because of the torps?

I’d say it’s because Audacious is hot garbage, but that may just be me.

Venezia? I have Duca d’Aosta and Gorizia, but little motivation to go beyond Genova/Montespahgettiwhatever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
3 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Venezia? I have Duca d’Aosta and Gorizia, but little motivation to go beyond Genova/Montespahgettiwhatever...

But would you be more motivated to go after Puerto Rico if the event were held again in an identical manner? That is what struck me, we have more Pay2Rico owners than owners of some established free ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46
[PMWC1]
Members
163 posts
5,248 battles

Probably from performance in similar ships.  The lower tier Italians have generally viewed as poor.  PR was described as close to Alaska which is strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[WAKE]
[WAKE]
Members
324 posts
19,038 battles
42 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

Twice as many people own the costly to obtain Puerto Rico as own the 100% free, Audacious.

While Puerto Rico owners have played more than twice as many battles as Audacious owners, despite PR only being 2 months old, and veteran Audacious being 9 months.

Audacious required either moderate but certainly not strenuous effort to aquire, or a moderate amount of free xp/ Puerto Rico required either/or/both insane effort/lots of money.

image.png.9bd7e59e84d83fa7f889503efecb1e92.png

image.png.9f552e8bdb62a6d4e78c15d1ddc70798.png

Now you may rightly say, who wants to play CVs? Only 4% of us. While cruisers are much more popular. But how do we explain that the 100% free Venezia, now 6 months old, has fewer owners than PR?

image.png.cadd539a99c6b1db2fd3f4eef329a298.png*

source :https://proships.ru/stat/na/s/99999-

before anyone says "NA Playerbase"  the EU server shows similar results.

Couple things...

 

Audacious, last I checked, can yield the highest damage numbers in the game. It just doesn't get many kills. That goes to the Hakuryu. Midway is most popular since all three plane types can deal with any ship type, and do it really well (tiny tims vs dds puts it over the top compared to the other CVs) 

 

Venezia isn't as popular because of SAP. Despite it being 6 months old, a LOT of folks just do not like SAP. In the hands of someone that understands this new type of ammo, its scary good. Especially in ranked and clans where it can shine by erradicating DDs faster than anything else. However, it struggles against bow tankers. It has to have a flank to deal copious amounts of damage. 

 

PR on the other hand is a tiny montana battleship and can bow tank cruisers, [edited]tank cruisers, it can kite, it can be aggressive, it can brawl, it can do a lot of things. It may not do all these things as well as niche ships or some specialized ships in a given area, but its still a great jack of all trades. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,952
[RLGN]
Members
14,245 posts
25,085 battles
7 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

But would you be more motivated to go after Puerto Rico if the event were held again in an identical manner? That is what struck me, we have more Pay2Rico owners than owners of some established free ships.

Well, I got the three golds from doubs I already had, or got in Santa containers; and earned three silvers along the way grinding the hell out of Co-op.

Secured it with time to spare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,081
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,019 posts
11,550 battles
23 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

But how do we explain that the 100% free Venezia, now 6 months old, has fewer owners than PR?

Aside from players who straight bought PR the fact that Italian cruisers haven't exactly been popular. SAP has proven frustrating to use for many, especially early on before they tweaked it a little, combined with the rather fragile nature of the mid-tiers makes for a line that breaks spirit's pretty quick. Now add in the various missions Wargaming has thrown at us for the holidays or even right now for the supposed to be pan-Europe but isn't quite line. Starting fires, citadel hits, torp hits/flooding's - many, if not all, of the challenges Wargaming throws at us constantly on top of things like ranked sprint and all - no one really even has the time to grind a line like Italian cruisers because it adds little if anything to progression of objectives. Sure it can add to basic things like ribbons and XP gains - but why do that when for things like ribbons and XP other ships do that better as well AND can count toward things like setting fires or citadel hits. 

It's part of why for more than a year now I've been saying Wargaming needs to slow their role and change their structure for missions and directives back to what it was a few years ago where you could complete a directive set and then had a couple weeks to grind other lines, do ranked, actually play on the PTS to give feedback and all, etc. The current 'always be grinding' structure of directives is doing more harm than good in several fields.

9 minutes ago, MudRaker227 said:

Maybe Audacious just isn't as popular as Hakuryu or Midway because of the torps?

The torps are fine - I'd argue better than IJN's irritating 6x2 setup (rather have the 3x4 it had and that Kaga still has). Frankly I think it's the rockets and bombs that hold it back - more so than they should. The RP-3 used in game is a 6-inch warhead traveling at higher speeds than the 5" HVAR and given they use SAP designed to penetrate further at one point over straight HE that penetrates less armour than the HVAR. If I recall right from top of my head, RP-3's only have about 27 mm of pen, the HVAR has the much sought 32 mm, as does I believe IJN. This limits effectiveness against BB's as they have to hit superstructure, decent enough against cruisers however the mobility of planes - especially attack planes after the nerf to mobility a year ago to try and fix them vs DD's which was one of the dumbest fixes ever when the issue is alpha damage - is a problem and the tier has ships like Minotaur and Wor, really leaving DD's and what few cruisers lack decent AA. Carpet bombs they use are limited to 32 mm of pen - this will pen fore and aft, but not the center of the ship other than superstructure, meaning your reliant on fires. While this would again be useful vs cruisers, the planes are not setup well to target cruisers, which leaves, again, DD's and very weak cruisers. IJN AP citadel's BB's and USN bombs at that tier pen 47+ mm of armour - making them by far more useful, not to mention the blast range of a 2000 lb HE bomb can actually trigger damage rolls on DD magazines when they miss and detonate them.

It's obvious in the design that they were trying to make UK CV's cruiser hunters - and completely botched the job. Arguably historically USN would be better for the role, what with very durable planes in general comparison of those used by UK in game and all, but even then following history with UK could have still allowed this. 6" RP-3 SAP rockets could have had low/no fire chance but increased pen roughly equal to 6 inch shells on some level, giving the ability to citadel more lightly protected cruisers or do general penetration damage to them and BB's, with less areas protected depending on amount of pen (so if say 40 mm many ships would take pen hits amidships they wouldn't now like with the IFHE change they just botched), torpedoes are fine, DB's made to actual DB's but with smaller bombs than the other 2 nations but more of them with a bit more pen than now that again, is more a threat to CL then CA/BB but would be somewhat more effective against them than it currently is. Given they are setup for more speed at lower altitudes and are more aerodynamic with their use of inline liquid cooled engines and turbines retool the line to be more agile than USN (IJN should be the most agile), arguably the highest speed in game, with a moderate HP pool (more than IJN, less than USN) - allowing the planes to better dodge flak from CL like Minotaur.  

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,744
[KWF]
Members
4,359 posts
6,405 battles

My opinion is people have left Venezia to become a "sleeper" ship, focussing on the bad reputation(and rightfully so) of the line, while ignoring a very competitive (and beautiful) ship.

From what I have seen she is a terrifying ship when properly played, with all the tools to have beast battles. She is certainly on my grind list after Moskva is done.

Puerto Rico got a decent rep on the other hand, as an "Alaska with one more turret". She is a more known value and may have had an easier time attracting attention.

Edited by warheart1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,889
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,071 posts
19,197 battles
1 hour ago, LoveBote said:

But how do we explain that the 100% free Venezia, now 6 months old, has fewer owners than PR?

It's one of those "GOTTA HAVE IT!" status ships that whales show off with. Certainly isn't because it's OP, or even that good of a ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,184
[SALVO]
Members
24,764 posts
25,791 battles
1 hour ago, LoveBote said:

Twice as many people own the costly to obtain Puerto Rico as own the 100% free, Audacious.

While Puerto Rico owners have played more than twice as many battles as Audacious owners, despite PR only being 2 months old, and veteran Audacious being 9 months.

Audacious required either moderate but certainly not strenuous effort to aquire, or a moderate amount of free xp/ Puerto Rico required either/or/both insane effort/lots of money.

image.png.9bd7e59e84d83fa7f889503efecb1e92.png

image.png.9f552e8bdb62a6d4e78c15d1ddc70798.png

Now you may rightly say, who wants to play CVs? Only 4% of us. While cruisers are much more popular. But how do we explain that the 100% free Venezia, now 6 months old, has fewer owners than PR?

image.png.cadd539a99c6b1db2fd3f4eef329a298.png*

source :https://proships.ru/stat/na/s/99999-

before anyone says "NA Playerbase"  the EU server shows similar results.

LoveBote, is there an English version of that link?  I can't read the column titles because they're in Russian.

 

I can understand that when it comes to carriers, some people just don't want to play carriers, so the Audacious has an ownership handicap, so to speak, in this comparison.  But the same shouldn't hold true for the Venezia.  That said, I suppose that there are some players who didn't like the RM CA grind and didn't like the RM CA's, say between tiers 6 to 8, and may have bailed on the grind.  I didn't, and own the Venezia, though I don't play it much.  (I have SOOOO many ships that I can hardly play any ship a lot beyond whatever I might be grinding at any given moment.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
267
[NFJF]
Members
653 posts
9,850 battles

I just cant stand the SAP. If you had regular HE and sap, Id be more okay with that, but the SAP just isn't anywhere near as consistent as HE. Not for me anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,184
[SALVO]
Members
24,764 posts
25,791 battles
11 minutes ago, Umikami said:

It's one of those "GOTTA HAVE IT!" status ships that whales show off with. Certainly isn't because it's OP, or even that good of a ship. 

While I won't disagree with the first  sentence, and agree that it isn't OP, I don't think that the PR is a bad ship.  It's not as good, tier for tier, as the Alaska, but the PR is still a pretty good ship in its own right.  Frankly, it's a shame that it got burdened with all the bad PR (pardon the pun) from the shipyard debacle, because it is a nice enough ship and didn't deserve the crap it took at the time.  (WG deserved the crap, but not the ship itself.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,184
[SALVO]
Members
24,764 posts
25,791 battles
2 minutes ago, admiralsexybeast said:

I just cant stand the SAP. If you had regular HE and sap, Id be more okay with that, but the SAP just isn't anywhere near as consistent as HE. Not for me anyway.

I agree.  SAP is frustrating in its inconsistency.  It can be devastating at times, particularly vs DDs.  But it can also be "want to tear your hair out" frustrating at other times.

The thing is, for argument's sake, let's say that WG was willing to take a serious second look at the SAP implementation.  And let's say that there was a goal to make a "new SAP" (NSAP) less frustrating and more enjoyable to use.  How would they make that goal happen without making NSAP overpowered?  I don't know.

 

1. Make NSAP work like HE, except that it would start no fires but do more raw damage than HE but not as much as AP.

2. Make NSAP very similar or exactly the same as RN CL "AP".

3. Further increase the autopen angles for NSAP.  But this would seem to risk making NSAP overpowered.

4. Other ideas?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
267
[NFJF]
Members
653 posts
9,850 battles
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I agree.  SAP is frustrating in its inconsistency.  It can be devastating at times, particularly vs DDs.  But it can also be "want to tear your hair out" frustrating at other times.

The thing is, for argument's sake, let's say that WG was willing to take a serious second look at the SAP implementation.  And let's say that there was a goal to make a "new SAP" (NSAP) less frustrating and more enjoyable to use.  How would they make that goal happen without making NSAP overpowered?  I don't know.

 

1. Make NSAP work like HE, except that it would start no fires but do more raw damage than HE but not as much as AP.

2. Make NSAP very similar or exactly the same as RN CL "AP".

3. Further increase the autopen angles for NSAP.  But this would seem to risk making NSAP overpowered.

4. Other ideas?

Those are pretty good ideas and I would be willing to try them out. I would honestly be fine with giving up regular AP for regular HE. That way you would still have that one hit wonder against DDs and could still do good damage to some superstructures, but then would also have another ammo type to switch to if your SAP wont penetrate and could still get some fire damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,184
[SALVO]
Members
24,764 posts
25,791 battles
1 minute ago, admiralsexybeast said:

Those are pretty good ideas and I would be willing to try them out. I would honestly be fine with giving up regular AP for regular HE. That way you would still have that one hit wonder against DDs and could still do good damage to some superstructures, but then would also have another ammo type to switch to if your SAP wont penetrate and could still get some fire damage.

To be honest, from a realism PoV, all shells should have a chance of starting fires.  It's not like AP shells are like solid shot from the old sailing ship days.  And it's not like HE shells come with gasoline or napalm packed inside to help start fires.

But the game is what it is.

I can't see replacing regular AP with SAP and having ships only have SAP and HE.  That's a bridge too far for me.  It means that a CA with good AP can't blap the hell out of other cruisers with good citadel volleys.  I'd rather that they find a better implementation for SAP.  And/or perhaps limit SAP to BBs.

Come to think of it, limiting SAP to BBs might be a viable answer.  After all, BBs should be relying on their AP, with SAP (or HE) only being a situational backup option.  And then they could just replace the SAP on the CAs with HE, though to be fair, Italian HE isn't all that good so it might feel like a downgrade.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
25 minutes ago, Crucis said:

LoveBote, is there an English version of that link?  I can't read the column titles because they're in Russian.

 

my browser automatically translates  the website (using Chrome)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
506
Members
1,410 posts
10,532 battles

Short answer is whales gonna whale. There's a reason why WG has been focusing on high tier premiums and early access events for the last 2 years and it's not cause of f2p people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,821
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,384 posts
14,152 battles

With event followed by event people are not grinding lines and instead are grinding events.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,569
[WOLF2]
Members
4,985 posts
19,861 battles
2 hours ago, LoveBote said:

Twice as many people own the costly to obtain Puerto Rico as own the 100% free, Audacious.

While Puerto Rico owners have played more than twice as many battles as Audacious owners, despite PR only being 2 months old, and veteran Audacious being 9 months.

Audacious required either moderate but certainly not strenuous effort to aquire, or a moderate amount of free xp/ Puerto Rico required either/or/both insane effort/lots of money.

image.png.9bd7e59e84d83fa7f889503efecb1e92.png

image.png.9f552e8bdb62a6d4e78c15d1ddc70798.png

Now you may rightly say, who wants to play CVs? Only 4% of us. While cruisers are much more popular. But how do we explain that the 100% free Venezia, now 6 months old, has fewer owners than PR?

image.png.cadd539a99c6b1db2fd3f4eef329a298.png*

source :https://proships.ru/stat/na/s/99999-

before anyone says "NA Playerbase"  the EU server shows similar results.

The PR event was heavily promoted and most of us wound up paying some price to get through that horrible grind … 

I wouldn't say they're all whales, but Christmas is a time when money flows and time is short - I'm not sure that can be easily repeated 

Fool me once … lol

 

The numbers probably speak less to the success or the PR than they do to the failure of current tech tree offerings 

If you can't sell something that's free and pushed with early access - You Got A Problem :)

Edited by Commander_367

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,889
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,071 posts
19,197 battles
48 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I don't think that the PR is a bad ship.

I don't think it's a bad ship, but neither do I think it's an especially good one; most of the ones I see in matches don't last that long, while the Alaska's I see seem to be able to hang throughout most of the match. It isn't an Alaska clone with an extra turret, it has specs all it's own and they're not as good as Alaska's. 

AND WG seriously screwed up it's release, on top of it being a "meh" ship. 

But what do I know? I like playing Krispy Kreme!

Share this post


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

A few thing come to mind:

- PR is a premium ship (reward or special ship, whatever you want to call), while Venezia is just another T10 silver ship. 

- PR is "murica", usually USN ships are very popular. 

- Italian crusiers have a high skill floor, they are not the usual "HE spammers" that you expect from cruisers. SAP requires more skill to use, you need to know where to hit to deal good dmg. 

- Lower and mid tiers italian crusiers are pretty bad, specifically T6 and lower. T7 is meh. So i can see many players not moving up because of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
776
[LOU1]
Members
4,157 posts
11,965 battles

Could it possibly be due to the PR drama being a forum thing and that a large amount of players just wanted the ship without being aware/concerned with the drama created by a large number of forumites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,575
[WOLF3]
Members
26,963 posts
23,767 battles
2 hours ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

I’d say it’s because Audacious is hot garbage, but that may just be me.

Venezia? I have Duca d’Aosta and Gorizia, but little motivation to go beyond Genova/Montespahgettiwhatever...

Any time Tier X Ranked has taken place with CVs there, Hakuryu has always been clearly superior to Midway and Audacious.  Ranked WR%, Dmg Avg, Hak is just clearly better.  Current Season 15, the pattern persists.  Checking on the other servers, the same thing is happening.  Asia, EU, RU (RU seems to be an important indicator because of the large population, NA & Asia is a fraction of their size).

 

I have all kinds of criticism for the ITA Cruiser Line but Venezia is actually pretty nasty.  The one beacon of hope the Line has.  She has two things about her that all prior ITA CAs lack to solve their problems:  Sh*t Ton of Guns and better SAP bounce angles which are superior than even Tier IX Brindisi's.  I noticed in all the threads where players say the ITA CA Line is fine, they're only using Venezia screenshots :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,074 posts
6,554 battles
55 minutes ago, Umikami said:

I don't think it's a bad ship, but neither do I think it's an especially good one; most of the ones I see in matches don't last that long, while the Alaska's I see seem to be able to hang throughout most of the match. It isn't an Alaska clone with an extra turret, it has specs all it's own and they're not as good as Alaska's. 

AND WG seriously screwed up it's release, on top of it being a "meh" ship. 

But what do I know? I like playing Krispy Kreme!

If I had to guess, it's because the extra turret tempts people to show just a little more broadside to get the Y turret in action. That temptation is absent with Alaska...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×