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

California...cmon

180 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,093
[SALVO]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,361 posts
6,972 battles

I watching @NoZoupForYou and his latest video on California. Wargaming slapped a 35 second reload onto a Tier 7 BB and somehow thinks this is gonna work.

The more I watch this ship, the more I see a Tier 6 battleship. Sorry, but its slow, it's secondaries are meh, and it's a shotgun with a long reload. This is a New Mexico redo at this stage. 

Put it as a Tier 6 now, there is no longer a credible excuse here for Tier 7. 

  • Cool 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,326
[FRR]
Members
973 posts
16 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

I watching @NoZoupForYou and his latest video on California. Wargaming slapped a 35 second reload onto a Tier 7 BB and somehow thinks this is gonna work.

The more I watch this ship, the more I see a Tier 6 battleship. Sorry, but its slow, it's secondaries are meh, and it's a shotgun with a long reload. This is a New Mexico redo at this stage. 

Put it as a Tier 6 now, there is no longer a credible excuse here for Tier 7. 

35 seconds? That's downright atrocious. A Sinop can shoot faster.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,179
[PISD]
Members
1,921 posts
6,332 battles
9 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I saw a CC who could no longer retain his objectivity.

When you see California and Agir getting nerf, while the coming soviet cruisers are receiving buff, you can question the balance department.

  • Cool 32
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,116
[WOLF5]
Supertester
5,136 posts
4,342 battles
Just now, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I saw a CC who could no longer retain his objectivity.

Maybe, but he's right. CO struggles even at T7, is hard at T8, and just shouldn't be in T9. And that has 16in guns. Now we have a 14" ship with worse reload? It's absolutely going to be terrible. And has people have been pointing out, great secondaries mean nothing if the ship is so slow it can't ever get into range.

Now I get it's hard to balance T7 ships because when top tier they can easily get OP. And T5 has the TX with 10 atrocious 14" guns and good AA. But it's hard to imagine CA is that OP (remember it's supposed to be better, it's 2 tiers higher) that it needs that kind of reload nerf. IMO 14" ships don't belong in T9, and certainly not with that speed. KGV works with 14", but she fires faster, has better HE, and is much faster. CA is going to be uptiered a lot, and AZ guns on a CO hull is just unplayable in T8 or T9.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16,738
[ARGSY]
Members
24,468 posts
18,402 battles
7 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

When you see California and Agir getting nerf, while the coming soviet cruisers are receiving buff, you can question the balance department.

I demand a level of professionalism that requires reporting the facts and letting people form their own opinions as to the underlying reason. Zoup crossed a line that I prefer not to be crossed. 

6 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

Maybe, but he's right.

Objectively he is, and I agree that a ship with that performance and that armament at that tier needs a faster reload. But the direction in which he elected to take his displeasure and the words he chose to use to express his frustration were not IMO up to the standard I feel I'd be expected to meet if I were in his position. If I were a CC and I used the words he did, I'd expect to be shown the door.

 

TBH I never expected this to be anything more than a T7 New Mexico or Arizona, which in hull and main armament terms is basically what we now have. It's for people who wanted to take their Arizona to Narai.

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu
  • Cool 4
  • Boring 28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,116
[WOLF5]
Supertester
5,136 posts
4,342 battles
2 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I demand a level of professionalism that requires reporting the facts and letting people form their own opinions as to the underlying reason. Zoup crossed a line that I prefer not to be crossed. 

Objectively he is, and I agree that a ship with that performance and that armament at that tier needs a faster reload. But the direction in which he elected to take his displeasure and the words he chose to use to express his frustration were not IMO up to the standard I feel I'd be expected to meet if I were in his position. If I were a CC and I used the words he did, I'd expect to be shown the door.

 

TBH I never expected this to be anything more than a T7 New Mexico or Arizona, which in hull and main armament terms is basically what we now have. It's for people who wanted to take their Arizona to Narai.

Yes, the CCs should hold themselves to a standard, and IMO Zoup has crossed that line a couple times. But most of the times a CC has crossed the line, there's been a good reason. iChase got in hot water for losing it a while back, but he was right. I've never heard so much salt from the CCs as when the PR dropped. And may I remind you of WOT's Fochgate? My point is most CCs hold themselves to a standard, and when they ignore that, usually it's because WG has done something to merit that response. My guess it Zoup's frustration was not just CA, but the culmination of all the questionable decisions that have been made lately by the Ministry of Balance.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,179
[PISD]
Members
1,921 posts
6,332 battles
6 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I demand a level of professionalism that requires reporting the facts and letting people form their own opinions as to the underlying reason. Zoup crossed a line that I prefer not to be crossed. 

And where is the lack of professionalism? And as usual, was there an underlying reason? I never saw a CC saying that this ships was op, outside of its AA. So a 15% dpm nerf is quite a hit to ships that would struggle when downtiered. Just like how the Agir was nerfed because ''it's too weak to go full secondary'', while they did not put the correct armor layout.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
670
[SVF]
Members
1,866 posts
2,438 battles
1 hour ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

If I were a CC and I used the words he did, I'd expect to be shown the door.

That's a bit of an unreasonable standard you want to hold people to imo.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,995
[-TKS-]
Members
3,354 posts
18,300 battles

You guys forgot to mention the 60 SECOND turret turn time. That's an entire MINUTE to turn your guns.  My KGV and Lyon will have a field day against the California. 

Imagine at closer ranges. It can't turn it's guns fast enough to keep aiming at BBs moving past it from 5km away.  This floating Pinata is going to make for some good target practice.

Edited by STINKWEED_
  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,299
[VCRUZ]
Members
4,049 posts
9,180 battles
28 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I saw a CC who could no longer retain his objectivity.

 

11 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I demand a level of professionalism that requires reporting the facts and letting people form their own opinions as to the underlying reason. Zoup crossed a line that I prefer not to be crossed. 

Objectively he is, and I agree that a ship with that performance and that armament at that tier needs a faster reload. But the direction in which he elected to take his displeasure and the words he chose to use to express his frustration were not IMO up to the standard I feel I'd be expected to meet if I were in his position. If I were a CC and I used the words he did, I'd expect to be shown the door.

You are right, and this is not the first time that he and other CCs do something like that. But on their side, CCs are people just like us, they play and like the game and some of WG decisions are questionable to say the least. Many of their actions have no logical explanation. This doesnt mean they are wrong in what they say, people just need to learn to separate the information and the emotional stuff when they see a video, a stream or a written review. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,511
[WOLFC]
Members
2,777 posts
11,295 battles
40 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

Put it as a Tier 6 now, there is no longer a credible excuse here for Tier 7.

I actually agree with this. It will also solve the issues she has with her speed when bottom tier, as NM and AZ can also make it work.

We will have 3 4x3 14”-armed BBs at tier 6, but I have a feeling most are buying this for the name anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,117
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
3,169 battles
20 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I demand a level of professionalism that requires reporting the facts and letting people form their own opinions as to the underlying reason. Zoup crossed a line that I prefer not to be crossed

:cap_haloween:

Do you hold WG staff to the same standard?

If Zouo crossed a line, thats for WG to sort out. Its none of our concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43,503
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
12,711 posts
10,843 battles
21 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

When you see California and Agir getting nerf, while the coming soviet cruisers are receiving buff, you can question the balance department.

Except all of the Soviet cruisers got nerfed in the last update.  Agir ostensibly got buffed (focus on main battery improvements) though definitely not in the way I wanted to see it.  I'm all for complaining when something truly wonky goes on, but c'mon now, let's deal with facts.

Speaking of wonky -- I am surprised with California's long reload.  As a whole, she's a slower, chunkier Arizona with decent AA firepower.  Their damage output numbers are almost on par:

  • Arizona DPM (AP/HE):  211,886 / 102,857  (1.8 sigma)
  • California DPM (AP/HE):  221,053 / 105,263 (1.8 sigma)

Effectively they have the same main battery firepower with California having longer range and the equivalent ability of firing one more AP shell over 60s in terms of raw damage potential (in practice it will be less so).  Not terribly exciting.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


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

California was already a pretty meh ship even before the nerf, now its just garbage. Some things that WG does have no explanation, did they really tough that California needed a nerf? Its still WiP and things can change. Aparently WG is relying a lot on the fact its a historical USN ship and Pearl Harbor veteran, so lots of USN fans are going to get her. 

 

That ship has nothing going for her, its slow as f. Guns are only 356 mm, so the overmatch is very limited. Dispersion is meh, and now the reload is terrible. No special AP or HE shells. Its a very soft ship, with 25 mm all around. There is no reason to play California over any other T7 BB. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
767
[NUWES]
Members
3,430 posts
12,797 battles

I still think they are having issues with balancing California because of the way they did Colorado in the first place. Normally the final version of a tech tree ship is the version with all the refits and sometimes complete fantasy refits. For some reason Colorado (and New Mexico) are both the least refitted versions of their class. That boxes them in because any premium they add can't completely overshadow Colorado, which is difficult when you have the weakest member acting as the goalpost. If they had followed normal procedure, tech tree Colorado would basically look like California does but have 8x16" rather than California's 12x14" and they can just adjust the reload time to maintain a balance. The playerbase then has a choice a lot like Scharnhorst vs. Gneisenau. As it stands, Colorado's hull is significantly worse than California's so they have to weaken California in silly ways to not completely overshadow Colorado. Colorado is the ship that needs to be elevated rather than California weakened. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
554
[KMS]
[KMS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,815 posts
12,810 battles
21 minutes ago, landcollector said:

That's a bit of an unreasonable standard you want to hold people to imo.

The dude has to be on fumes.  Kids are no joke.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
554
[KMS]
[KMS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,815 posts
12,810 battles

Flip them put California on the tech tree, make Colorado a premium.  LOL.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
915
[HELLS]
Members
2,848 posts
31,611 battles

Give California some Arizona main guns and reload at T7 and she will be fine.  With the decent secondaries and AA.she would not be OP if built like this by any means when facing T8s and T9s.. Just my two cents worth....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16,738
[ARGSY]
Members
24,468 posts
18,402 battles
20 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

But most of the times a CC has crossed the line, there's been a good reason.

Opinion: there's a way to cross the line that makes you look like a reasonable person taking a stand, and there's a way to cross it that makes you look like a whining idiot.

I am willing to concede that the point at which I place people in the latter category probably differs quite radically from most others here.

23 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

And may I remind you of WOT's Fochgate?

I don't play WOT at all (never have, never will, just not interested) so I didn't catch the particulars of that. I'm only vaguely aware that it happened

2 minutes ago, Nachoo31 said:

The dude has to be on fumes.  Kids are no joke.

I have two myself, albeit not twins. Been there, done that.

It's when you're frazzled as hell that you have to be even more careful about how you put yourself out to the public. 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
670
[SVF]
Members
1,866 posts
2,438 battles
1 hour ago, Xlap said:

Guns are only 356 mm, so the overmatch is very limited

Even more so nowadays when even the formerly squishy Pensacola and NO can just bowtank your 356mm AP and laugh as they pen your 26mm plating and burn you down at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16,738
[ARGSY]
Members
24,468 posts
18,402 battles
1 minute ago, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

Give California some Arizona main guns and reload at T7 and she will be fine.  With the decent secondaries and AA.she would not be OP if built like this by any means when facing T8s and T9s.. Just my two cents worth....

IIRC that's pretty much what she's got. I recall watching one of Zath's streams on the weekend and the two ships plus New Mex being compared. New Mex loses out on about 0.7s reload and her appalling Sigma.

 @LittleWhiteMouse, can you confirm?

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
670
[SVF]
Members
1,866 posts
2,438 battles
1 hour ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

IIRC that's pretty much what she's got. I recall watching one of Zath's streams on the weekend and the two ships plus New Mex being compared. New Mex loses out on about 0.7s reload and her appalling Sigma.

 @LittleWhiteMouse, can you confirm?

New Mex and California now have almost the same reload of 34.2 or so seconds.  Arizona is the slower reload of the trio here at 35s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×