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

A Look At Greased Gears

49 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

313
[VOP]
Members
939 posts

I decided to look at the traverse speeds because my older BBs felt a little off. I made a series of charts comparing the original turret traverse time to the time after the skill is applied and compared it to expert marksman. I kept the time scale from 20-70 seconds for consistency .

image.thumb.png.c2c591b78aed87b34305f4d3ce98b42c.png

image.thumb.png.cc8a834bd39f1d4b6e958d7909740ba0.png

image.thumb.png.cdfc739b5f8a70eb1b1454538ffd68fd.png

image.thumb.png.d590027624af2dc2ce2f8cc5a997997c.png

image.thumb.png.47ed59ccba2e3b74b80bc1364f1cdd1f.png

image.thumb.png.a74d1439fa9c82401dbdcb6c7d6e053d.png

It seems BBs with bad traverse got nerfed more, same with cruisers with bad traverse and guns over 139mm. For guns up to 139mm, everyone suffered with greased gears.

Edited by Airjellyfish
Added graphs for unique commanders.
  • Cool 5
  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
684
[-TRM-]
[-TRM-]
Members
2,278 posts

I prefer ships that can complete a 180 battleturn (From Battle of Jutland tactic used by the German Navy) and present the main battery on the new side towards the enemy as soon the turn is completed or a few moments after.

I think the Prinz Eugen can complete a 180 course reversal in about 32 seconds at 30 knots and the turret swing to the other side in just over 33 seconds I'll have to look that up. The Prinz is one ship I have not sailed in almost a year.

Some ships can traverse faster than they can reverse so even more bonus for the score.

Edited by xHeavy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,755
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts

The skill for turret traverse should be a percentage reduction in time, rather than a percentage increase in rate. 

That way, the ship with a 60-second time to traverse 180 degrees would get MORE benefit from the skill than the ship with a 9-second time to traverse 180 degrees. 

The ships that need it the most would get the most benefit from it.

 

  • Cool 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,935
[ARS]
Beta Testers
5,558 posts
5,892 battles
1 minute ago, KilljoyCutter said:

The skill for turret traverse should be a percentage reduction in time, rather than a percentage increase in rate. 

That way, the ship with a 60-second time to traverse 180 degrees would get MORE benefit from the skill than the ship with a 9-second time to traverse 180 degrees. 

The ships that need it the most would get the most benefit from it.

 

I don't normally play the Russian Bias thing, but it is hard not to notice that Expert Marksman favored bottom performing Japanese BB Yamato while Greased gears favors decent performing Soviet BB Kremlin...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
313
[VOP]
Members
939 posts
22 minutes ago, xHeavy said:

I prefer ships that can complete a 180 battleturn (From Battle of Jutland tactic used by the German Navy) and present the main battery on the new side towards the enemy as soon the turn is completed or a few moments after.

I think the Prinz Eugen can complete a 180 course reversal in about 32 seconds at 30 knots and the turret swing to the other side in just over 33 seconds I'll have to look that up. The Prinz is one ship I have not sailed in almost a year.

Some ships can traverse faster than they can reverse so even more bonus for the score.

30 knots at entering the turn or 30 knots through the whole turn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
599
[WOLF7]
Members
824 posts
16 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

I don't normally play the Russian Bias thing, but it is hard not to notice that Expert Marksman favored bottom performing Japanese BB Yamato while Greased gears favors decent performing Soviet BB Kremlin...

The increased turret turning speed now is very noticeable in Gnevny compared to Expert Marksman. The Soviet destroyers feel more comfortable to play as gunboats now. Any word on how the new 4 point brawler skill combined with grease the gears plays? Seems like a powerful skill combo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[WKY07]
Members
19 posts
3,028 battles
6 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

The skill for turret traverse should be a percentage reduction in time, rather than a percentage increase in rate. 

That way, the ship with a 60-second time to traverse 180 degrees would get MORE benefit from the skill than the ship with a 9-second time to traverse 180 degrees. 

The ships that need it the most would get the most benefit from it.

 

 

Your right

Try calculating the rotational speed reduction from the skills rotational increase of +20% for a BB such as The Queen Elizabeth. It's original speed over 180deg is 72sec, an increase in speed is based on it's original rotation speed (time / distance) 72/180 = 0.4deg a sec. So each 0.4deg movement would need to be 20% faster. To find each movements percentage is 0.4deg/100=0.004deg. Then it's faster 20% travel rate is 0.004deg x 20=0.08deg faster each sec. So then total travel time saved over the distance is 0.08deg per sec x 180= 14.4sec.

original travel time over distance is 72sec less saved travel time 14.4sec= 57.6sec not the as given 60sec.

 

Or simply put

original time x saving as a decimal = saving time

72sec x 0.2=14.4sec

Try it on all BB ships.

On the other hand I found that on my Cleveland the traverse time is really fast.

 

It means that the original turn rates where increased before the upgrade then with this skill brings them back but at an error rate. eg a 20% reduction of originally given 100 = 80, their way means that a 20% increase back of 80 = 96 not the original given 100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,482
[WKY04]
Members
3,860 posts
24,507 battles
8 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

The skill for turret traverse should be a percentage reduction in time, rather than a percentage increase in rate. 

That way, the ship with a 60-second time to traverse 180 degrees would get MORE benefit from the skill than the ship with a 9-second time to traverse 180 degrees. 

The ships that need it the most would get the most benefit from it.

 

Hear hear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
387
[SALTY]
Beta Testers
675 posts
7,881 battles
9 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

The skill for turret traverse should be a percentage reduction in time, rather than a percentage increase in rate. 

That way, the ship with a 60-second time to traverse 180 degrees would get MORE benefit from the skill than the ship with a 9-second time to traverse 180 degrees. 

The ships that need it the most would get the most benefit from it.

 

Stop making sense.

That's not welcome around these parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
251
[VOP]
Members
595 posts
10,237 battles

The new turret traverse speeds are severely lacking where my older BB's are concerned. I play operations and this nerfed all of my tech tree ships badly. The higher tier premiums do not seem that bad off but I haven't played everything as yet.

At this time were having to sacrifice distance upgrade modules for traverse speed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
473
[WOLFX]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,164 posts
4,265 battles
On 1/24/2021 at 12:46 PM, HamAndCheez said:

The increased turret turning speed now is very noticeable in Gnevny compared to Expert Marksman. The Soviet destroyers feel more comfortable to play as gunboats now. Any word on how the new 4 point brawler skill combined with grease the gears plays? Seems like a powerful skill combo.

Seems like an interesting combo, I wonder how it will play out on the Blys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
387
[SALTY]
Beta Testers
675 posts
7,881 battles
On 1/24/2021 at 2:46 PM, HamAndCheez said:

The increased turret turning speed now is very noticeable in Gnevny compared to Expert Marksman. The Soviet destroyers feel more comfortable to play as gunboats now. Any word on how the new 4 point brawler skill combined with grease the gears plays? Seems like a powerful skill combo.

Not sure about the Gnevny, but the Gremmy got a huge nerf.

Went from 24 to 31.5 seconds turn on its turrets with the skill applied.

  • Cool 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
399 posts
26 battles

Excellent!

Likewise with LittleWhiteMouse''s Angry Youtube Review of Battleship Skills
 

Quote

72s for 180º: +0.5º/s   
60s for 180º: +0.6º/s       
45s for 180º: +0.8º/s   
30s for 180º: +1.2º/s   

It took far too long staring at

X*1.2 = X+0.7

to work out the answer was in fact 3.5º/s aka 51.4s for 180º where the skills gave equal benefit. Slower than that and you get less. Faster and you get more.

Now even I am not prepared to go through the list of 125 battleships to work out which win and which lose. My suspicion is more actually have >3.5º/s and so get more benefit but of course they're the ones who need it less.

Worse than that, the Enhanced version for Yamamoto , Halsey, Doe, Dunkirk, Honoré,  Znamensky, Lütjens, Ovechkin

(Old +1º/s, new +25%) instead changes at 4º/s aka 45s for 180º for equal benefit. So more battleships get less benefit compared to using the old version. 

Yet more outrage!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
629 posts
12,602 battles

Maybe they want slow traversing guns to traverse slowly?

Weird.

Edit: People here are wanting the ships to be the same. WG wants to enforce differences especially class differences. Cruisers are fragile, BBs relatively lumber. That's all the GtG change is doing, enforcing, in it's way, that difference.

Edited by Spirit_of_76
  • Cool 1
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
399 posts
26 battles
On 2/8/2021 at 1:18 PM, Spirit_of_76 said:

Maybe they want slow traversing guns to traverse slowly?

Weird.

Edit: People here are wanting the ships to be the same. WG wants to enforce differences especially class differences. Cruisers are fragile, BBs relatively lumber. That's all the GtG change is doing, enforcing, in it's way, that difference.

This would hold more water without their curious design decisions of having newer ahistorical battleships with 457mm guns that somehow turn at 30s for 180º:

Edited by SoothingWhaleSongEU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
629 posts
12,602 battles
14 minutes ago, SoothingWhaleSongEU said:

This would hold more water without their curious design decisions of having newer ahistorical battleships with 457mm guns that somehow turn at 30s for 180º:

Ah, the history argument. ;-)

Edit: captain skills are a class based balancing mechanism. I expect that the gtg skill for different classes will eventually have different rates based on class.

Edited by Spirit_of_76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
399 posts
26 battles
2 minutes ago, Spirit_of_76 said:

Ah, the history argument. ;-)

And a game design argument. WG *did* enforce such class differences earlier in the game, they do so less now.

(On the reckless assumption you actually want a good faith discussion).

 

The oldest high tier battleships in the game on release (September 2015?) were Iowa, Izumo, Montana and Yamato; all had turret traverse of at least 45s for 180º. And yes most of these were also some of the last battleships to be actually built or seriously designed* and that's no coincidence that it was US and IJN being the first nations in the game.

I get why and I'm English and only a little grumpy how long it took for the Royal Navy to get a full roster.

 

The German BBs came out a year later and one of their selling points was swift turret traverse but even GK had 40s for 180º. Better but not that much better.

 

Since May 2019 with Kremlin there has been a rush of battleships with both 457mm guns and swift turret traverse. Kremlin (3x3 457mm) 30s, Thunderer (4x2 457mm) 36s, Ohio (2x 457mm) 30s. 

Vermont (4x3 457mm) and Georgia (3x2 457mm) is a bit slower but only back to 45s, not comparing to Yamato.

All of these have been deliberately chosen to have faster turrets than their older competitors.

And yes, all of these are also the ships with very little links even to blueprints (something something projekt 24)
 

WoWS is very far from being a simulator, but the links to naval history *is* something WG plays into as a main attraction for the game. And time and space compression in the game aside, they are very reluctant to directly mess with the historical speeds of ships (except subs...)


*Even if Vanguard and Jean Bart were technically commissioned afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
251
[VOP]
Members
595 posts
10,237 battles
On 2/8/2021 at 8:18 AM, Spirit_of_76 said:

That's all the GtG change is doing, enforcing, in it's way, that difference.

I guess this change is fine if WG wants you to only play the new shiney and not care about your older ships. Another free xp grab to push keep people only playing higher tiers. 

The problem that WG never counted on is that people still like playing all of their ships. Playing the older ships now is painful especially BB's.

Can it be done ,sort of, but this blatant push for people to only play what WG wants you to play, and HOW WG wants  you to play has got to stop. How long did it take for the random meta to stagnate further?

These captains changes for the sake of making a change do not equal progress and diversity to me. They didn't have to nerf everything across the board in their push to keep people at high tiers. 

If people are having fun with your game why purposefully ruin it for lower tiers?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
629 posts
12,602 battles
2 minutes ago, SoothingWhaleSongEU said:

And a game design argument. WG *did* enforce such class differences earlier in the game, they do so less now.

(On the reckless assumption you actually want a good faith discussion).

 

The oldest high tier battleships in the game on release (September 2015?) were Iowa, Izumo, Montana and Yamato; all had turret traverse of at least 45s for 180º. And yes most of these were also some of the last battleships to be actually built or seriously designed* and that's no coincidence that it was US and IJN being the first nations in the game.

I get why and I'm English and only a little grumpy how long it took for the Royal Navy to get a full roster.

 

The German BBs came out a year later and one of their selling points was swift turret traverse but even GK had 40s for 180º. Better but not that much better.

 

Since May 2019 with Kremlin there has been a rush of battleships with both 457mm guns and swift turret traverse. Kremlin (3x3 457mm) 30s, Thunderer (4x2 457mm) 36s, Ohio (2x 457mm) 30s. 

Vermont (4x3 457mm) and Georgia (3x2 457mm) is a bit slower but only back to 45s, not comparing to Yamato.

All of these have been deliberately chosen to have faster turrets than their older competitors.

And yes, all of these are also the ships with very little links even to blueprints (something something projekt 24)
 

WoWS is very far from being a simulator, but the links to naval history *is* something WG plays into as a main attraction for the game. And time and space compression in the game aside, they are very reluctant to directly mess with the historical speeds of ships (except subs...)


*Even if Vanguard and Jean Bart were technically commissioned afterwards.

If WG wants slow traverse guns to remain slow even when buffed a bit, then that's just a choice they made. I doubt it's an error since keeping the old calculation would have been easier.

Not sure about the merits of it because I don't have the data; I just play the game and it doesn't matter that much whether the traverse is 52 seconds or 54 seconds or whatever. 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
629 posts
12,602 battles
14 minutes ago, USMCGal said:

I guess this change is fine if WG wants you to only play the new shiney and not care about your older ships. Another free xp grab to push keep people only playing higher tiers. 

The problem that WG never counted on is that people still like playing all of their ships. Playing the older ships now is painful especially BB's.

Can it be done ,sort of, but this blatant push for people to only play what WG wants you to play, and HOW WG wants  you to play has got to stop. How long did it take for the random meta to stagnate further?

These captains changes for the sake of making a change do not equal progress and diversity to me. They didn't have to nerf everything across the board in their push to keep people at high tiers. 

If people are having fun with your game why purposefully ruin it for lower tiers?  

Why does it have to stop?

If you have a Yamato (or whatever) and there is never anything better or different then you (rhetorical you, not real you, maybe real you likes derping around in the same ship for five or fifty years, but this isn't most people I expect) will eventually quit playing (because stagnant play is boring) and you (again rhetorical you, maybe real you spends money on premium so you can... play your five year old ship some more... not sure) certainly won't spend any money playing since you already have what you want and are perfectly happy with it. F2P games aren't designed to make you happy, they're designed to make you frustrated so you spend money to try to solve your game problem thinking that solving that problem will make you happy. If you are, in fact, happy/unfrustrated then the developer is doing it wrong or is planning to change it to give you a problem to solve.

Change is absolutely necessary for the business model. No change, no frustration, no money, no game, no developer.

Edit: my (not so) secret hope is that they frustrate me enough that I quit (again) instead of trying to solve the infinite game problems they present

Edit: it's pretty funny when you don't have any actual answer so you just downvote somebody like this is reddit (downvotes are just like upvotes on this forum), the same people who don't know how these games work also don't understand even how this forum works; i DoNt LiKe BeInG iNfOrMeD ThIs DoEsNt LoOk LiKe ReDdIt BuT hErE iS yOuR dOwNvOtE nOw YoU aRe ChAsTeNeD

Edited by Spirit_of_76
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,506
[ALL41]
Beta Testers
2,404 posts
10,620 battles
On 1/24/2021 at 12:27 PM, Helstrem said:

I don't normally play the Russian Bias thing, but it is hard not to notice that Expert Marksman favored bottom performing Japanese BB Yamato while Greased gears favors decent performing Soviet BB Kremlin...

Almost the entire rework is specifically made to boost soviet lines. Every soviet ship built in advantage which is already made to synergize and stack whereas all other ship lines pay a heavy penalty for a single advantage (which usually cancels out the advantage) is reflected in the rework. 

Secondaries were nerfed in accuracy vs a single target in favor of add-up damage vs large ships (cruisers/bbs) by firing on both sides and for longer range is a change that makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE unless you sit down and look at just what exactly could possibly have been 'bad' about the older system. 

It was only killing DDs effectively (which is the intended role of secondary guns on a BB) if they got in range and it was killing off cruisers and battleships effectively if they got into range (which is also a function of secondaries when facing said larger targets at close range). 

.... but specifically it was HIGHLY effective against soviet bow tanking ships. A german or french battleship which is already very hard if not impossible to citadel from the side at close range had the ability to close in with a soviet bow tanker, angle to allow secondaries to fire...and MELT the soviet bow tanking ship off the game with secondary fire. The soviet ship was as helpless as any other ship line BB or cruiser is when a soviet cruiser or BB comes at it bow-on. 

 

So, making secondaries useless to kill off bow tanking ships is solution komrade. Putin so pleased you no need fear he send your underwear to be laundered. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
251
[VOP]
Members
595 posts
10,237 battles
On 2/10/2021 at 10:25 AM, Spirit_of_76 said:

Why does it have to stop?

If you have a Yamato (or whatever) and there is never anything better or different then you (rhetorical you, not real you, maybe real you likes derping around in the same ship for five or fifty years, but this isn't most people I expect) will eventually quit playing (because stagnant play is boring) and you (again rhetorical you, maybe real you spends money on premium so you can... play your five year old ship some more... not sure) certainly won't spend any money playing since you already have what you want and are perfectly happy with it. F2P games aren't designed to make you happy, they're designed to make you frustrated so you spend money to try to solve your game problem thinking that solving that problem will make you happy. If you are, in fact, happy/unfrustrated then the developer is doing it wrong or is planning to change it to give you a problem to solve.

Change is absolutely necessary for the business model. No change, no frustration, no money, no game, no developer.

Edit: my (not so) secret hope is that they frustrate me enough that I quit (again) instead of trying to solve the infinite game problems they present

Edit: it's pretty funny when you don't have any actual answer so you just downvote somebody like this is reddit (downvotes are just like upvotes on this forum), the same people who don't know how these games work also don't understand even how this forum works; i DoNt LiKe BeInG iNfOrMeD ThIs DoEsNt LoOk LiKe ReDdIt BuT hErE iS yOuR dOwNvOtE nOw YoU aRe ChAsTeNeD

Actually I didn't down vote you at all on this thread. :Smile_popcorn:

There are other F2P games that I play that purposefully do not hose their player base. I guess having a happy customer has gone by the wayside and I can perfectly understand change. 

Doesn't mean I have to like it. Just makes me wonder if they are all drinking the same bad vodka...:Smile-_tongue:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,275
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,630 posts
9,965 battles
On 1/24/2021 at 12:12 PM, Airjellyfish said:

It seems BBs with bad traverse got nerfed more, same with cruisers with bad traverse and guns over 139mm. For guns up to 139mm, everyone suffered with greased gears.

Yep. Which, btw, provides BBs with slowly rotating turrets yet another incentive to just chill in the back, where you traverse speed doesn’t really matter.

And boy, did they ruin DDs with slow turrets. I played Gremmy to clear the snowflake, and it was infuriating, despite having Ovechkin’s buffed up Grease the Gears.


Basically, this is yet another change literally nobody asked for. I know the Spreadsheet is a sad meme at this point, but boy, can’t help but wonder why their data analysis seems to be so deficient. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
160
[NSEW]
Members
463 posts
4,066 battles

Not understanding the bias angle

With blanket buffs and nerfs to skills something must go up for some one and something must go down

To prove bias you'd need a series of examples pointing to that

 

And I say this as a person who doesn't play or own any commie ships really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
233
[UNC]
Members
897 posts
6,258 battles

If Grease the Gears was a conscious design decision - and I have to assume it was - then it is a very odd one.  I don't understand why you would intentionally design a skill such that the ships that need it least benefit the most, and ships that need it most benefit the least.  It's upside down and doesn't make sense, intentional or not.  Hoping they will revisit the skill and change it back to mirror how EM worked, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×