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

Tiger Caution

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,942
[CNO]
Members
6,737 posts
20,178 battles

I know I've told about the virtues of the Tiger 59.  A fun ship.  Lots of strategy.  Some things that can really work a charm.  She has a place.

HOWEVER.....

Let my win rate also tell a story.  At about 130 or so games, she is fairing on the low side of my overall win rate and a good bit south of my current experience win rate.  So...while she has a lot of good (much of which I've posted in several threads and a few really cool videos), don't let my lauding lead to a false expectation.  Based on my win rate, she is subpar.  A FUN subpar.  But if you're goal is to pad your WR, probably not a ship for you.  I have noted that there are a few folks running her that seem to do much better than I do.  So perhaps a different strategy beyond what I've expressed in threads might be better.  I don't know.  

She is my latest proverbial shining object...and I have a certain fascination about her.  I guess the loses don't seem as painful.  Maybe that's a sign of a really FUN ship.  You really want to win. Play your heart out...and still lose.  But lose in a fun way.  Still keeping me fascinated after several weeks.  I'm sure the shine will wear out at some point, and she will become just another ship in the fun queue.

I like her.  She "can" work.  But don't let my somewhat over the top praise lead you down a path that suggests she delivers above par win rates.  In my personal experience, she does not.  But she can still be a blast.

  • Cool 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,277
[CAAT]
Members
2,245 posts
5,159 battles
31 minutes ago, Soshi_Sone said:

I like her.  She "can" work.  But don't let my somewhat over the top praise lead you down a path that suggests she delivers above par win rates.  In my personal experience, she does not.  But she can still be a blast.

Just wanted to say, this translates to T7 California as well, btw. She CAN work (which btw, goes for pretty much ANY ship in the game, if you know their strengths/weaknesses). I've gotten some amazing games in California, set a few of my own records in that ship even (460+ Random battles in her and counting!)! And personally, she's one of my favorite battleships aesthetically speaking (as probably everyone on this forum knows by now :P), and I enjoy using her consistently in ALL game modes that T7 battleships are applicable, despite her flaws. I'd even say that honing my skills in a subpar ship helps me appreciate the good stuff, like overmatch and speed! But ultimately, at the end of the day, she is a Tier 6 battleship, with tier 7 range, and tier 8 AA. She's definitely lackluster in overall gun performance for her tier and needs some love (aka a reload buff).

But hey, regardless of whether a ship is lackluster in performance or not, what matters is that you have FUN in your favorite ships! So I'm happy you enjoy Tiger '59, Soshi (now that I'm back on topic XD)! Here's hoping Wargaming sees fit to buff California and Tiger '59 to make them just a little more competitive in their respective tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,430
[SR-_-]
Members
4,904 posts
46,416 battles
2 hours ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

Just wanted to say, this translates to T7 California as well, btw. She CAN work (which btw, goes for pretty much ANY ship in the game, if you know their strengths/weaknesses). I've gotten some amazing games in California, set a few of my own records in that ship even (460+ Random battles in her and counting!)! And personally, she's one of my favorite battleships aesthetically speaking (as probably everyone on this forum knows by now :P), and I enjoy using her consistently in ALL game modes that T7 battleships are applicable, despite her flaws. I'd even say that honing my skills in a subpar ship helps me appreciate the good stuff, like overmatch and speed! But ultimately, at the end of the day, she is a Tier 6 battleship, with tier 7 range, and tier 8 AA. She's definitely lackluster in overall gun performance for her tier and needs some love (aka a reload buff).

But hey, regardless of whether a ship is lackluster in performance or not, what matters is that you have FUN in your favorite ships! So I'm happy you enjoy Tiger '59, Soshi (now that I'm back on topic XD)! Here's hoping Wargaming sees fit to buff California and Tiger '59 to make them just a little more competitive in their respective tiers.

A lot of ships tend to become duds. Yeah, California...

What people fail to realize is that California is technically a huge patch job that runs front to back.

When she got hit at Pearl, she had a huge gaping hole. It was luck that Battleship Row sank in shallow water.

Had they sank in the deep sea, it would have been more devastating.

California was rebuilt that way to fix the hole and also provide torpedo protection. However, it fundamentally changed the ship's draft. The ship suffers for it in maneuver, speed, and guns. She is a problem. I don't know how WG can fix her.  It's as if she sails at a taxing pace. Taxing player patience all the time.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,368
[O_O]
[O_O]
Members
5,658 posts
24,590 battles
5 hours ago, Soshi_Sone said:

I know I've told about the virtues of the Tiger 59.  A fun ship.  Lots of strategy.  Some things that can really work a charm.  She has a place.

HOWEVER.....

Let my win rate also tell a story.  At about 130 or so games, she is fairing on the low side of my overall win rate and a good bit south of my current experience win rate.  So...while she has a lot of good (much of which I've posted in several threads and a few really cool videos), don't let my lauding lead to a false expectation.  Based on my win rate, she is subpar.  A FUN subpar.  But if you're goal is to pad your WR, probably not a ship for you.  I have noted that there are a few folks running her that seem to do much better than I do.  So perhaps a different strategy beyond what I've expressed in threads might be better.  I don't know.  

She is my latest proverbial shining object...and I have a certain fascination about her.  I guess the loses don't seem as painful.  Maybe that's a sign of a really FUN ship.  You really want to win. Play your heart out...and still lose.  But lose in a fun way.  Still keeping me fascinated after several weeks.  I'm sure the shine will wear out at some point, and she will become just another ship in the fun queue.

I like her.  She "can" work.  But don't let my somewhat over the top praise lead you down a path that suggests she delivers above par win rates.  In my personal experience, she does not.  But she can still be a blast.

Thanks for this posting as it has confirmed what I have suspected. I've seen what you do with her (and what you can't shows as well). She is very interestingship and looks like a lot of fun. I started to get her since I can now use the doubloon coupon but thought real hard on it - and passed, for the moment. I have plenty of "fun" cruisers at T8 and she just doesn't bring enough, in my opinion, to justify the expenditure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,277
[CAAT]
Members
2,245 posts
5,159 battles
6 hours ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

A lot of ships tend to become duds. Yeah, California...

What people fail to realize is that California is technically a huge patch job that runs front to back.

When she got hit at Pearl, she had a huge gaping hole. It was luck that Battleship Row sank in shallow water.

Had they sank in the deep sea, it would have been more devastating.

California was rebuilt that way to fix the hole and also provide torpedo protection. However, it fundamentally changed the ship's draft. The ship suffers for it in maneuver, speed, and guns. She is a problem. I don't know how WG can fix her.  It's as if she sails at a taxing pace. Taxing player patience all the time.

 

It's an easy fix, honestly. WoWs Legends got her right. All they need to do is make her main battery reload 30s (which btw is what she had during testing in the first place!). That's it. If Wargaming is being generous, they COULD add DFAA to California, to really sell that "amazing AA" gimmick. Honestly, I'm kinda still astounded that California DOESN'T have DFAA, but it's a small thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,942
[CNO]
Members
6,737 posts
20,178 battles
7 hours ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

California was rebuilt that way to fix the hole and also provide torpedo protection. However, it fundamentally changed the ship's draft. The ship suffers for it in maneuver, speed, and guns. She is a problem. I don't know how WG can fix her.  It's as if she sails at a taxing pace. Taxing player patience all the time.

Some of the problem with modeling REAL ships is their aspects are based on real physics.  Reality!!!  A paper ship is a vision of a designer/creator and often shoots for the moon in all aspects of the design.  It is only after the cold hard reality of physics and real costs enters the picture that design trade offs begin to emerge. Hence, staying somewhat true to ships that were really built automatically handicaps those ships with the physics truths by which they were brought into actual existence.  Paper ships, on the other hand, have no such constraints and can therefore come into virtual existence with all the grandeur mapped out by the designer/creator.  There is no reality that need be matched.  No real physics or costs to meter the development.

California is fat and slow.   It's fat and slow because the reality California was fat and slow.  It's reality of physics is a patched ship, given enhanced AA, and designed for shore bombardment.  Its very existence is a limit on what it can do in WOWS.  WG doesn't need to make every ship a meta contender.  Just make it "good enough".  California is one of those "good enough" ships.  While AZ is above par at T6...California seems to be about par (maybe a touch below...but still solid) T7 in the Random meta.   Her AA is nothing to laugh at.  And she has really good reach with the spotter.  Perhaps a bow to her role as a bombardment ships...but catered to the ship fight.

Edited by Soshi_Sone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,921
[SALVO]
Members
8,961 posts
6,663 battles
10 hours ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

California, (...) she's one of my favorite battleships aesthetically speaking (as probably everyone on this forum knows by now :P)

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,430
[SR-_-]
Members
4,904 posts
46,416 battles
11 hours ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

It's an easy fix, honestly. WoWs Legends got her right. All they need to do is make her main battery reload 30s (which btw is what she had during testing in the first place!). That's it. If Wargaming is being generous, they COULD add DFAA to California, to really sell that "amazing AA" gimmick. Honestly, I'm kinda still astounded that California DOESN'T have DFAA, but it's a small thing.

I think that WG knows she lacks a lot of things. But you are right. DFAA and reload to 30 secs would be a start. I also think her turn and speed needs work. The entire heavy BB line on the USN was based on her layout. And that was partly a mistake due to the fact that a navy would want to salvage any vessel that can fight if given the opportunity. And California was just such an example. But WG, didn't see the engineering as such. California should never have sailed, but engineers made her sail anyway. 

While the heavy BB line has its own controversies; California was the original design concept. But California would never be built that way from the start if she never got hit by that torpedo. 

Legends got it right because they took the original test data and just didn't mess with it. They just let it ride and the gamble paid off. She is fun there and console IS a big industry. Making players happy there is easy. 

Bear in mind, the console division operates independently, but still takes data from the PC version because it is faster and convenient. How they use that data is where things are different. 

You might say that division got it right so far. The PC division could learn a few things, but PC is also far more complex.

Making players happy is a daunting task. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,430
[SR-_-]
Members
4,904 posts
46,416 battles
10 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

 

Not going to argue with that fact or the video. Because If I comment one way or the other, I will start a war outside of this game. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,430
[SR-_-]
Members
4,904 posts
46,416 battles
10 hours ago, Soshi_Sone said:

Some of the problem with modeling REAL ships is their aspects are based on real physics.  Reality!!!  A paper ship is a vision of a designer/creator and often shoots for the moon in all aspects of the design.  It is only after the cold hard reality of physics and real costs enters the picture that design trade offs begin to emerge. Hence, staying somewhat true to ships that were really built automatically handicaps those ships with the physics truths by which they were brought into actual existence.  Paper ships, on the other hand, have no such constraints and can therefore come into virtual existence with all the grandeur mapped out by the designer/creator.  There is no reality that need be matched.  No real physics or costs to meter the development.

California is fat and slow.   It's fat and slow because the reality California was fat and slow.  It's reality of physics is a patched ship, given enhanced AA, and designed for shore bombardment.  Its very existence is a limit on what it can do in WOWS.  WG doesn't need to make every ship a meta contender.  Just make it "good enough".  California is one of those "good enough" ships.  While AZ is above par at T6...California seems to be about par (maybe a touch below...but still solid) T7 in the Random meta.   Her AA is nothing to laugh at.  And she has really good reach with the spotter.  Perhaps a bow to her role as a bombardment ships...but catered to the ship fight.

That is probably why you do well in both Tiger and California. You know their limits and you work around them. But while you win games with California to the point that players take notice,  Tiger seems to be meh for the general player base with the exception of the few players that do really well.

That being your unique abilities. I think players like Flambass are in your exclusive club. Because the both of you can fight well with a canoe and frying pan. And still win the match. 

Players that adapt to a ship quite often are successful. I didn't get Tiger because she is basically a half pint Mino. And I never liked Mino. But that is just me. 

Just keep being you and maybe that ship will shine so long as you have a good team with you. You persevered with California and you are now a dangerous adversary in it. 

It is only a matter of time. Just you do you.:cap_tea: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,277
[CAAT]
Members
2,245 posts
5,159 battles
1 hour ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

I also think her turn and speed needs work

Honestly, they (Wargaming) should have just retained the tech tree battleship speed retention when undergoing maneuvers. California's turn is fine, her speed is slow, but understandable. It's the speed retention mechanic that she and all the other USN Standard type battleships (to my knowledge) are lacking. currently, under maneucvers, you drop to like sub-16 knots. You're even slower than you normally would be!

Edited by SaiIor_Moon

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.

×