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

ST 0.9.10, changes to test ships.

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,374
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
8,280 posts
12,149 battles

not like the secondaries of the Italian BBs were going to be able to do anything anyway with the poor range they had

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,730
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,750 posts
15,279 battles

I think Mysore probably needed help - being Perth but gaining a gun in exchange for losing torpedoes and spotter plane, so repair is pretty reasonable.

I don't like just flat out making up gun ballistics to suit, when Mysore had exactly the same guns as Leander, Perth, Fiji, Edinburgh and Belfast etc.

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,864
[O_O]
[O_O]
Members
5,066 posts
22,585 battles
5 minutes ago, mofton said:

I think Mysore probably needed help - being Perth but gaining a gun in exchange for losing torpedoes and spotter plane, so repair is pretty reasonable.

I don't like just flat out making up gun ballistics to suit, when Mysore had exactly the same guns as Leander, Perth, Fiji, Edinburgh and Belfast etc.

Agree! WG could have kept the guns the same and maybe not nerfed the ROF as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
573
[GRAVE]
Members
1,358 posts
19,469 battles

Mysore: I didn’t think she needed changes, but the heal with better AP is nice, even if it means losing a fair bit of DPM. Also, why the AP buff, because British short fuse AP with Soviet level pen feels nasty

ITL BBs: with short range, they wouldn’t of done anything, but the reasoning presented as to why is pure lol.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
624
[UN1]
Members
1,280 posts
3,934 battles
On 10/22/2020 at 12:43 PM, Hapa_Fodder said:

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/91

Please leave your feedback below.

Mahalo,

-Hapa

@Hapa, please please please take this feedback back to the developers.  I do a lot of secondary work and the vision that the developers have regarding Italian secondaries in their current form, even prior to this nerf, will not land in practice.  

  • I parse a lot, and my data does not align with the reasoning behind the accuracy nerf of the Italian battleships.  If anything, ships like the Massachusetts and Georgia which have improved accuracy tend to parse better fire dpm due to better consistency of fewer fires than the chance to get multiple going at once.
  • If Italian battleships are to have functional secondaries, it has to be an all-or-nothing approach; either do it right, or don't do it at all.  Anything less simply becomes an inefficient waste as you suddenly have parts of a ship that are considered in the overall "balance factor", but aren't usable to the player.  Many German warships have this inefficiency.
    • Range - The proper maximum secondary range for each tier can be found through the equation (Tier+10)*(0.55 through 0.60).  Too little range and you create two issues:  1) Forces players to operate way too closely to the enemy, drawing a disproportionate amount of fire in return, and 2) Players wrecklessly charge the enemy in an attempt to use their secondaries, simply dying in the process.  This may seem like the same issue, but it's two separate issues.  Example ships that have a capable secondary battery, but aren't very usable due to insufficient range are Gneisenau, Agir, Scharnhorst, Montana, Puerto Rico, Kii, and Amagi just to name a few.  
    • Penetration - This is very important because battleships are the primary target of their focus, but secondaries either must have either 32mm penetration capability with its 6" batteries, or have improved accuracy like American premiums do so that their lower penetration focuses parts of the ship that can be damaged.  When the IFHE rework happened, the developers changed the equation from +30% to +25%, which rendered French and now-currently-in-development Italian battleships incapable of 32mm penetration from its 152mm guns.  This one change to IFHE reduced the effectiveness of French battleship secondary performance by 30-40% when targeting other battleships, or in the case of Alsace nearly gutted its performance by half.  When combined with their reduced mount survivability, French battleships are no longer worth the fixed captain skill investment cost to run secondary builds.
    • Penetration Part 2 - The base penetration of a unified secondary battery, or for the lower caliber guns of a dual caliber setup, must be equal to the armor value of the battleship's superstructure.  
      • The Massachusetts is a T8 ship with a 19mm superstructure, and its base pen is 20mm.  This is good.
      • The Gascogne is a T8 ship with a 19mm superstructure, and its base pen on its 100mm guns is 17mm.  This is NOT good.
      • The Bismarck/Tirpitz used to be in the category of the Gascogne, and remember, you guys buffed it for good reason.
    • Fire Damage - Fire damage accounts for roughly half the overall damage output in a full, extensive parse.
      • Designing a secondary battery solely around its fire damage capability does not work.  Period.  The reason why is because it's just half the equation, and for 14-18pts, that's not worthwhile.
      • Unlike penetration damage whose both average and maximum potential changes with captain skill and modules, only the average is affected for fire, never the maximum.  This is because the maximum fire damage is a function of a ship's HP, and that's it.  The maximum cannot be increased under any circumstances.  
    • Mount Firing Angles - You can't design ships whose secondary batteries can only come to full bare when flat broadside to your target, like the Bismarck.  American battleships along with German H-Class battleships are great brawlers because of their excellent firing angles.  This is a constructive, but also a stern criticism of the developers here as the Bismarck is a nearly 5-year-old ship, and there's STILL a massive bug with the two rear 105mm turrets not firing over top of the 150mm mount below it.  This bug should have never made it out of development.
    • Mount Survivability - Not huge, but still important, but secondary mounts can't be dying off so fast they become quickly unusable.  

Bottom line is, if the developers are thinking of giving Italian battleships good secondaries, they either need to do it properly, or not do it at all.  If done incorrectly, then the developers and WG staff will think, "But these ships have better secondaries than other branches," when in reality they're not really usable at all, and are just a waste in the overall balancing equation of each ship.  

I hope this feedback is helpful.  I am happy to share all of my parse findings, but I'm sure the devs can easily generate that data, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
705
[UFFA]
Members
2,116 posts
75 battles

The biggest issue is the headache Lesta created for themselves. Most balance and line rules are based off high tiers and here we see both Lepanto and Colombo given probably the most ludicrous secondary arrangement possible.

The giant red flags.

  • Additional 152/55 batteries. In an era were the dual purpose battery rules Lesta adds more 152/55 batteries. The outfit of the Littorio class was already overkill for anti-destroyer functions.
  • The 90/50 does not mechanically work both due to Lesta's very conservative interpretations of abilities and game mechanics. Once again there was a better option. Even the Littorio class was built to have these eventually replaced.

Stolen from Phoenix.

oWPEzlY.jpg&key=21e087c304d7ddda27c0876d

 

And despite Lesta's best efforts to obfuscate it is not like they are completely blind to the direction Italian AA was heading. The incomplete refit of Cavour could at least lead them in a general direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,374
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
8,280 posts
12,149 battles
3 hours ago, Sparviero said:

The biggest issue is the headache Lesta created for themselves. Most balance and line rules are based off high tiers and here we see both Lepanto and Colombo given probably the most ludicrous secondary arrangement possible.

The giant red flags.

  • Additional 152/55 batteries. In an era were the dual purpose battery rules Lesta adds more 152/55 batteries. The outfit of the Littorio class was already overkill for anti-destroyer functions.
  • The 90/50 does not mechanically work both due to Lesta's very conservative interpretations of abilities and game mechanics. Once again there was a better option. Even the Littorio class was built to have these eventually replaced.

Stolen from Phoenix.

oWPEzlY.jpg&key=21e087c304d7ddda27c0876d

 

And despite Lesta's best efforts to obfuscate it is not like they are completely blind to the direction Italian AA was heading. The incomplete refit of Cavour could at least lead them in a general direction.

WG couldnt be bothered to give the Italians a T3, couldnt be bothered to do an actual model of Vittorio and instead gave us a THIRD Roma hull clone, and couldnt be bothered to actually do research for the T9 and 10 designs, what makes you think theyll be bothered to do anything remotely accurate to how the ships were IRL? if this is how WG decides to do the Italian tree, then i dread to see what they do to the DD line

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
705
[UFFA]
Members
2,116 posts
75 battles
52 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

then i dread to see what they do to the DD line

Paolo Emilio was given a 6 km range Type 93 (~24k damage) Japanese torpedo outfit instead of Italian (~14k damage) and no one blinked an eye.

So to your point. Who knows...keep the grappa close. :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
601
[MR-1]
[MR-1]
Members
1,427 posts
20,344 battles

seconderies on italian ships have a small range  so why  nerf it even more  

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.

×