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

the US BB line split

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

430
[T-R-F]
Members
596 posts
17,088 battles

Seriously WG wth!? what purpose is there to play this ships. they litteraly have no plus to them. poorcaccuracy, super long reload, slow speed, slow rudder, and POOR armor. DO YOU SERIOUSY TEST THESE SHIPS! Or to you just  put random numbers in and say DONE then stick your head in your [edited]. get other people to  make these ships for your current batch clearly can''t do the job

  • Funny 1
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
223
[WAG]
Beta Testers
782 posts
7,223 battles
17 minutes ago, AdmiralQ said:

Seriously WG wth!? what purpose is there to play this ships. they litteraly have no plus to them. poorcaccuracy, super long reload, slow speed, slow rudder, and POOR armor. DO YOU SERIOUSY TEST THESE SHIPS! Or to you just  put random numbers in and say DONE then stick your head in your [edited]. get other people to  make these ships for your current batch clearly can''t do the job

you do realise these ships are 2 updates away before even pre release, and havent been tested yet right? this is just a blog release..... they have at least 2 months or more to tweak these stats, and have said so multiple times now....

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[T-R-F]
Members
596 posts
17,088 battles
59 minutes ago, GX9900A said:

you do realise these ships are 2 updates away before even pre release, and havent been tested yet right? this is just a blog release..... they have at least 2 months or more to tweak these stats, and have said so multiple times now....

even before testign look at those stats. those stats should even be posted that is that bad.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[STURM]
Members
708 posts
5,756 battles
1 hour ago, AdmiralQ said:

Seriously WG wth!? what purpose is there to play this ships. they litteraly have no plus to them. poorcaccuracy, super long reload, slow speed, slow rudder, and POOR armor. DO YOU SERIOUSY TEST THESE SHIPS! Or to you just  put random numbers in and say DONE then stick your head in your [edited]. get other people to  make these ships for your current batch clearly can''t do the job

What on earth are you babbling about? These ships are not done in any way, they haven't even begun testing yet.

Or are you really so blind to how game development (or reality) works that you expect WG to be able to magically create perfect ships before live testing?

There's a reason they are works IN PROGRESS.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[T-R-F]
Members
596 posts
17,088 battles
1 minute ago, Muninn77 said:

What on earth are you babbling about? These ships are not done in any way, they haven't even begun testing yet.

Or are you really so blind to how game development (or reality) works that you expect WG to be able to magically create perfect ships before live testing?

There's a reason they are works IN PROGRESS.

it Wg, have to get started quickly. it took the public test servers for them to see why the bow tank nerf was not a good idea.

 

just goign by current stats and known game meta somebody on dev team should have said. yeah no need to change these stats now. before we EVEN SEE THEM

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
57 posts
7,788 battles

They're just a terrible concept in general, there's a reason they weren't considered to be made. That won't change in the game either, they'll just be targets that get the occasional lucky rng roll. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
268
[NFJF]
Members
654 posts
9,903 battles
11 hours ago, AdmiralQ said:

Seriously WG wth!? what purpose is there to play this ships. they litteraly have no plus to them. poorcaccuracy, super long reload, slow speed, slow rudder, and POOR armor. DO YOU SERIOUSY TEST THESE SHIPS! Or to you just  put random numbers in and say DONE then stick your head in your [edited]. get other people to  make these ships for your current batch clearly can''t do the job

These were literally just announced! That does NOT mean this is how they are going to be when they go live. There is going to be MONTHS of testing and balancing before they get released. You can't make a final conclusion on a line that still has months of development ahead of it. Those stats my be VERY different by the time you can grind that line. If you're such an expert, why don't you apply to be a supertester?

Edited by admiralsexybeast
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
260 posts
4,304 battles

WG doesn't have the best track record for resolving issues like this, and since the models are made for these "nothing but guns" paper barges, it will be harder for them to make the needed changes. Sure, they could up the speed to "not laughably bad" and make some other minor tweaks, but the overall idea of these ships I don't think will change. Unfortunately, that idea - "lots of guns at the expense of everything else" - is not likely to be very viable at high tiers. 

At any rate, we may as well raise the many valid objections to this failed ship lineup now since that's the only way to hope for a change. Otherwise, they will serve no purpose in the game save as "noob traps" for people to grind into garbage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
305
[-GOD-]
[-GOD-]
Members
1,189 posts
11 hours ago, GX9900A said:

they have at least 2 months or more to tweak these stats, and have said so multiple times now..

You do realize what you get when you tweak a turd ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
260 posts
4,304 battles
2 minutes ago, bosco1111 said:

You do realize what you get when you tweak a turd ?

Subs in Randoms? 

Sorry - couldn't resist. But, yes - these ships simply do NOT work in their current form. Huge, slow, horrible reload, clumsy, and fragile. If they make the rest of the ship viable, they are too powerful because of the absurd number of guns. But an absurd number of guns alone is not enough for a ship to be playable. They painted themselves into a corner, and while these ships can certainly be made "better," I'd be surprised if they can find that tiny region where they are "good, but not overpowered." Maxing out one stat to loony levels - guns in this case - tends to throw off one's ability to balance the rest of the ship for a PvP game horribly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
339
[WOLFC]
[WOLFC]
Members
846 posts
7,138 battles
11 hours ago, GX9900A said:

you do realise these ships are 2 updates away before even pre release, and havent been tested yet right? this is just a blog release..... they have at least 2 months or more to tweak these stats, and have said so multiple times now....

That is a good point. The Thunderer used to be a total dud that couldn't do anything right - so much so that even youtube WoWS CCs that were usually optimistic had nothing positive to say about it, but then they fixed it so it's now the most rewarding BB for those with good aim - so much so that Flamu ranked it the #1 T10 BB.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
506
[GGWP]
Beta Testers
1,661 posts
8,800 battles

Weak armor + 300+ Dispersion + 1.7 Sigma + Slow AF?

 

Doesn't sound too enticing, TBH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
285
[XXX]
Members
534 posts
951 battles
57 minutes ago, old_radagast said:

WG doesn't have the best track record for resolving issues like this, and since the models are made for these "nothing but guns" paper barges, it will be harder for them to make the needed changes. Sure, they could up the speed to "not laughably bad" and make some other minor tweaks, but the overall idea of these ships I don't think will change. Unfortunately, that idea - "lots of guns at the expense of everything else" - is not likely to be very viable at high tiers. 

At any rate, we may as well raise the many valid objections to this failed ship lineup now since that's the only way to hope for a change. Otherwise, they will serve no purpose in the game save as "noob traps" for people to grind into garbage. 

This is my main problem with it. WG has a TERRIBLE track record on this front, the fact we know stats now means they're close to final, they don't tend to show stats unless they're happy with them and I doubt we're going to be seeing sweeping changes. At best maybe 25 knot speed and a 38 second reload with no armour buffs.

If these things were floating fortresses of guns, covered in IFHE resistant armour but very slow I think people would probably just shrug it off but WG have stated that they're not...they're lightly armoured AND slow which doesn't really bode well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
223
[WAG]
Beta Testers
782 posts
7,223 battles
24 minutes ago, Tigermaus said:

Weak armor + 300+ Dispersion + 1.7 Sigma + Slow AF?

 

Doesn't sound too enticing, TBH.

people keep saying weak armor, but where are you getting this info? the blog post says nothing about armor, only hp pools. if they are anything like the other standards then they would have good armor, and good manuverability, just slow speed. they sigma and reload are what i am iffy about.

 

also whats the "300" referencing?

'

edit found the "relativly light armor" whatever that means. sorry

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
506
[GGWP]
Beta Testers
1,661 posts
8,800 battles
18 minutes ago, GX9900A said:

people keep saying weak armor, but where are you getting this info? the blog post says nothing about armor, only hp pools. if they are anything like the other standards then they would have good armor, and good manuverability, just slow speed. they sigma and reload are what i am iffy about.

 

also whats the "300" referencing?

'

edit found the "relativly light armor" whatever that means. sorry

300+ is referring to the dispersion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,137
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,648 posts
5,000 battles
11 hours ago, Air_0374 said:

They're just a terrible concept in general, there's a reason they weren't considered to be made. That won't change in the game either, they'll just be targets that get the occasional lucky rng roll. 

Not quite accurate.  The Tier VIII, Kansas, was under construction as USS South Dakota (1920) when the Washington Naval Treaty was signed and the class was canceled.  Tier IX and X were never considered as they seem to be Tillman I and a variant of Tillman III wherein Senator Tillman was asking for what the Navy saw as the ultimate goal of its BB program under the auspices of just skipping the incremental improvements and building the final class.  Senator Tillman hated paying for battleships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
144
[SRBL]
Members
487 posts
11,746 battles
17 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

The Tier VIII, Kansas, was under construction as USS South Dakota (1920) when the Washington Naval Treaty was signed and the class was canceled. 

The 1920 South Dakotas were the lead ship, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, Iowa and Massachusetts. 

Edited by Tom_Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,137
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,648 posts
5,000 battles
Just now, Tom_Greg said:

the 1920 South Dakotas were the lead ship, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, Iowa and Massachusetts. 

Yes, I know.  Kansas is the name WG gave to it because those names were used on actual ships that entered service.  Kansas is the 1920 South Dakota class in WoWS.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,230
[PIMPS]
Members
1,496 posts

Funny how WIP ships that are Russian are OP and the American WIP ships are just bleh.  There is clearly bias in testing like there is in live.

 

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[YETI]
[YETI]
Members
542 posts
12,263 battles
14 hours ago, AdmiralQ said:

Seriously WG wth!? what purpose is there to play this ships. they litteraly have no plus to them. poorcaccuracy, super long reload, slow speed, slow rudder, and POOR armor. DO YOU SERIOUSY TEST THESE SHIPS! Or to you just  put random numbers in and say DONE then stick your head in your [edited]. get other people to  make these ships for your current batch clearly can''t do the job

First off they are still being tested and will probably change. Second if you don't like the new ships don't play them. People like you act like WG has a gun to your head forcing you to play every line. If you don't like the line you never have to play them.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
256 posts

No interest whatsoever in this implementation. California is a decided Mehbote as LWM might say, and the three tech tree offerings are lame as a 3-legged hippo, with abysmal speed and shite reload in exchange for what, AA that doesn't do anything? Long-range guns that a Katori can kite away from?

Sorry Lesta, I'll have to pass.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
411 posts
6,117 battles

Well the Soviet ships are all seemingly (1945+)1950s design projects, while the American slow BBs are 1920s ships.  1920s ships designs with the concepts of Amagi, Tosa, and the G3 designs in mind.

Assuming these ships follow American design philosophy, they will be well armored and over gunned, yet slow.  They might not be well armored everywhere, but the vitals will be nearly impregnable by 16" guns at range.  18" guns on the other hand...well, can't have everything.  Though USS Vermont should be able to resist her own shells, at least on the turret face and the main belt, if standard practices are followed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[T-R-F]
Members
596 posts
17,088 battles
4 hours ago, ithekro said:

Well the Soviet ships are all seemingly (1945+)1950s design projects, while the American slow BBs are 1920s ships.  1920s ships designs with the concepts of Amagi, Tosa, and the G3 designs in mind.

Assuming these ships follow American design philosophy, they will be well armored and over gunned, yet slow.  They might not be well armored everywhere, but the vitals will be nearly impregnable by 16" guns at range.  18" guns on the other hand...well, can't have everything.  Though USS Vermont should be able to resist her own shells, at least on the turret face and the main belt, if standard practices are followed.

nope, as is they are slow, horrible turnrate, logn reload, and crap accuracy. they only pluss is AA (which really isn't with the crap rework) and the alpha damage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,809 posts
1,478 battles

I don't think slow speed is going to be an issue in randoms seeing that BBs tend to sit behind DDs and CAs and blase targets. But Crappy AA and poor armor is going to make it bad hopefully it will be tested out before release.

  • Cool 1

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.

×