Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Raven2303

American BBs made even worse

71 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

224
[RANGR]
Members
365 posts
4,232 battles

VIII KANSAS

  • AP shells' parameters were changed:
    • Maximum damage reduced from 12,400 to 11,800.
    • Ballistics were changed: now AP shells will lose speed a bit faster and their flight trajectory became slightly more arcing. 

 IX MINNESOTA

  • AP shells' parameters were changed:
    • Maximum damage reduced from 13,500 to 12,800
    • Ballistics were changed: now AP shells will lose speed a bit faster and their flight trajectory became slightly more arcing.

V OKLAHOMA

  • Main battery reload time increased from 34 to 40 s.


    Uh..... What? I'm totally confuzzeled by this.......
  • Cool 2
  • Haha 4
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
10,739 posts
18,462 battles
Edited by Sovereigndawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,836
[SIDE]
Members
4,939 posts

Nobody really takes the new US BB line seriously anymore, least of all WG. Pushing those turds out like a morning constitutional without much thought just so they can stink and sink. Sad, especially considering this is the NA server...

Most of us , it seems, wrote them off shortly after they were released as concepts. Pure garbage from bow to stern. Having to look hard for positive qualities in a BATTLESHIP is patently STUPID and INEXCUSABLE. 

Anyway, art department aside, truely epic fail by WG. Probably something we laugh about, in a bad way.

Probably understating things...

Edited by thebigblue
  • Cool 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,021
[APEZ]
Members
2,516 posts
8,937 battles

Well

Even if the numbers in terms of win rate, damage, etc has these ships being acceptable.  I find very long reloads a deeply unfun style of play.

At some point I was feeling nostalgic about New Mexico  and rebought and outfitted it, I got into battle and as soon as I saw that reload ... I sold it after the battle. Oops.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,836
[SIDE]
Members
4,939 posts
8 minutes ago, why_u_heff_to_be_mad said:

Well

Even if the numbers in terms of win rate, damage, etc has these ships being acceptable.  I find very long reloads a deeply unfun style of play.

At some point I was feeling nostalgic about New Mexico  and rebought and outfitted it, I got into battle and as soon as I saw that reload ... I sold it after the battle. Oops.

One of the reasons I don't play Arizona much, sold Texas, only occasionally take out WV, and kept none of the US tech tree standards. Could also mention speed and horrible uptiering but...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,506
[WOLF7]
Members
12,604 posts

Never liked US BB's to begin with, why would WG put out even worse ones?

No idea what the average game time is now, but how is a slow reload, slow ship supposed to engage before the game is over?:Smile-_tongue:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,723
Members
1,820 posts
27,161 battles

They're testing to see just how doofus the whales of this game really are. Previous tests were:

  • DD that could only torp BBs / CVs.
  • DD without smoke.
  • DD without torps!

I think they're probably formulating a ship with NO armaments whatsoever but with a low detection, then will sell it for ~$100 as a spotter-only craft. And some whales will buy it rather than sending that money to a charity.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
215
[MUDDX]
Banned
429 posts
1,082 battles

@Raven2303 These ships aren't even in the game yet. We won't even know what the final stats will be. So what is all the fuss about? I look at new ships tech tree or premium this way. If I don't like what I see in their stats I don't bother with them. For Tech Tree ships I'll only do the research needed to get to better ships up the line to complete the line to tier 10 them sell them off. If they are premiums I won't buy them and if I get them in crate I will rarely use them even in co op. 

As for premiums though regardless of how I get one I do not sell them. That prevents getting it again in a crate instead of getting one I don't have yet.

 

  • Boring 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
479
[FOXY]
Members
1,211 posts
5,765 battles
1 minute ago, Mudd_H_F__XX said:

@Raven2303 These ships aren't even in the game yet. We won't even know what the final stats will be. So what is all the fuss about? I look at new ships tech tree or premium this way. If I don't like what I see in their stats I don't bother with them. For Tech Tree ships I'll only do the research needed to get to better ships up the line to complete the line to tier 10 them sell them off. If they are premiums I won't buy them and if I get them in crate I will rarely use them even in co op. 

As for premiums though regardless of how I get one I do not sell them. That prevents getting it again in a crate instead of getting one I don't have yet. 

 

Testing is the time for feed back no?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,413
[RLGN]
Members
15,170 posts
26,804 battles
40 minutes ago, why_u_heff_to_be_mad said:

At some point I was feeling nostalgic about New Mexico  and rebought and outfitted it, I got into battle and as soon as I saw that reload ... I sold it after the battle. Oops.

Still have my original New Mexico, still play it. My first 19 point battleship driver was, and still is, assigned to it.

New Mexico was the sawed-off shotgun (maneuverable and easy to conceal) I was happy to get after giving up Wyoming for New York. (Though see below.)

30 minutes ago, thebigblue said:

One of the reasons I don't play Arizona much, sold Texas, only occasionally take out WV, and kept none of the US tech tree standards. Could also mention speed and horrible uptiering but...

Used to hate New York.... Used it to bully GCs in that long ago last T5 Ranked... Wonderful thing, experience.

29 minutes ago, awiggin said:

Never liked US BB's to begin with, why would WG put out even worse ones?

No idea what the average game time is now, but how is a slow reload, slow ship supposed to engage before the game is over?:Smile-_tongue:

Colorado is my highest wr battleship.

All that being said; some of the info on the new battleships is seriously???

Maybe Oklahoma’s special ability will be tangling you in tow lines and trying to drag you under when you sink her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
712
[NUWES]
Members
3,292 posts
11,868 battles
18 minutes ago, Princess_Daystar said:

Testing is the time for feed back no?

It is, but our feed back is really not based on anything other than opinions of people who haven't played them and can only look at limited stats on paper.  They will ignore it. We aren't even privy to the test results of those who have. Basically all the feedback we can add is "their playstyle looks boring," and that's just really a matter of personal opinion.

For the record, I'm part of the crew that things that those things look very un-fun to play, and I actually enjoy the USN standard BBs and do reasonably well in them. I just don't think that playstyle will work well at high tiers on big maps. My opinion isn't going to sway them against their test data though not is anyone else's. We're largely blowing hot air until they start the early access event and we can get ahold of some of them to actually play and back up our opinions with actual data that matters. 

I'm not saying people shouldn't discuss them and give opinions, but people need to avoid getting worked up when wargaming treats our opinions as opinions.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
712
[NUWES]
Members
3,292 posts
11,868 battles
13 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

 

Colorado is my highest wr battleship.

 

It's one of mine too. lol. I don't love playing in it but I seem to do fairly well with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,497
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
8,427 posts
12,353 battles

i didnt think it was possible to feel this much sorrow for a pixelated battleship, but poor Kansas, they keep on kicking it even though it basically dead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,046
[BNKR]
Members
1,653 posts
2,811 battles
10 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

i didnt think it was possible to feel this much sorrow for a pixelated battleship, but poor Kansas, they keep on kicking it even though it basically dead

There will be a last minute name change to USS Free XP Sink. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
325
[SNGNS]
Members
588 posts
6,853 battles

kansas is the poor one out, it does not get the armour improvements that the other two get.

i am middlingly excited for them though. they will be supremely tanky and their high torpedo bulges mean they may have a kind of black hole as armour (this part is pure speculation though) also pretty accurate and extremely hard hitting.

of course the speed is always a bummer, but i can deal with yamatos 27 knots so i can deal with vermonts 23 (with speed flag about 25 i think).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
215
[MUDDX]
Banned
429 posts
1,082 battles
52 minutes ago, Princess_Daystar said:

Testing is the time for feed back no?

Of course it is and there is a Feedback sub forum for testing where those who can do something about such ridiculous specifications. 

Here though it is nothing more than an alarmist gripe about WIP specifications that will likely change when the ships are added. Hopefully foe the better. But if they stay as reported here or are worsened then these ships as premiums most certainly will be garbage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
479
[FOXY]
Members
1,211 posts
5,765 battles
Just now, Mudd_H_F__XX said:

Of course it is and there is a Feedback sub forum for testing where those who can do something about such ridiculous specifications. 

Here though it is nothing more than an alarmist gripe about WIP specifications that will likely change when the ships are added. Hopefully foe the better. But if they stay as reported here or are worsened then these ships as premiums most certainly will be garbage. 

Aw. That is fair i suppose.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
325
[SNGNS]
Members
588 posts
6,853 battles
1 hour ago, theLaalaa said:

They're testing to see just how doofus the whales of this game really are. Previous tests were:

  • DD that could only torp BBs / CVs.
  • DD without smoke.
  • DD without torps!

I think they're probably formulating a ship with NO armaments whatsoever but with a low detection, then will sell it for ~$100 as a spotter-only craft. And some whales will buy it rather than sending that money to a charity.

you do know that 2 out of the 3 your named are either still used in high league competitive (seen quite a few klebers in kots) or very popular in random (halland and the swedish) and friesland is peculiar but nothing i would scream about. it is rather fun...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
318
[CAAT]
Members
563 posts
4,426 battles
2 hours ago, Raven2303 said:

V OKLAHOMA

  • Main battery reload time increased from 34 to 40 s.

See, this one out of the three, just makes absolutely ZERO sense to me. There is just nothing in the stats currently that demands such a massive reload nerf, nothing. Not main gun caliber, number of main guns, secondaries, AA, armor buffs, NOTHING. MAYBE her sigma is insane, and even then I still don't think it's worth a 6s reload increase.

 

2 hours ago, Sovereigndawg said:

 

image.thumb.png.702d3498d97fe9fc87f1457926a4e63b.png

Ooof, they got what is supposed to be Missouri's gun arrangement BACKWARDS!!! lols!!! The Bismarck one actually looks nice though!

Edited by SaiIor_Moon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,497
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
8,427 posts
12,353 battles

at this point i think Kansas and Oklahoma are an experiment to see how bad WG can make a ship, but still have at least one person willing to take them out for anything other than a Snowflake type event

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,281 posts
26,944 battles
2 hours ago, Raven2303 said:

VIII KANSAS

  • AP shells' parameters were changed:
    • Maximum damage reduced from 12,400 to 11,800.
    • Ballistics were changed: now AP shells will lose speed a bit faster and their flight trajectory became slightly more arcing. 

 IX MINNESOTA

  • AP shells' parameters were changed:
    • Maximum damage reduced from 13,500 to 12,800
    • Ballistics were changed: now AP shells will lose speed a bit faster and their flight trajectory became slightly more arcing.

V OKLAHOMA

  • Main battery reload time increased from 34 to 40 s.


    Uh..... What? I'm totally confuzzeled by this.......

If what you say is the truth then just don't purchase them. Problem solved .  They are only good as target ships ....................

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,076
[PVE]
Members
7,284 posts
23,174 battles
1 hour ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

See, this one out of the three, just makes absolutely ZERO sense to me. There is just nothing in the stats currently that demands such a massive reload nerf, nothing. Not main gun caliber, number of main guns, secondaries, AA, armor buffs, NOTHING. MAYBE her sigma is insane, and even then I still don't think it's worth a 6s reload increase.

Unless you are going off of performance stats (which due to NDA I'm guessing you don't have access to) you're not looking at the relevant stats.

Still WIP & it seems to me lately that WG is trying to make ships underpowered in testing so they can see how well testers can find "exploits" in them (something some testers are VERY good at) while preventing all the testers from rolfstomping the teams they end up playing against.

Apparently some testers have managed to do that so they have nerfed them to see whether the "exploits" are just a fluke of good testers or if the ships were actually overpowered as they were.

Nothing is finalized & those stats you are working off of are still subject to more changes.

Edited by IfYouSeeKhaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×