Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Yesman1337

Huyga at Tier 7 Whilst the Ise at 6?

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

81
[EQV]
Members
144 posts
1,408 battles

Just read the Dev Blog because I was bored in a zoom class and noticed the tier difference. Why is there one, they are sister ships after all obviously one of them is the carrier hybrid refit and the other is not. Still I feel as if the they would be the same tier no? Yes the Ise loses out on 4 of its main battery guns but with addition of aircraft and significantly reinforced AA battery's (It gets the cool/weird AA rockets like on Hood) that it more than makes up for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,399
[WOLFC]
Members
2,560 posts
11,041 battles

Ise’s (and Tone’s) air wing consists of a single flight (4 planes) of a single type of aircraft that you cannot buff with commander skills and you cannot control your ship while utilizing. For this, Ise gives up 1/3 of her main battery firepower, at the same time effectively losing her rear firing arcs, meaning she will have to expose a significant amount of broadside to utilize her full armament of eight barrels. Ise is definitely in the right spot at tier VI, and she would be a very underpowered tier VII.

This is ignoring the fact that having the ship at tier VII would eliminate the CV-free safe space of tier VII ranked, which I can’t imagine would go down well in certain circles.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
664
[USN]
Members
1,511 posts
20,411 battles

To answer your question, think about this: How much fun would a BB with 8 14in guns and a really questionable gimmick be against T9 opponents?

Likewise think “If I give Fuso a slight reload and noticeable sigma buff and add in better concealment, will it work at T7?”

Edited by tfcas119

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,015
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,467 posts
13,117 battles
58 minutes ago, Yesman1337 said:

Just read the Dev Blog because I was bored in a zoom class and noticed the tier difference. Why is there one, they are sister ships after all obviously one of them is the carrier hybrid refit and the other is not. Still I feel as if the they would be the same tier no? Yes the Ise loses out on 4 of its main battery guns but with addition of aircraft and significantly reinforced AA battery's (It gets the cool/weird AA rockets like on Hood) that it more than makes up for it.

Ise also completely loses her 140mm battery (20 guns, 10 per side) , and just gains more 4 more twin 127mm mounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
81
[EQV]
Members
144 posts
1,408 battles
15 hours ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Ise also completely loses her 140mm battery (20 guns, 10 per side) , and just gains more 4 more twin 127mm mounts.

It was not exactly a close quarters brawler to begin with especially now. It also gains the AA rocket launchers as well. (Not sure how good they are but they col at the least)

 

16 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

Ise’s (and Tone’s) air wing consists of a single flight (4 planes) of a single type of aircraft that you cannot buff with commander skills and you cannot control your ship while utilizing. For this, Ise gives up 1/3 of her main battery firepower, at the same time effectively losing her rear firing arcs, meaning she will have to expose a significant amount of broadside to utilize her full armament of eight barrels. Ise is definitely in the right spot at tier VI, and she would be a very underpowered tier VII.

This is ignoring the fact that having the ship at tier VII would eliminate the CV-free safe space of tier VII ranked, which I can’t imagine would go down well in certain circles.

They just made it that you can buff the squadron. I think I just read that in the Dev Blog there are now some skills and equipment you can put on it.

I'm just concerned about this thing absolutely destroying tier 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,399
[WOLFC]
Members
2,560 posts
11,041 battles
22 minutes ago, Yesman1337 said:

I'm just concerned about this thing absolutely destroying tier 4.

The only tier IVs who will have to face Ise are those that fail div with a tier V, in which case it is their own fault. Even so, I don’t think it will be much of an issue, because eight 14” guns is pretty underwhelming at tier VI.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,722
[PVE]
Members
13,417 posts
28,137 battles
32 minutes ago, Yesman1337 said:

I'm just concerned about this thing absolutely destroying tier 4.

T4 has protected MM. It will never face a higher tier than T5 unless it is in a fail division.

T4 MM spread = T3/T4/T5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
81
[EQV]
Members
144 posts
1,408 battles
4 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

T4 has protected MM. It will never face a higher tier than T5 unless it is in a fail division.

T4 MM spread = T3/T4/T5

Really? I never knew that and I could've sworn I'd come across some tier 6 ones back when I first started out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,722
[PVE]
Members
13,417 posts
28,137 battles
51 minutes ago, Yesman1337 said:

Really? I never knew that and I could've sworn I'd come across some tier 6 ones back when I first started out.

Been that way as long as I have played (Dec 2016). I guess back in Alpha and maybe Beta you could see all kinds of ships like having to fight a Yamato in a Fuso and some such crazy stuff. But the current MM, in place since I joined, is...

  • T1 - only faces T1
  • T2 - can face T2/T3 
  • T3 - can face T2/T3/T4
  • T4 - can face T3/T4/T5
  • T5 - can face T4/T5/T6/T7
  • T6 - can face T5/T6/T7/T8
  • T7 - can face T5/T6/T7/T8/T9
  • T8 - can face T6/T7/T8/T9/T10
  • T9 - can face T7/T8/T9/T10
  • T10 - can face T8/T9/T10

The exception being if you end up in a fail Division. To Division you have to use ships within 1 tier of each other. However, when the Division fails in MM it means the higher Tier ship is the one that is used to determine the MM spread. I have never seen it use the lower Tier ship for MM anyway but maybe? So a T4 for example if it Divisions up with a T5 ship could end up in a T7 match even though T4 isn't supposed to see higher than T5. Have seen the T4 in T7 a lot as well as others. Most recent was seeing a poor Gneisenau in a T10 match. It didn't go well LOL. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,015
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,467 posts
13,117 battles
2 hours ago, Yesman1337 said:

Really? I never knew that and I could've sworn I'd come across some tier 6 ones back when I first started out.

That was a long time ago. I remember in open beta and for some time after launch, you could see tier 6 in a tier.

Tier 4 protected match making showed up about the same time as limiting divisions to no more than a one tier spread.

You used to be able fail platoon bringing a tier 1 with a tier 10. Some of the torpedo damage records that were set Dirpitz weekend were the result of fail platooning tier 3, 4 and 5 IJN DD's into tier 8 matches.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,399
[WOLFC]
Members
2,560 posts
11,041 battles
1 hour ago, AdmiralThunder said:

The exception being if you end up in a fail Division. To Division you have to use ships within 1 tier of each other. However, when the Division fails in MM it means the higher Tier ship is the one that is used to determine the MM spread. I have never seen it use the lower Tier ship for MM anyway but maybe?

MM attempts to match the ships as normal, but if it cannot do so, the low tier ship(s) in the division are given the same matchmaking as the high tier ship(s). In your example the tier IV ship in the fail division will be matched against another tier IV (and thus secure top tier status for their division mate(s)) if the queue supports it. If not, MM will elevate the ship to tier V and match it accordingly, placing the ship opposite a tier V and potentially subjecting the tier IV ship to a tier VI or VII match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,238
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
29,853 posts
25,782 battles

Back when the game was new there was no real tier protection.  It was even +/-3 MM.

 

IV Wyoming vs VII Nagato

VI Cleveland vs III South Carolina

VII Sims vs IV Isokaze

 

For a while VI Arizona could beat up on IV Myogis.  Or the hilarity of VI Molotov crushing stuff like IV Phoenix, etc.

 

Some old school stuff, especially real late in Open Beta as the game was set to Launch:

(Slight correction for below, the video the pic is from is September 4, 2015).

On 4/22/2019 at 9:08 PM, HazeGrayUnderway said:

For the sake of nostalgia and possibly horror from the old days, this was a sample of Match Maker.  A screenshot from a September 30, 2015 Mighty Jingles video for then Tier VI Cleveland.  WoWS Launched on September 17, 2015.

Take a look at the ship roster and tier spread.

jMCpbxR.jpg

 

Non-Divisioned Tier III in a Tier VI game.

Yes folks.  No Tier IV protection.  +/-3 MM spread.  I actually miss those days :Smile_Default:  The ONLY tier that could truly boast being Top Tier was Tier X.  Today people play Tier VII so they could club Tier V ships.  Anyone saying otherwise is being dishonest with you.

I still remember the nightmare of getting my new, prebuffs VII Colorado and staring down the gun barrels of X Yamato.  Back when Yamato was considered the only real Tier X Battleship because of how bad Montana was.  Yammie at the time even had an improved heal.

 

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,496
[TSG4]
[TSG4]
Volunteer Moderator
3,366 posts
17,012 battles

Or 1 team with normal layout and the other with 1/2 CV that can cross drop and strafe

OOOpppss .... big nightmare back then ......... even in CBT

Then have to learn how to strafe and bait strafe to counter strafing, learn how to manual cross drop = biggest learning curve with so many micro managing ........

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.

×