Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Willy55_1955

WG takes a hammer to Venezia

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

248
[ONAVY]
[ONAVY]
Members
616 posts
14,853 battles

WG said on June 30th:

  • "Individual balance of ships — among which Hakuryū and Venezia stand out the most because of their excessive effectiveness in all types of battles."

WG said on June 25th:X VENEZIA:

  • "The angle at which the check for ricochets is made for her SAP shells decreased from 75 to 70 degrees.
  • Main battery guns reload time increased from 20 to 20.5 s;
  • Rudder shift time increased from 11.6 to 12.6 s."

And now WG said on July 13th:X VENEZIA:

  • "Main battery guns reload time increased from 20.5 to 21 s;
  • Rudder shift time increased from 12.6 to 13.6 s."

SO, WG answer to the overwhelming OP of the Venezia in Clan Battles is:

Ignore player feedback to limit how many of 1 ship can be on a team:

  • "One of the most popular suggestions which we received recently is introducing limits on classes or ship types to reduce the number of identical ships in lineups, or using limits on classes to return destroyers to Clan Battles. We considered this option but see it as an artificial limitation that will not solve the problem"

Over two full patch cycles (0.9.6/0.9.7) nerf the reload speed a total of ONE second and TWO seconds rudder shift time.

SO, instead of meaningful nerfs, you can look forward to 6 Venezia's shooting at you every 21 seconds instead of every 20 seconds!

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
401
[STURM]
Members
686 posts
5,549 battles

So, you want them to give her the YueYang, Kleber and Henri treatment of smashing their gameplay in the head with a hammer? 

Personally, I would rather have them constantly giving her minor nerfs until she reaches a more balanced level instead of a nuclear nerf strike from orbit. Hopefully, by the time the next CBs roll around, she will be more of an option instead of a "must-have."

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,157
[SIDE]
Members
4,109 posts

I'd rather they limit it to 1 of each ship with all ships having balanced yet distinct strengths and weaknesses.

Edited by thebigblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
235
[SPTR]
Members
3,765 posts
764 battles
3 minutes ago, thebigblue said:

I'd rather they limit it to 1 of each ship with all ships having balanced yet distinct strengths and weaknesses.

And then CVs get brought in more frequently and you'd hear more complaints on them than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22
[R-F1]
Members
28 posts
7,522 battles
1 minute ago, 6Xero9 said:

And then CVs get brought in more frequently and you'd hear more complaints on them than anything else.

The CV was the biggest problem with the last clan battles IMO. all the venezias were really just a response to CVs being able to delete anything that tries to get close and permaspot everything so why would you need radar.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,157
[SIDE]
Members
4,109 posts
19 minutes ago, 6Xero9 said:

And then CVs get brought in more frequently and you'd hear more complaints on them than anything else.

Perhaps. Seems like a broad assumption. What does it have to do with ven?

Edited by thebigblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,795
[SALVO]
Members
24,224 posts
24,554 battles
2 hours ago, Willy55_1955 said:

WG said on June 30th:

  • "Individual balance of ships — among which Hakuryū and Venezia stand out the most because of their excessive effectiveness in all types of battles."

WG said on June 25th:X VENEZIA:

  • "The angle at which the check for ricochets is made for her SAP shells decreased from 75 to 70 degrees.
  • Main battery guns reload time increased from 20 to 20.5 s;
  • Rudder shift time increased from 11.6 to 12.6 s."

And now WG said on July 13th:X VENEZIA:

  • "Main battery guns reload time increased from 20.5 to 21 s;
  • Rudder shift time increased from 12.6 to 13.6 s."

SO, WG answer to the overwhelming OP of the Venezia in Clan Battles is:

Ignore player feedback to limit how many of 1 ship can be on a team:

  • "One of the most popular suggestions which we received recently is introducing limits on classes or ship types to reduce the number of identical ships in lineups, or using limits on classes to return destroyers to Clan Battles. We considered this option but see it as an artificial limitation that will not solve the problem"

Over two full patch cycles (0.9.6/0.9.7) nerf the reload speed a total of ONE second and TWO seconds rudder shift time.

SO, instead of meaningful nerfs, you can look forward to 6 Venezia's shooting at you every 21 seconds instead of every 20 seconds!

This seems rather dumb, because aren't all limits inherently "artificial" in a game?  Only 1 BB or CV per 7 ship CB team?  Artificial.

 

As for the small reload nerf, not all that long ago, WG used to do larger nerfs and the players complained long and loud about how large those nerf hammers were.  So, now WG has switched to doing smaller, more incremental nerfs, and players, such as yourself, are complaining that the nerfs aren't meaningful enough.   WG can't win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,795
[SALVO]
Members
24,224 posts
24,554 battles
1 hour ago, Muninn77 said:

So, you want them to give her the YueYang, Kleber and Henri treatment of smashing their gameplay in the head with a hammer? 

Personally, I would rather have them constantly giving her minor nerfs until she reaches a more balanced level instead of a nuclear nerf strike from orbit. Hopefully, by the time the next CBs roll around, she will be more of an option instead of a "must-have."

This is probably going off on a tangent, but what the heck...

Regarding the YY, I think that they went overboard.  Somehow, the YY's radar made it OP, so their solution was to nerf her weapons?  :Smile_facepalm:

Regarding the Kleber, I didn't mind the concept of a nerf to her.  But I didn't like the form the nerf took, because it turned an interesting ambush DD into a French Khab.  I'd have rather seen the Kleber's nerf be more in the form of a reduction in max speed.  

As for the Henri, my memory of its nerf is a bit vague.   I remember that they nerfed her acceleration, and that really hit the HIV's ability to dodge incoming fire while sitting still by using her speed boost and good acceleration.  Personally, if that's all it was, I don't mind that nerf.  I always found that HIV ability to be incredibly obnoxious.  Ships should be able to dodge incoming fire in this way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200
[R-R-R]
Members
1,053 posts
10,001 battles

I really don't think it is all due to CB for Yueyang, Henri and Venezia to get nerfed hard.

All 3 ships were having very high average stats in random as well before the nerf. However, I do think the nerfs on all three ships are a bit too harsh.

Edit: I forgot about Kleber.

This ship deserves the nerf except the air concealment. I was having ridiculously high WR in both random and ranked in this ship. There was a nasty 3-5 Kleber meta in CB as well. So I am happy she got nerfed.

Her air concealment shouldn't be nerfed though as she already struggles against CVs. Luckily they might tune down all DD air concealment by half soon.

Edited by Exciton8964

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
195 posts
5 battles
3 hours ago, Willy55_1955 said:

Over two full patch cycles (0.9.6/0.9.7) nerf the reload speed a total of ONE second and TWO seconds rudder shift time.

SO, instead of meaningful nerfs, you can look forward to 6 Venezia's shooting at you every 21 seconds instead of every 20 seconds!

You know they haven't finished yet right?  They have a new system for buffs and nerfs - they look at the data they have, decide on the type and size of the changes needed, and then break it up into gradual amounts for each patch.

So maybe they decided they wanted to nerf the Venezia by normalising the SAP angle with the rest of the line, adding 2 secs on to the reload for a 22s reload, and increasing the rudder shift by 3s to make her less maneuverable. Then they break it up into patches:

  • Patch 1: SAP angle change, +0.5s reload, +1s rudder shift
  • Patch 2: +0.5s reload, +1s rudder shift
  • Patch 3: +0.5s reload, +1s rudder shift
  • Patch 4: +0.5s reload

At which point their planned changes would be done. However, with this system, they are constantly assessing the data they get over this nerf cycle, and they may see that the changes aren't having sufficient impact, so they may decide to either increase some of the numbers by perhaps nerfing the reload by an extra second, or they may decide it needs a different nerf to address a specific concern their data may show them over this time. Conversely they may see from their data as they go through this process that the nerfs will actually be too excessive, and they may decide to remove a +1s rudder shift and +0.5s reload for example.

 

3 hours ago, Willy55_1955 said:

Ignore player feedback to limit how many of 1 ship can be on a team:

  • "One of the most popular suggestions which we received recently is introducing limits on classes or ship types to reduce the number of identical ships in lineups, or using limits on classes to return destroyers to Clan Battles. We considered this option but see it as an artificial limitation that will not solve the problem"

Now I personally would be quite happy if WG introduced, say, a limit of 2 per team of any one individual ship.  However, don't be confused into thinking that popular equals good.  Lots of things that are popular are absolutely awful, and often in this game popular ideas are only popular because they are simple, and often those simple ideas have not been fully thought through.  There are generally good reasons why WG does something, and even if you don't agree with those reasons, many people don't have the analytical capacity necessary to work out their line of reasoning to be able to properly disagree with them.  We see this time and again with players complaining about concepts they clearly do not understand.

I certainly can appreciate that WG would rather just rebalance overpowered ships, rather then leave them overpowered and set an artificial limit on how many of them can be in a battle.  They will (and have) set limits if they need to, but clearly this is if other balancing measures have failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
213 posts
5,433 battles

Only problem is the venz isn't a good close up weapon. Now it's even worse close up. So you end up with a kiting venzia as the last ship in the battle at the edge of the map. Sometimes that's not bad but in a mode like epicenter it can make it worthless. I have the venz I like it I just don't really like playing tier 10 that often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
703
[UFFA]
Beta Testers
3,759 posts
4,725 battles

May we please call the grand experiment over? Move Venezia to premium with a 3 x 3 254/55 battery that makes sense. Move Amalfi and Brindisi up in tiers and bring in a super Zara for tier VIII.   :Smile-_tongue:

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.

×