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

How to make Worcester relevant again

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

9
[STK]
Members
68 posts
7,190 battles

WG has made the Worcester a trash by nurfing her radar to pethetic 9km. Then the CV rework made her renown AA completely garbage. Now that we had range & spotter Des Moines from Yuro, it is the time to apply the same meme to Worcester as well.

Let's light everything on FIRE from 18km away.

 

Edited by Judadiao
video
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,754
[O7]
Members
1,043 posts
6,779 battles

How to make Worcester relevant again?

You mean the Worcester in World of Warships? THE STRONGEST LIGHT CRUISER IN THE GAME?

How about buffing the captain that's playing it.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3
  • Haha 2
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,267
[PISD]
Members
2,009 posts
6,637 battles
51 minutes ago, DolphinPrincess said:

You mean the Worcester in World of Warships? THE STRONGEST LIGHT CRUISER IN THE GAME?

You meand the Minotaur right? ;-)

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,320
[KAG]
Members
1,370 posts
13,511 battles
1 hour ago, Judadiao said:

WG has made the Worcester a trash by nurfing her radar to pethetic 9km. Then the CV rework made her renown AA completely garbage. Now that we had range & spotter Des Moines from Yuro, it is the time to apply the same meme to Worcester as well.

Let's light everything on FIRE from 18km away.

 

 It sure how you’re play the Wooster but it’s far from trash, probably the most annoying tech tree ship in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,660 posts
2 hours ago, BarneyStyle said:

 It sure how you’re play the Wooster but it’s far from trash, probably the most annoying tech tree ship in the game.

Not even top 10 for annoying tech tree ships, but it is a subjective assessment.  Even if I only think about tech tree cruisers, the Wooster would struggle to make the top five annoying ships.  But again, that is my perspective.

To the OP's request to make the Wooster relevant, I am on a low salt diet and HE spam is very salty.  I feel the Wooster is fairly well balanced and performs well when driven well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
22 posts
11,230 battles

The wooster was OP back when it had 10km radar and 9km concealment. Then a few things happened in fairly quick successon: 1) Her radar was reduced from 10km to 9km, which actually wasn't that bad, since it meant that, while she didn't have stealth radar, her low detectability still gave her ample opportunity to use it while defending caps. 2) Her concealment was nerfed, raising her detectability to 9.5km. This made her less effective at actually catching destroyers in caps before the enemy's heavy hitters spotted and blapped her. But she was still workable. 3) Then lastly, a global nerf to the concealment captain skill reduced its effectiveness for cruisers and battleships, which increased the Wooster's detection even further to a wopping 10.6, more than 1.5km beyond her detection range and further than the width of a cap she might try to defend. This was the nail in the coffin to the wooster's ability to defend caps and hunt destroyers, arguably her primary strong suite, originally. 4) Then more recently with the IFHE nerf and the prevalence of strong deck armor in more and more ships, Worcester's are becoming one of the rarest-seen tier X's, and for good reason. Her radar is basically useful for exposing SOME of a cap circle, but that's it. Even her AA, which used to be the most powerful AA in the game, is helpless against a Tier X cv. If they wanna to drop AP bombers down your [edited], they're gonna do it. There's nothing the worcester brings to the table realistically that another tier X can't do better while having more survivability and with more shells on target. TDLR: yes, she got nerfed hard, but I'm afraind that a gimmick long range build won't save her, as her snail shells go all the way into orbit before even getting near a target.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
271
[BONKS]
Members
427 posts
10,043 battles
1 hour ago, Axiom808 said:

The wooster was OP back when it had 10km radar and 9km concealment. Then a few things happened in fairly quick successon: 1) Her radar was reduced from 10km to 9km, which actually wasn't that bad, since it meant that, while she didn't have stealth radar, her low detectability still gave her ample opportunity to use it while defending caps. 2) Her concealment was nerfed, raising her detectability to 9.5km. This made her less effective at actually catching destroyers in caps before the enemy's heavy hitters spotted and blapped her. But she was still workable. 3) Then lastly, a global nerf to the concealment captain skill reduced its effectiveness for cruisers and battleships, which increased the Wooster's detection even further to a wopping 10.6, more than 1.5km beyond her detection range and further than the width of a cap she might try to defend. This was the nail in the coffin to the wooster's ability to defend caps and hunt destroyers, arguably her primary strong suite, originally. 4) Then more recently with the IFHE nerf and the prevalence of strong deck armor in more and more ships, Worcester's are becoming one of the rarest-seen tier X's, and for good reason. Her radar is basically useful for exposing SOME of a cap circle, but that's it. Even her AA, which used to be the most powerful AA in the game, is helpless against a Tier X cv. If they wanna to drop AP bombers down your [edited], they're gonna do it. There's nothing the worcester brings to the table realistically that another tier X can't do better while having more survivability and with more shells on target. TDLR: yes, she got nerfed hard, but I'm afraind that a gimmick long range build won't save her, as her snail shells go all the way into orbit before even getting near a target.

She literally out dpms and outspots all other cruisers at the tier, the changes have only made playing her as an open water DD hunter unviable. She's still an extraordinarily strong anchor cruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,432
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
32,144 posts
26,918 battles
6 minutes ago, ShotaBonk said:

She literally out dpms and outspots all other cruisers at the tier, the changes have only made playing her as an open water DD hunter unviable. She's still an extraordinarily strong anchor cruiser.

DPS is irrelevant because she can't easily drop those shells on people due to how floaty they are past 10km.

 

Matter of fact, Worcester is the lowest, or one of the lowest Damage Average Cruisers in Tier X, period.

 

Even her WR% is nothing special.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
271
[BONKS]
Members
427 posts
10,043 battles
5 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

DPS is irrelevant because she can't easily drop those shells on people because of how floaty they are past 10km.

Again, that's an issue with the player base, not the ship. Shell arcs really don't matter if you're picking your engagements well.

5 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Matter of fact, Worcester is the lowest, or one of the lowest Damage Average Cruisers in Tier X, period.

She's not in the bottom three for T10, I don't know where you got this impression from.

Average damage is also a garbage metric, as it's influenced by the players far more than the actual ship capabilities.

Edited by ShotaBonk
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,432
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
32,144 posts
26,918 battles

Just Tech Tree Tier X CLs:

Minotaur 50.2% WR, 64k Dmg Avg, with 600k DPM with her RNCL AP

Alexander Nevsky 50.1%, 76.1k, with 200k DPM

Worcester 48.8%, 61.7k, with 344,348 DPM

 

If you want to get into the nitty gritty of, "Well, that's potatoes making Worcester look bad" that's wrong also.  What does it look like if we only use the players with 55-64% WR in these CLs?

Minotaur 59.31% WR, 73.5k Dmg Avg

Alexander Nevsky 59.58% WR, 90.8k Dmg Avg

Worcester 58.95% WR, 73.9k Dmg Avg

The disparity actually grew when these things are used by great players.

 

What about 65%+ WR players?

Minotaur 72.5% WR, 86.2k Dmg Avg

Alexander Nevsky 73.18% WR, 96.6k Dmg Avg

Worcester 73.15% WR, 82.1k Dmg Avg

Still bad disparity.

 

And Worcester has a DPM that dwarfs Nevsky by a significant amount, 344,348 DPM vs Nevsky's 200k.  Yet her damage output is markedly worse across all players from various skill levels.  The better player groups close the gap in Win Rate %, but the disparity in Damage output repeats itself, just at higher levels.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,994
[FML]
Members
4,314 posts
16,490 battles
1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

What about 65%+ WR players?

Minotaur 72.5% WR, 86.2k Dmg Avg

Alexander Nevsky 73.18% WR, 96.6k Dmg Avg

Worcester 73.15% WR, 82.1k Dmg Avg

Still bad disparity.

Doesnt look like a bad disparity to me.  Wooster has functionally the same WR (0.03% difference isnt material), sure less damage but given the WR is functionall the same it must be higher quality damage (eg, more against DDs and less against high HP BBs, despite its reputation for fires).  The radar must help quite a bit here through vision control and area denial.  Minotaur, otoh, is 0.7 per cent behind in WR bit about the same damage as a Wooster - so it shows that top Mino players cant dominate a match as well as top Wooster or Nevsky players.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
172
[LSNB]
Members
254 posts
8,161 battles
7 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Just Tech Tree Tier X CLs:

Minotaur 50.2% WR, 64k Dmg Avg, with 600k DPM with her RNCL AP

Alexander Nevsky 50.1%, 76.1k, with 200k DPM

Worcester 48.8%, 61.7k, with 344,348 DPM

 

If you want to get into the nitty gritty of, "Well, that's potatoes making Worcester look bad" that's wrong also.  What does it look like if we only use the players with 55-64% WR in these CLs?

Minotaur 59.31% WR, 73.5k Dmg Avg

Alexander Nevsky 59.58% WR, 90.8k Dmg Avg

Worcester 58.95% WR, 73.9k Dmg Avg

The disparity actually grew when these things are used by great players.

 

What about 65%+ WR players?

Minotaur 72.5% WR, 86.2k Dmg Avg

Alexander Nevsky 73.18% WR, 96.6k Dmg Avg

Worcester 73.15% WR, 82.1k Dmg Avg

Still bad disparity.

 

And Worcester has a DPM that dwarfs Nevsky by a significant amount, 344,348 DPM vs Nevsky's 200k.  Yet her damage output is markedly worse across all players from various skill levels.  The better player groups close the gap in Win Rate %, but the disparity in Damage output repeats itself, just at higher levels.

So what you're saying is Wooster can influence a game to the same degree as Nevsky, while managing to do so with less damage? Seems to support the idea that the Wooster is fine no? At least when compared to the other CLs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,432
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
32,144 posts
26,918 battles
33 minutes ago, dagger1013 said:

So what you're saying is Wooster can influence a game to the same degree as Nevsky, while managing to do so with less damage? Seems to support the idea that the Wooster is fine no? At least when compared to the other CLs.

The same degree?  Only the Elites do... To a point.  Look at the first set of numbers, which is the server in general, Worcester is quite a bit worse than Mino and Alexander Nevsky in both affecting a win and Nevsky deals a lot more damage despite "Worse DPM" than Woostah.  And I bring this up because people right away brought up early in this thread that Worcester's DPM makes her OP.  It doesn't.  Not by a long shot.  The numbers disprove it.

 

The Good and Unicum players close the WR% gap, but even then, Nevsky does better damage.  In all cases, all skill levels despite the high DPM of Worcester.  Worcester is only as good when used by a great player, and even then, the same quality of good players will typically do better with Nevsky.

 

Mechanics-wise, I'd say Worcester was real good when the USN Cruiser Split was new, back when she had the same Radar range as Des Moines and could Stealth Radar.  It was also the RTS CV Era, so we're talking Old School Worcester AA of 8.6km range, or to put it another way: "A 17.2km AA Death Bubble."  The Radar Game and AA was where Worcester used to be deadly at.  Not anymore.  Her Radar was stripped, her AA like most other AA is greatly reduced.

 

Worcester's DPM was irrelevant, her damage output was bottom rung in Tier X Cruisers.  But she used to be an AA Death Machine and a powerful Radar Cruiser.  Now Cleveland in Tier VIII is just as much of a Radar Cruiser threat as Tier X Worcester.

 

I questioned the Worcester Radar Nerf when WG did it because "Stealth Radar is bad, m'kay?" when Chapayev could still do it.  I questioned it further when WG added new RU Cruisers with Stealth Radar.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×