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

Your single battle results in Kansas are utterly irrelevant

62 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,516 posts
8,937 battles

In case you were thinking about posting it.

Whether it was a 200k damage solo warrior or a 10k battle Devastating strike, anecdotes are worthless..

That's it.

That's the thread. 

  • Cool 12
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
584
[WOLFG]
Members
800 posts
15,785 battles
8 minutes ago, why_u_heff_to_be_mad said:

In case you were thinking about posting it.

Whether it was a 200k damage solo warrior or a 10k battle Devastating strike, anecdotes are worthless..

That's it.

That's the thread. 

How about 3?

shot-20_10.22_13_59.01-0599.thumb.jpg.c3a7249b131f3f660351c1b0c3420c6b.jpgshot-20_10.21_15_28.44-0634.thumb.jpg.2e32368276e463f96e5667237c189639.jpgshot-20_10.20_08_07.26-0185.thumb.jpg.cad9436bedc31bf1f3d29c042f85007c.jpg

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36,638
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
26,251 posts
22,540 battles
5 minutes ago, Colonel_Potter said:

How about 3?

Still statistically very insignificant.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[5D4]
Beta Testers
163 posts
24,352 battles

Kansas is horrible. OMG does this ship suck. You are waaaaayy to slow to move across any T9 or T10 map you get on to be effective in combat and given how much WG likes to put T8 in T10 matches, you will be there most of the time. You guns are horrible. They average worse pen and accuracy than the Colorado. Your armor is horrible and everything goes through you like a knife through butter. Your dispersion is horrible as you can completely miss battleships and carriers sitting still at 8km. This ship is god awful and it is not a good representative of how the South Dakota 1920 ship would have been. 

For one thing the South Dakota 1920 would have had the 16"/50 cal MK 2 guns, not the 16"/45 cal Mk7 guns (which do not even exist as the MK7 was the Iowa's guns. For the US 16" guns the MK2 and the MK7 are the 50 cals and the rest are 45 cal. The Colorados were built with the MK1 and upgraded to the MK 6 in WWII and the NC and SD 1943 had them as well). The reload on these guns is not 40 seconds. The damage on the MK2 guns is far superior to the 45 caliber guns. 

This ship and the Minnesota need to be taken down and reworked. As is no one will play these damn things other than to just level through them and I can't imagine the Vermont will be much better. This ship is crap and it needs to get fixed (lower reload to 35 seconds, improve accuracy, add 50 cal guns or increase it's speed or some combination therewithin) or it needs to go away entirely. This line is a very poor representation of America's naval power. I realize you people already screwed up the OP russian ships, don't screw with out line and we are the main people who play this game.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
354
[LODGE]
Beta Testers
414 posts
17,756 battles

Kansas is so boring to play with its snail pace and incredibly long reload. I just do not understand why there should be or could be any affinity for this ship...

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,662
[SALVO]
Members
3,718 posts
7,569 battles
1 hour ago, why_u_heff_to_be_mad said:

In case you were thinking about posting it.

Whether it was a 200k damage solo warrior or a 10k battle Devastating strike, anecdotes are worthless..

That's it.

That's the thread. 

Agreed.  Though the first weekly rankings are in and the ship is doing ok.  Just over 50WR and about 8k more damage or average then NC. Over 19k games on NA. The stats could be a tad high due to better players focusing on it though since it’s very early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
821 posts
6,303 battles

i rather look at the ship key atributes than other persons performance, for instance:

 

mobility: is it fast enought to reposition when needed or has the agility to dodge incoming damage?

armor profile: is it tanky? specialy against HE that seems so prominent this days?

firepower: does it has superior burst damage or DPM than his peers as well as the ability to deliver it?

this is what i look in a battleship, if it was a brawler i would add its concealment to close the gap but quite sure brawling is not kansas selling point.

 

having that in mind for a BB to be ok it has to be good in at least 2 of those aspects or excelent in one and to be honest Kansas fail in all 3. its super slow so it cant position, is not tanky at all and while 12 barrels sound awesome the combination of bad sigma + long reload + floaty shells are horrible for a sniper ship. 

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,543
[FOXY]
Members
3,354 posts
8,165 battles
22 minutes ago, eviltane said:

Agreed.  Though the first weekly rankings are in and the ship is doing ok.  Just over 50WR and about 8k more damage or average then NC. Over 19k games on NA. The stats could be a tad high due to better players focusing on it though since it’s very early.

I think thats highly likely. The stats are going to normalize in a few weeks/months after the populace gets their hands on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,613
[WKY19]
Beta Testers
2,354 posts
15,488 battles

The Kansas needs a bare minimum of five seconds shaved off its reload to make the guns even remotely fun to use. Ideally I would want to see ten seconds shaved off and the sigma improved a little.

The Kansas has worse AP shells than the Colorado FFS; why its guns are so terrible across the board is a mystery to me.

As it is, the Kansas really doesn't have any redeeming features in my personal opinion. It's too slow and the gunnery sucks and its AA stat is actually lower than the North Carolinas when both are fully upgraded.

It doesn't even have the enhanced heal that the NorCal, Iowa and Montana get.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
357
[TRU]
Members
778 posts
24,413 battles
1 hour ago, Spirit_of_76 said:

what a ironic name

I didn't pay attention at first.  I then scrolled up after reading, and nearly choked on my coffee.   Enjoy a +1.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[ATF]
Members
6 posts
1 hour ago, Zaydin said:

The Kansas needs a bare minimum of five seconds shaved off its reload to make the guns even remotely fun to use. Ideally I would want to see ten seconds shaved off and the sigma improved a little.

The Kansas has worse AP shells than the Colorado FFS; why its guns are so terrible across the board is a mystery to me.

As it is, the Kansas really doesn't have any redeeming features in my personal opinion. It's too slow and the gunnery sucks and its AA stat is actually lower than the North Carolinas when both are fully upgraded.

It doesn't even have the enhanced heal that the NorCal, Iowa and Montana get.

I whole heartily agree, I don't know what the devs were thinking or what they were on this ship handicaps your teammates. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,873
[PQUOD]
[PQUOD]
Members
5,206 posts
20,488 battles

As far as a trend setting achievement. It wouldn’t matter what ship it was. One or three games doesn’t vindicate nor condemn the Kansas.

Me personally, I don’t think it will in its current state be a major force to be reckoned with. It will be played some because it’s new. Kind of have a sneaky feeling it will fade fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
195
[CHBAY]
Beta Testers
618 posts
3,925 battles
5 hours ago, why_u_heff_to_be_mad said:

In case you were thinking about posting it.

Whether it was a 200k damage solo warrior or a 10k battle Devastating strike, anecdotes are worthless..

That's it.

That's the thread. 

Maybe you should read your own name out loud, just saying.

  • Thanks 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,677
[ARGSY]
Members
25,640 posts
19,737 battles

A single contradictory datum refutes a hypothesis.

If you want to argue that the ship is completely and utterly incapable of a decent performance, one outstanding battle refutes that hypothesis.

If you want to argue that she's difficult and inconsistent with a high skill floor, I'm fully on board with that.

I feel like I'm getting to know the guns a bit better, and as that aspect improves I might be willing to downgrade the accusation of inconsistency.

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,603
[FRR]
Members
1,044 posts
17,974 battles
6 hours ago, Zaydin said:

The Kansas needs a bare minimum of five seconds shaved off its reload to make the guns even remotely fun to use. Ideally I would want to see ten seconds shaved off and the sigma improved a little.

The Kansas has worse AP shells than the Colorado FFS; why its guns are so terrible across the board is a mystery to me.

As it is, the Kansas really doesn't have any redeeming features in my personal opinion. It's too slow and the gunnery sucks and its AA stat is actually lower than the North Carolinas when both are fully upgraded.

It doesn't even have the enhanced heal that the NorCal, Iowa and Montana get.

The Kansas is such a pleasure and joy....

to burn and sink.

:cap_haloween:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,284
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
15,736 posts
9 hours ago, why_u_heff_to_be_mad said:

Your single battle results in Kansas are utterly irrelevant

 

nation class tier prem name players total battles average of rates
battles win draw lose exp damage
caused
warship
destroyed
aircraft
destoryed
base
capture
base
defense
survived kill /
death
agro
damage
spot
damage
hit
ratio
US BB 8   Kansas 897 10396 11.59 50.94 0.02 49.04 1557 60188 0.69 4.88 3.49 4.49 39.92 1.15 1137637 15562 25.77

If you look at the overall stats for the ship last week it doesn't seem to be doing as bad as most people are saying.

US BB 8   North Carolina 1248 18529 14.85 46.65 0.01 53.35 1264 51326 0.60 4.54 3.00 3.77 33.78 0.91 1023329 14431 25.75
Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
645
[CMFRT]
Modder
1,084 posts
2,458 battles
9 hours ago, Colonel_Potter said:

How about 3?

 

Nope. If youre looking at a single players stats in any given ship you want roughly 100 battles from that player. Anything less than that and it isnt even worth the discussion.

8 hours ago, eviltane said:

Agreed.  Though the first weekly rankings are in and the ship is doing ok.  Just over 50WR and about 8k more damage or average then NC. Over 19k games on NA. The stats could be a tad high due to better players focusing on it though since it’s very early.

Server stats will take a few weeks to a few months to even out from the point when the ships actually get put into the tech tree (0.9.11). Anything before that youre looking at a relatively low population segment of the server and a similarly low sample size of battles out of the whole. (This is why WG's balancing process takes 6 months, because the server wide stats are in flux for months after a ship is released).

2 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

 

nation class tier prem name players total battles average of rates
battles win draw lose exp damage
caused
warship
destroyed
aircraft
destoryed
base
capture
base
defense
survived kill /
death
agro
damage
spot
damage
hit
ratio
US BB 8   Kansas 897 10396 11.59 50.94 0.02 49.04 1557 60188 0.69 4.88 3.49 4.49 39.92 1.15 1137637 15562 25.77

Right now, less than a week after the ship became available for early access, these numbers are actually irrelevant. Only the most dedicated players will have the ship, and most of those are likely to be above average. Those stats are literally an average of ~12 battles per player (and less than 1000 players, which is like 5% of the server or something. Thats nothing in terms of statistical analysis. Come back a month or two after 0.9.11 goes live, lets have this discussion then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
296
[-TNT-]
Members
448 posts
16,316 battles

I'm not liking it one bit .. Hit a CL tier 6 10k away broadside ,,did 12k no delete than he put 2 more fires on me ..than 2 more fires and sailed away .. I hit a Bayern with AP 7 k off broadside and did 3k ... yea 3 k 9 hit's HOW ???? . So all I can do is spam fire 20k out that way , no CL catches me on fire ,over and over and over ............. Kansas need a rethink and buffs because just like the STATE it SUCKS ...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
880
[--V--]
Members
1,585 posts
14,625 battles
16 hours ago, Colonel_Potter said:

How about 3?

shot-20_10.22_13_59.01-0599.thumb.jpg.c3a7249b131f3f660351c1b0c3420c6b.jpgshot-20_10.21_15_28.44-0634.thumb.jpg.2e32368276e463f96e5667237c189639.jpgshot-20_10.20_08_07.26-0185.thumb.jpg.cad9436bedc31bf1f3d29c042f85007c.jpg

Show us these victories in comparison to all other matches.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,481
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
32,203 posts
26,997 battles

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, even 10 battles cherry picked for results is insignificant.  The truth comes out when lots of games are played.  It's easy to go on good and bad streaks, and if there isn't many battles to account for it all as an average, the numbers can get misleading.

 

You can check personal performance with a ship compared to others of the type if you want.  Also, what's more truthful about a ship's performance to a player?

One that's been played 5, 10, 15 times?

Or one that's been played, 30, 50, 70+ games?

 

But it's more telling what thousands and thousands of players are typically doing over tens of thousands of battles compared to other ships.  Players coming from different skill levels, from the "I just started this week" newbies to the Purple Unicums.  The truth comes out more when a ship has been used more extensively than others.  You can't trust the stats of some extremely rare ship that hardly anybody plays compared to a truly tested ship like Yamato, Cleveland, North Carolina, Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Tirpitz, etc.

 

Server stats also for new ships tend to be inflated.  Over time it is going to go down some.  Some will have a drastic drop, some it won't be too far.  But a drop will happen eventually.  That said, if a new ship's stats aren't really high when few players have her, that should be a warning sign.  It should be very easy for those numbers to be inflated.

 

You also have to be careful comparing Tech Tree Ship stats to a Premium Ship.  Remember that players with a Tech Tree Ship still have to do module research, purchase that module, i.e. "the Stock Grind."  They may also be doing Captain Retraining still since not everybody has the luxury to just dump a bunch of Doubloons for instant Retraining to a new Tech Tree Ship.  A Premium Ship is already fully ready to go in modules, and another massive advantage is being able to freely swap in a captain from whatever other ship in that nation.

Example:

Premium Pommern is going to have better stats than FDG.  A bunch of FDG players got captain retraining and Stock Grinds to do.  Pommern?  Just take your best German BB captain from anywhere else and you're ready to go.

 

When these "Early Release" Tech Tree Ships come out, they have Premium Ship-like advantages:  You can instantly choose the upgraded modules and you can swap in a captain from elsewhere with zero problems, zero extra cost, zero wasted time.  Compare that to when the Early Release event ends, then the ships go to normal Tech Tree status.  You now got stock grinding, captain retraining, etc. to do.  This has a big effect on stats.  Not everyone has oodles of FreeXP to fully research a new ship before going on its first battle.  Not everyone has Doubloons to instantly retrain the captain before that first engagement with the new ship.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×