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

Any insight into what ships have seen detrimental/beneficial effects from the rework?

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,007
[ARGSY]
Members
1,892 posts
5,832 battles

As the title says I've personally seen a few 'underperforming' ships improve in my hands with the advent of the rework. Sum include the Indom (two very recent Krakens of which I have under 20 or so) and PEF...

Anyone have a juicy list they can provide from their experience?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,068
[WORX]
Members
12,638 posts
19,907 battles

Simple... Beneficiaries...

  • BBs
  • DDs
  • CV

The one class who got the torp up the fantail treatment..

  • Cruisers.

In other words, you can't tell the change between the new and old system with

  • BBs
  • 'DDs
  • CVs

The ones who must had to adapt and change the way the class is played (especially at high tiers.)

  • Cruisers...

I mean that is it... Secondary builds were OP... No need for a CV to have to much power with secondaries... BBs thank the CVs for the Secondary nerf...

GL

  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,032
[GRETA]
Members
1,378 posts
10,609 battles

P.E.F. is excellent,  Scharnhorst, Pommern all seem stronger than before although the meta beyond T7 is not favorable for brawling currently.

The 3 American brawlers (Massachusetts,  Georgia and Ohio) got a pretty nasty nerf to secondary accuracy and list the AA previously baked into secondary skills however Georgia and Ohio main guns do well with deadeye. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,003
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
4,207 posts
12,777 battles

Flint was drawn and quartered after this rework. A t7 cruiser with DD guns that's now outranged and almost out gunned by almost every single t7 -9 DD while being in the torp ranges of most of them.  So what Flint has smoke, whats the point if you can only smoke inside of everyone's radar and torpedo range.:etc_red_button:

Lyon, she used to be the t7 terror and secondary monster. Now she's the t7 bait and feed.

Edited by Crokodone
  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,446
[SALVO]
Members
26,123 posts
29,108 battles
23 minutes ago, HallaSnackbar said:

P.E.F. is excellent,  Scharnhorst, Pommern all seem stronger than before although the meta beyond T7 is not favorable for brawling currently.

The 3 American brawlers (Massachusetts,  Georgia and Ohio) got a pretty nasty nerf to secondary accuracy and list the AA previously baked into secondary skills however Georgia and Ohio main guns do well with deadeye. 

The PEF is specifically very good since the skill rework because there's no longer the artificial tier divide at tier 7 for manual secondaries accuracy.  Of course, this hurt tier 7+ BBs' sec accuracy.  But it helps those BBs of tier 6 and below.  

The PEF probably gets the most value out of it since she can use a secondary build in operations and be a beast there.  Of course, the Mikasa also gets a nice big boost as well, if you want to get some LOLs out of a tier 2 BB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,196
[KWF]
Members
5,787 posts
7,007 battles

As sad as this is, Deadeye gave Roma a nice buff. Now instead of worrying about wonky dispersion and overpenetrations you have to worry about overpenetrations only.

All torpedo focused DDs got a buff without really sacrificing anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
319
[WOLF1]
Members
910 posts
1,888 battles

Oklahoma gets 8.5 secondaries and its secondaries have risen to the now standard +35% buff for “manual” secondaries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,007
[ARGSY]
Members
1,892 posts
5,832 battles
47 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Simple... Beneficiaries...

  • BBs
  • DDs
  • CV

The one class who got the torp up the fantail treatment..

  • Cruisers.

In other words, you can't tell the change between the new and old system with

  • BBs
  • 'DDs
  • CVs

The ones who must had to adapt and change the way the class is played (especially at high tiers.)

  • Cruisers...

I mean that is it... Secondary builds were OP... No need for a CV to have to much power with secondaries... BBs thank the CVs for the Secondary nerf...

GL

Ah. Yes I see that supercruisers lost much of their survivability measures.

Seems that Thunderer is ever more filthy with Dead Eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,103
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
1,159 posts
11,293 battles

CV are the biggest winners of the rework, as they gained the interceptor option, which is surprisingly good if you understand the conept of Tempo from table gaming, as it is a very good tempo base strategy which can shut down enemy CVs, increasing win chance.

DD also did well, imporving their various strategies and even gaining a couple of useful new skills. The only thing they really lost was the extra point in the costs of Priority Target and Adrenaline Rush, meaning that ships leaning on those two skills are kind of still stuck at the same level as before.

CA/CL have a mixed bag. Super cruisers got nerfed hard, losing access to survivability builds, but that is okay, as the super cruisers were overperforming and all needed nerfs anyway to bring them down to the level of the other cruisers. However, midrange strategies are still largely the same, and radar/smoke ships got small toys like consumables enhancements. The real winners are the cruisers who gained the brand new archetype, Anti-Concealment, mostly the French, as this strategy is getting overused a bit as a fad. Top Grade Gunner+Heavy HE shells on high speed ships that deliberately make their concealment as bad as possible to trigger TGG and rely on dodging to survive is a fun experience on a knife edge for some players, but as great as it is at damage farming, it really doesnt help win games, as Anti-conceal loses the ability to make any kind of cap control push, not that the French were ever good at that to begin with.

BB are actually both a big winner and a big loser, depending on what your favorite ships and play strategies are. Dead Eye is a blessing to the ships that already would have wanted it, but a curse to the teammates of people using it on ships that it wasn't meant for. Players constantly use it as a crutch to self enable bad in game decisions, causing their loss totals to skyrocket, despite increased damage numbers, and naturally, they blame it on their team mates rather than acknowledge that they lose because they aren't doing the job they are needed to do to win. If you are Thunderer, Yamato, Roma, etc., then Dead Eye is a good thing, because you are meant to be a sniper. If you are Kremlin, Kurfurst, Republique, and take Dead Eye, then you are likely letting your greatest strength that made you terrifying to face go to waste in the name of more damage. On the other hand, secondaries are completely not a main course now, but they are still usable as a source of support damage on a few ships, mainly Germans and American premiums, as long as you remember they aren't meant for DD anymore, but can absolutely shave off time to kill on larger ships with chip damage on top of the main battery. It is wise with the Germans to invest in survival skills first and grab the secondaries last now. The upcoming Italians are going to be terrifying in the hands of those who understand them, and a joke in the hands of those that try to peg them in the wrong hole.  

Edited by Shannon_Lindsey
  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,007
[ARGSY]
Members
1,892 posts
5,832 battles
26 minutes ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

CV are the biggest winners of the rework, as they gained the interceptor option, which is surprisingly good if you understand the conept of Tempo from table gaming, as it is a very good tempo base strategy which can shut down enemy CVs, increasing win chance.

Ah yes. Tell me of Interceptor. Is it truly worth the loss of spotting? I certainly could seeing it be worthwhile.

So true about Dead Eye on inappropriate BBs. If you select Dead Eye in the skill tree on these ships it should trigger a 7 day auto ban. Very frustrating to see these ships waaayy back as cruisers try to tank...

Edited by Sumseaman
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,068
[WORX]
Members
12,638 posts
19,907 battles
30 minutes ago, Sumseaman said:

Ah. Yes I see that supercruisers lost much of their survivability measures.

Seems that Thunderer is ever more filthy with Dead Eye.

Light cruisers have changed, the fleet is as strong as your weakest ship class. LC are the weakest ships...

HC, mini BBs, I dont even count them as cruisers... I see an Alaska, its a BB not a cruiser...

Edited by Navalpride33
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,103
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
1,159 posts
11,293 battles
5 minutes ago, Sumseaman said:

Ah yes. Tell me of Interceptor. Is it truly worth the loss of spotting? I certainly could seeing it be worthwhile.

So true about Dead Eye on inappropriate BBs. If you select Dead Eye in the skill tree on these ships it should trigger a 7 day auto ban. Very frustrating to see these ships waaayy back as cruisers try to tank...

The only spotting lost is from the fighters, as the strike aircraft can still spot, and fighters weren't good at long term spotting anyway, as they are easily shot down. They also weren't effective at protecting allies, as fast strike plaes could fly in, attack, and get out before they could react. Interceptors are differen't. You might get a strike off, but you have to drop early, and you will lose your entire squad. Interceptors basically put plane regen to the limit. While it is true a player can hit F to save planes from the interceptors, if you hit F in active aa gun range, you will just lose those planes to the AA instead of the interceptor. The important thing when flying interceptor is to make sure that if they try a drop in the interceptor circle that they will in fact lose their planes to something, be it you or friendly AA when the try to escape with F.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,007
[ARGSY]
Members
1,892 posts
5,832 battles
3 minutes ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

The only spotting lost is from the fighters, as the strike aircraft can still spot, and fighters weren't good at long term spotting anyway, as they are easily shot down. They also weren't effective at protecting allies, as fast strike plaes could fly in, attack, and get out before they could react. Interceptors are differen't. You might get a strike off, but you have to drop early, and you will lose your entire squad. Interceptors basically put plane regen to the limit. While it is true a player can hit F to save planes from the interceptors, if you hit F in active aa gun range, you will just lose those planes to the AA instead of the interceptor. The important thing when flying interceptor is to make sure that if they try a drop in the interceptor circle that they will in fact lose their planes to something, be it you or friendly AA when the try to escape with F.

 

Thank you. Should be very tasty with Enterprise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
207 posts
5,072 battles

Here are a list of ships that I can think of off the top of my head that got hammered hard:

Smolensk - gimped by not having access to aft

Flint - gimped by not having access to aft

All gunboat dds - gimped slightly by worse bft

German battleship secondary builds - gimped by MS changes

Mass, Georgia, Ohio - gimped by MS changes

Stalingrad, petro - gimped by not having access to BB skills like FP and BoS

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
553
[CAAT]
Members
1,029 posts
4,625 battles
5 hours ago, Sumseaman said:

As the title says I've personally seen a few 'underperforming' ships improve in my hands with the advent of the rework. Sum include the Indom (two very recent Krakens of which I have under 20 or so) and PEF...

Anyone have a juicy list they can provide from their experience?

Thanks.

Secondaries accuracy took a MASSIVE hit across the board, so ALL my battleships attempting to use secondaries builds are feeling the pinch in that regard, DOUBLY so for battleships that don't have built-in "improved dispersion" secondaries, like Yamato or Shikishima, for example. HOWEVER, not ALL battleship secondaries have gotten nerfed. Tier 6 and under are actually a bit buffed, so that's nice, although I don't think it's worth sacrificing like EVERY Tier 7 and up BB for it. But yes, Oklahoma's secondaries do work decently, so that's great! Unfortunately I haven't tested PEF's yet or any others, aside from Mutsu (YES, MUTSU. I'm not kidding). Additionally, Grease The Gears is working backwards, so now my battleships with slower turret traverses are even slower. So that's a bit of an issue in terms of comfortable gunnery on ships like Yamato, Musashi, California, basically all my USN Standards bar Colorado. Unless you're Kremlin. Then you get even FASTER Stalinium turrets. As if you needed it faster :P

Not so much a "juicy list", but it's a list of affected ships, I guess.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
553
[CAAT]
Members
1,029 posts
4,625 battles
4 hours ago, Boomer625 said:

Oklahoma gets 8.5 secondaries and its secondaries have risen to the now standard +35% buff for “manual” secondaries

That's incorrect, it still has 8.3km secondaries, but it's quite usable! Which is good, because that's literally the ONLY thing good on it (aside from maybe gun firing arcs and gun turret layout), since its main battery reload times and AP penetration are HORRIBAD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
966
Members
2,069 posts
12,694 battles

A lot of low to mid tier ships got buffed, in a large part because concealment doesn't matter and engagement ranges are shorter down there. So fearless brawler and the lighthouse build work great on a lot of low tier ships. All low tier BB got secondary buffs. Haida got a nice buff with consumable enhancements letting you get 2m+ smoke and 4m+ hydro. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
397
[PSV]
Supertester, Wiki Editor
852 posts
6,620 battles
6 hours ago, Sumseaman said:

Ah yes. Tell me of Interceptor. Is it truly worth the loss of spotting? I certainly could seeing it be worthwhile.

Interceptor isn't worth it. Not only are you losing spotting potential, you are also using up a valuable 3 points for something that doesn't have any damage potential.

The only use the skill has is on specialized builds for carriers that have hard hitting and/or fast fighters where your main goal is to grief the enemy carrier player.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,672
Members
2,380 posts
52 battles
7 hours ago, Sumseaman said:

Thank you. Should be very tasty with Enterprise!

Interceptors don't fool anyone but terrible CV players and they will inevitably fail by themselves anyway.

And this is where the fundamental issue with a fighter build lies even assuming they are effective (from what I've seen they're not). Few CV players are dangerous enough to be worth protecting your team against and they will typically know how to play around a fighter build, putting you at a disadvantage in the damage race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,455
[FORM]
Members
2,207 posts
13,218 battles
5 hours ago, Battleship_PrinceOfWales said:

Here are a list of ships that I can think of off the top of my head that got hammered hard:

Smolensk - gimped by not having access to aft

Flint - gimped by not having access to aft

All gunboat dds - gimped slightly by worse bft

German battleship secondary builds - gimped by MS changes

Mass, Georgia, Ohio - gimped by MS changes

Stalingrad, petro - gimped by not having access to BB skills like FP and BoS

Good list. I'll definitely add that ALL the super cruiser class got more limited by losing access to survivability skills, and the Siegfried got utterly nerfed by the removal of all secondary skill options (as that was her main selling point.) 

I think the secondary gimp affects the Germans more than the Americans, though it definitely impacts them both... to the point where I've given up playing them and they were my favorite ship type. Finishing out the German BB regrind (my 3rd time through it,) with the FDG was an absolute disappointment. 

As someone  who has a Smolensk and liked using her (easy way to get those witherer flags...) I did think she needed some nerf, though after playing her a handful of times in 10.0 I think the range limitation was too great, and I would be curious how a 1 or 1.5km range boost might rebalance her reasonably. 

10 hours ago, Sumseaman said:

As the title says... Anyone have a juicy list they can provide from their experience?

Secondaries: most noticeable are the mid tier BBs got a secondary improvement which depending on the ship (you already found the PEF) can be noticeable. I haven't been playing mine, but the French BBs seem to be the ones who stand out most with the secondary range increase IMO. 

Dead Eye: this dispersion skill (who some like to point out is easy to nullify by spotting the ship,) definitely seems to improve some ships more than others. Anything (like the Thunderer,) who have a low detection and powerful guns, can further reward great aim (or punish bad aim.) But interestingly some ships like the RU BBs and the Italian Roma, who had notoriously wonky dispersion (especially beyond close range for the RU ones,) seem to have gained a disproportionate benefit from the boost.

Torp DDs: 10.0 stopped the reduction on torp range for the speed boost, coupled with the 1 point 30% flood boost has really helped some of the torpedo focused DDs to get more dangerous. 

CVs: The removal of all the associated AA benefits from the secondary skills (and the general nerfs secondary ships survivability and accuracy,) has greatly reduced the number of them appearing in the game. I'm not sure how big an impact that's had for CV players, but I know for sure that the less AA boosted Massachusetts, Georgia & Ohios in the game, the easier it is to hunt other ships from the air. 

Edited by TheArc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,120
[PVE]
Members
5,095 posts
22,535 battles

The Game itself......"effects from the Rework..." 

Overall, I earn less and have to play more.  A net "real value" loss I am keeping a spreadsheet on.  So far, playing the same amount of games a day, old versus new, I am seeing a 15 to 25% loss in "real value" versus the costs incurred from this change.  It will take over a year to recover those "costs" and to be honest, the game itself is "worse for wear" from these changes......   This wasn't about choices and player benefits: it was about increasing revenue at our cost.......

The only ship I see little change in, is my Benham.  Of the 15 or so ships I play a day, and I only play those ships with 4 - 21 point CPT's and 4 - 19 point CPT's, I've see less ECXP per week than before.   Because everyone is screwed up, Maybe??  What I think this devaluation of the Game Economy really will do is require you to play 20 to 30% more games to achieve what you did BEFORE the change.  So far, and this test will take at least 6 months, is inferring that ^^^^^ premise is correct....

Edited by Asym_KS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[TIGRB]
Members
245 posts
2,697 battles

Two of my under performing ships, The PEF and Ashitaka have improved greatly. PEF secondary fire range is greater, The main guns more accurate from the buff the did to German BB's. Ashitaka with Dead eye can really punch at 15k and greater. Both being fast Battlecruisers in tier 6 and 7 give them better odds now at making a difference i the game. Definitely more fun to play. British Heavy Cruisers though I believe are suffering badly from the re work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
966
Members
2,069 posts
12,694 battles
32 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

The Game itself......"effects from the Rework..." 

Overall, I earn less and have to play more.  A net "real value" loss I am keeping a spreadsheet on.  So far, playing the same amount of games a day, old versus new, I am seeing a 15 to 25% loss in "real value" versus the costs incurred from this change.  It will take over a year to recover those "costs" and to be honest, the game itself is "worse for wear" from these changes......   This wasn't about choices and player benefits: it was about increasing revenue at our cost.......

The only ship I see little change in, is my Benham.  Of the 15 or so ships I play a day, and I only play those ships with 4 - 21 point CPT's and 4 - 19 point CPT's, I've see less ECXP per week than before.   Because everyone is screwed up, Maybe??  What I think this devaluation of the Game Economy really will do is require you to play 20 to 30% more games to achieve what you did BEFORE the change.  So far, and this test will take at least 6 months, is inferring that ^^^^^ premise is correct....

If you're at the point now where you're keeping track of your "loses" in a spreadsheet for something that doesn't even matter in co-op then maybe it's time you take a break from the game. I think you're obsessing over the negative way too much and need to step away for a few months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,120
[PVE]
Members
5,095 posts
22,535 battles
1 hour ago, Rouxi said:

If you're at the point now where you're keeping track of your "loses" in a spreadsheet for something that doesn't even matter in co-op then maybe it's time you take a break from the game. I think you're obsessing over the negative way too much and need to step away for a few months.

Actually, I study games......  I'm still have active accounts in several games that are "ghost towns" to study game cultures and processes.  And, I want to know what the base earning capabilities are after this change.   So, I don't waste any time suffering through non-value-added content or events..... 

Edited by Asym_KS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×