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

Who rates these ships?

9 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,765
[KWF]
Members
5,283 posts
6,659 battles

The ratings exist purely to disorient you. My favourite example is how Clemson's gun upgrade adds +1 to artillery rating, yet in actuality doubles the amount of guns it carries.

Seriously,  just disregard ratings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,731
[ARS]
Beta Testers
5,331 posts
5,828 battles
1 hour ago, Admiral_Hippo said:

Given a duke of york 4 a try. Checked gun ratings and it was lower than scharnhorst. WHAT????

For the record, Duke of York's guns are much better than Scharnhorst's.  Not only are they 3" larger with all the advantages that brings, they are also one of the only two BB caliber guns in the game to get improved autobounce angles.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,095
[GWG]
Members
7,304 posts
14,090 battles
1 hour ago, Admiral_Hippo said:

Given a duke of york 4 a try. Checked gun ratings and it was lower than scharnhorst. WHAT????

You can triple Citadel broadside cruisers with HE.  -- erase them with one salvo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
356
[GRETA]
[GRETA]
Members
602 posts
18,678 battles

Artillery rating factors in range, reload, alpha, fire chance, gun traverse, raw penetration for each gun. It does not account for the number of barrels, sigma, and shell speed.

Clemson's gun upgrade doubles the gun barrels but the stats for each gun is relatively unchanged.

Other ships that follow these rules are:

  • Mogami's155mm has a lower rating than the 203mm, even though 155mm is the superior choice in every way.
  • Bogatyr's 130mm guns have a lower rating than 152mm, even though 130mm has much higher shell speed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,300
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,199 posts
12,101 battles

It's the same as AA rating - some of these 'super AA rating' ships perform like garbage, while pathetic ones absolutely obliterate planes. The number of times I see 'I have a 70 AA rating why am I dying to planes?!?!?!?!' cause the ratings mean jack all in practice as opposed to theory (which anymore Wargaming seems to only balance on theory, not practice). 

Take a plane group of 9 planes at about 160 knots and 1800 HP (roughly the average tier 8 TB/DB speed/HP if I remember correctly off the top of my head) - that's 16200 HP to chew through. Say you have 100 DPS at 5 km, and another 400 at 2.5 km (if memory serves again roughly the AA of Yamato and the ranges). Generally, to work with the game compression you need to multiply speed in knots by 2.6854, and then range in km divided by that and times 1000 (if you cant just move the decimals in your head) gets you travel time. In this case - Yamato vs those planes is 11.6 seconds fired on by long range, and 5.8 by the short range guns on the inbound attack. Even rounding up to 12 and 6 - your basically lucky to nail 2 planes on the initial attack with no flak hits and that's before we account for unnecessary oddities that Wargaming has added in to those factors. Give Montana the same DPS, but broken out to 120 at 5 km, 180 at 3.5 km, and 200 at 2 km (I know this is way low, but it's an example) - reduce how far 200 of that DPS starts, but increase the other 200 - and get a net gain of 280 DPS vs the same planes with the same math.

The AA rework was all based around flak - which didn't work, and has moved away from that but never properly been shifted from that in AA ratings and frankly in terms of DPS balance so that ships like Atlanta, meant to be an AA specialist, is actually an AA specialist. You want to know how good a ships AA is - you need a calculator and understanding how it works, or ask around how good it is. Same goes for the main battery of ships and all the rest - the ratings are all based on theory, the reality is often disappointing and there are maybe a dozen instances where the 'rating' may be close to right, one or two of those applying to Yamato and even then, those may be in question these days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,281
[CVA16]
Members
5,916 posts
18,183 battles
2 hours ago, AbyssAngkor said:

Mogami's155mm has a lower rating than the 203mm, even though 155mm is the superior choice in every way.

I have seen this debated. One factor is you pretty much need those 4 skill points in IFHE to make the 155's shine.

To the OPs topic. I think Concealment is the only rating that is pretty solid. Not quite as intuitive as it would be if they just gave the concealment value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×