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

Which Premium ships need to be buffed...

127 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,675 posts
18,562 battles

After all if WG can nerf them now in the name of balance why not buff those port queens acquired in crates... maybe they'd get played more.:Smile_child:

  • Cool 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,313
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
1,310 posts
12,108 battles

This can't possibly be an objective thread, because invariably people will post ships they think are weak when in reality they just aren't playing them correctly.

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Boring 8
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,709
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
12,977 posts
18,304 battles
11 minutes ago, CrazyHorse_Denver said:

After all if WG can nerf them now in the name of balance why not buff those port queens acquired in crates... maybe they'd get played more.:Smile_child:

Tirpitz should have Bismarck's secondary guns. 

Oh wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
87
[--K--]
Members
251 posts
9,886 battles

Tiger 59

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
722
[SVF]
Members
1,995 posts
2,476 battles

California (30s reload, 45s base 180 traverse, done) and Oklahoma (34.3s reload, buff the AP from the worthless stock NY shells to the B hull NY AP shells, done) immediately come to mind.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
956
[SPERG]
In AlfaTesters, In AlfaTesters
2,521 posts
13,562 battles

Belfast, needs armor buff and add torps and better AA. 

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 3
  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
423
[TIAR]
[TIAR]
Beta Testers
1,624 posts
23,773 battles

I would love to see Arkansas Beta with some AA.

  • Cool 3
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23
[5IN]
Members
56 posts
5,215 battles

I feel bad shooting at people who use Krasny Krym.  

Edited by JaxTek
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[USCC1]
[USCC1]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
40 posts
9,333 battles

Yukon could use a buff.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,634
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,697 posts
6,704 battles
53 minutes ago, Xidax_Gamer said:

Poor old Hood could use some love.

 

52 minutes ago, SeaGladius said:

Flint’s range, California’s and Oklahoma’s reload.

 

52 minutes ago, Chozo_Elder said:

California

 

27 minutes ago, EP429 said:

Oklahoma, California, Flint, Hood

 

25 minutes ago, landcollector said:

California (30s reload, 45s base 180 traverse, done) and Oklahoma (34.3s reload, buff the AP from the worthless stock NY shells to the B hull NY AP shells, done) immediately come to mind.

Hate to break it to you guys, but Oklahoma is #4 on the Tier V BB win rate list out of 18 ships.  I doubt buffs are coming her way based on that.  Hood and California don't do as well, but they do better than Gneisenau, Duke of York, Nagato, Ashitaka and Colorado, so again, buffs seem unlikely.

  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,101
[USCC]
Members
3,490 posts
16,146 battles

Siegfried could use a reload buff! Atago, same thing.
Atlanta and Flint need a range buff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
722
[SVF]
Members
1,995 posts
2,476 battles
1 minute ago, Helstrem said:

Hate to break it to you guys, but Oklahoma is #4 on the Tier V BB win rate list out of 18 ships.

I cannot see how, the ship is trash with the stats WG inflicted on her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,477 posts
4,779 battles
  • Yubari: Increase AA or add an additional flak cloud.
  • Asashio: Reduce reload speed by a bit.
  • Yukikaze: Reduce reload speed.
  • Marblehead: Improve AA.
  • Monaghan: Attach innate 100%+ EXP/Free EXP/Cmd EXP bonus to her.
  • California: Reduce reload speed.
  • Alabama: Improve Priority Sector Reinforcement to 50%. :Smile_trollface:
  • Poltava: Reduce reload to 26 seconds or lower citadel.
  • Gallant: Attach innate 100%+ EXP/Free EXP/Cmd Exp bonus to her. 
  • Hood: Reduce reload to 28-26 seconds
  • Dunkerque: Attach innate 100%+ EXP/Free EXP/Cmd EXP bonus to her.
  • Genova: Reduce HP to around 26k, reduce reload to around 16 seconds. 
  • Blyskawica: Increase torpedo range.
  • Prinz Eitel Friedrich: Improve secondary accuracy or add DFAA.
  • Graf Zeppelin: Add more strike craft to each flight to balance out how fragile they are. Or add option to replace rocket fighters with HE bombers. 
  • Irian: Lower citadel or decrease it's size. 
  • Duke of York: Increase HE damage to make up for increased reload time. Increase reload to 30 seconds. 
  • Hill: Reduce reload to 4 seconds. Reduce concealment to around 6k. Attach innate 100%+ EXP/Free EXP/Cmd EXP bonus to her. 
  • Saipan: Increase plane regeneration to 90 seconds or less.
  • Mysore: Attach EXP/Free EXP/Cmd bonus to her. Increase range to 15km. Reduce rate of fire to 7.7 seconds. Increase maximum speed to 32 knots. 
  • Kii: Increase secondary accuracy or range. 
  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
820
[META_]
Members
1,837 posts
18,976 battles
1 hour ago, SeaGladius said:

Flint’s range, California’s and Oklahoma’s reload.

Flint is  12.4 and still #1 in winrate...good luck increasing that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
820
[META_]
Members
1,837 posts
18,976 battles
1 hour ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

This can't possibly be an objective thread, because invariably people will post ships they think are weak when in reality they just aren't playing them correctly.

Exactly 💯...wows has the stats , if you can't hit the average you're not playing it right 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
529
[VORTX]
Members
688 posts
8,868 battles
1 hour ago, SeaGladius said:

Flint’s range, California’s and Oklahoma’s reload.

This plus the Okie’s penetration needs to be buffed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[LWOP]
Members
4 posts
441 battles

Agree with "maybe they're just not playing it right..."

But there's so many other variables we just don't know:

-there's no skill-based MM, so players in "my ship needs a buff REALLY bad" might've been thrown into more than a few matches, as bottom tier, minimal upgrades, low level commander, and fewer battles to get experienced with it, thrown up against higher skilled players in higher tier ships with all the upgrades and a commander with twice as many skills, plus 2 or 3 times as many matches to "get gud" that the lesser experienced player just doesn't have under his/her/their belt.

- there are a LOT of ships that are flat-out fragile for their class and tier (looking at you, Marblehead: the tier 5 that "anything hits you, crits you, if it doesn't set you on fire first... ), and a game that releases far too many ships of the "it works best from a distance as a support sniper" class, isn't doing itself any favors: that just encourages poor gameplay via the "hide and snipe" mentality made just as sadly-famous by World of Tanks: sniper heavy MBTs, great." Let's make a ship game that makes those exact same mistakes, just with ships, and hope we get it right because it's on water...."

There's so many variables involved. "Just looking at stats", maybe a ship is worse overall because nobody can figure out its best employment because it IS crap, as compared to ships easily mastered by a majority of players because they're of the "W + LMB = I win" class.

One of the biggest defects of the game I've experienced is the generational disparity: The pain of going from gravy-easy no-torpedoes tier 1, into tiers 2 and 3 and getting torpedo spammed by tiers 3 and 4 (respectively) with no learning curve going into that foray to be ready for it, other than a "get gud or die" mentality from other players. Pre-WW1 protected cruisers with limited traverse, limited elevation broadside guns against pre-WW2 turreted ships with noticeably more gun range, accuracy, and rate of fire, and torpedo-volley destroyers? Horrible generational match up. A Marblehead (5) should never see a Boise (7) any more than a Campbeltown (3) should have to square off against an Okhotnik (5).

It's not necessarily the ships that are bad, but rather what their expected to fight. That's a WG problem across all their games: horrible tier MMs. Flatten that curve to be more generationally realistic, and "this ship needs a buff BAD" won't seem so prevalent in a lot of players' eyes.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
125
[B2P]
Members
107 posts
11,993 battles
1 hour ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

This can't possibly be an objective thread, because invariably people will post ships they think are weak when in reality they just aren't playing them correctly.

You're right, if I were a better player the Flint and Atlanta would be able to shoot farther than a DD

  • Cool 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×