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

Any Removals Planned?

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,080
[NGA-A]
Members
2,654 posts
17,764 battles

Pretty much like the title says, are there any ships that are planned or rumored to be removed from the armory? Particularly the ones for RB points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,417
[TO32]
Wiki Editor
6,577 posts
17,526 battles

The last round of removals was announced well over a year ago, with nothing since then. If and when WG removes ships, we’ll have at least a couple months warning for any of the resource ships.

If I had to guess, I’d say Ohio for RB/Marceau or Napoli for coal/Bourgogne for steel. All of them are older ships, very popular picks for their resource, and reasonably strong compared to their resource peers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
105
[ODIN]
Members
116 posts
7,221 battles

No. None of the ships available for any resource (coal, steel, or RB) are really up for removal IMO. Even ships like Napoli, Ohio, Marceau, and Bourgogne are unlikely to be removed from sale. I know people like to meme on the "removed because the ship was too popular reason" but it's undoubtedly true. Previously removed ships like Georgia, JB, Smolensk, Thunderer, and Massa, were all extremely pervasive and effective in all battle types (not to mention extremely easy to use) which warranted their removal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,282
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
38,144 posts
30,906 battles

Trying to remember the what and when the last ship got yanked.  Wasn't it Smaland?  The last FreeXP ship?

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,255
[BONKY]
Members
2,284 posts
26,818 battles

Nothing announced yet, but with Tromp being announced for coal, making it now 4 coal T10 DDs, I see one leaving. Probably Marceau as its been around the longest and it is really good, so both their boxes of being too popular and too good can be ticked. Others ones matching include Bourgogne (oldest steel BB, probably the best steel ship currently available) Pommern (popularity) Napoli (popularity, strong in competitive) Mainz (really good) and Kearsarge (too good)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,417
[TO32]
Wiki Editor
6,577 posts
17,526 battles
1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Trying to remember the what and when the last ship got yanked.  Wasn't it Smaland?  The last FreeXP ship?

Yes. The last round of removals was early last year. Technically Somers was the last one sent to the naughty list (a patch later in 10.2), but it was announced about the same time as the 10.1 batch — Smaland/Alaska/Thunderer/Georgia/Mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
141
[RSWF]
Members
434 posts
6,464 battles
18 minutes ago, MidnightPhoenix07 said:

Yes. The last round of removals was early last year. Technically Somers was the last one sent to the naughty list (a patch later in 10.2), but it was announced about the same time as the 10.1 batch — Smaland/Alaska/Thunderer/Georgia/Mass.

That (Smaland, Thunderer, AK, GA) was in Jan 2021. Id been playing less than a year and was able to get all of them except Smaland.  Pretty sure the Mass was removed earlier - I don't recall having a shot at her. 

I started keeping some notes around then:

10.5 removed Erich Lowenhardt, Nelson, T-61, Haida, Z-39, Asashio, Lenin, Graf Spee. (all T6-8 ships)

10.6 removed Friesland but added Groningen (same ship different country). (T9)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,417
[TO32]
Wiki Editor
6,577 posts
17,526 battles
5 minutes ago, Bomont said:

Pretty sure the Mass was removed earlier - I don't recall having a shot at her. 

Mass was the same time as the other four (10.1, February 2021).

I did forget about Nelson later, which would have been the last true resource ship “removal” (since Friesland counts but also doesn’t count imo, as you can still get “Friesland” under a different name for the same resource).

I was more focused on resource ships, not doubloon/premium shop ships. The OP was asking about armory ships, which for most players tends to be synonymous with resource ships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,255
[BONKY]
Members
2,284 posts
26,818 battles
1 hour ago, crazyeightyfive said:

image.png.5e68459fb0a6b21c9ab3e94013eba607.png

12 gun NC firepower, coupled with its own spotting and Tiny Tims. Anyone with hands should have no issues dominating with Kearsarge.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
141
[RSWF]
Members
434 posts
6,464 battles

You're right, the Nelson was an FXP ship but all of the others in that bunch were in the armory but only available for dubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,417
[TO32]
Wiki Editor
6,577 posts
17,526 battles
14 minutes ago, tfcas119 said:

12 gun NC firepower, coupled with its own spotting and Tiny Tims. Anyone with hands should have no issues dominating with Kearsarge.

And of the t9 coal ships, probably the most likely to go. But it’s on the newer end still, and there’s no way WG will pull it anytime soon with the tech tree line coming out next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,403
[SALVO]
Members
28,054 posts
41,668 battles
1 hour ago, Bomont said:

10.6 removed Friesland but added Groningen (same ship different country). (T9)

I kinda wish that the devs hadn't just done a copy and paste job on the Groningen.  I think that it would have been nice if they could have taken the same basic ship but given a different feel, like maybe a single rack of torps, maybe at the cost of a bit of her gun reload.  And perhaps better concealment.  Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
314
[WOLFH]
Members
740 posts
31,800 battles

long ago I came up with my only 'criteria' for what get ships removed from availability. It's not perfect. It's just a very 'quick & dirty' criteria using the ship data for EU (largest server) from the wows-numbers website.

As far as I can tell, most^ of the ships removed get covered under one or both of these criteria.

1)  Too Good : Win Rate +55% AND Battles over 200k
2) To Popular : Over 2M Battles AND Win Rate over 53%

WG will have much more detailed/complex ways of working out what ships get removed, but this (surprisingly) covers most of the ones that have been removed.

DISCLAIMER: I don't think *ANY* currently available ships are getting removed. I suspect they are much more likely to get nerfed.

From the 'Too Good' list, its hard to find ships that haven't already been removed from availability (I've BOLD the ships I *think* are still available) I've included ships just outside my 55% WR criteria

image.png.23fd5e3bbb53cb78c3cbbaa5153a6502.png

And from the 'Too Popular' list, also including ships just outside the WR criteria. To my surprise, most of the ones still available are Tech Tree ships (don't tell WG)

image.png.5b80c5dceb344d887546073b1914b42c.png

---

I don't think this helps anyone, but it was fun for me to go back and run the numbers again :fish_book:

---

^ Smolensk 49.41% win rate. Very annoying to fight against, but not OP in terms of helping their teams win games :Smile-_tongue:
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,552
[X-PN]
Members
3,837 posts
17,722 battles
1 hour ago, Grantwhy said:

long ago I came up with my only 'criteria' for what get ships removed from availability. It's not perfect. It's just a very 'quick & dirty' criteria using the ship data for EU (largest server) from the wows-numbers website.

As far as I can tell, most^ of the ships removed get covered under one or both of these criteria.

1)  Too Good : Win Rate +55% AND Battles over 200k
2) To Popular : Over 2M Battles AND Win Rate over 53%

WG will have much more detailed/complex ways of working out what ships get removed, but this (surprisingly) covers most of the ones that have been removed.

DISCLAIMER: I don't think *ANY* currently available ships are getting removed. I suspect they are much more likely to get nerfed.

From the 'Too Good' list, its hard to find ships that haven't already been removed from availability (I've BOLD the ships I *think* are still available) I've included ships just outside my 55% WR criteria

image.png.23fd5e3bbb53cb78c3cbbaa5153a6502.png

And from the 'Too Popular' list, also including ships just outside the WR criteria. To my surprise, most of the ones still available are Tech Tree ships (don't tell WG)

image.png.5b80c5dceb344d887546073b1914b42c.png

---

I don't think this helps anyone, but it was fun for me to go back and run the numbers again :fish_book:

---

^ Smolensk 49.41% win rate. Very annoying to fight against, but not OP in terms of helping their teams win games :Smile-_tongue:
 

Good list.... in fact the only ship I would guess being in danger would be Ragnar.  Not really OP in average player hands but super tough in good hands.

As for your stats....  I'd wouldn't take the WR numbers for WOWS-Numbers to seriously since some of that data is so stale as to being total irrelevant.  For example take Flint, back in the day it was much stronger but more importantly was mostly only in the hands of comp players or those to were good at ranked....in words, good players.... Good players have good WR.... is it the ship or the player?  In Flint's case it was the player.  Every month (30 day snapshot) for the last year that I've looked (at least 6 months worth) Flint WR was in the bottom half of T7 cruisers. 

Some ships like Staly aren't as good as they used to be.....but others like Belfast still have a WR that screams broken.

Anyway....the point is..... look at current data to really see the story.

 

BTW - where's Thunderer?

 

 

Edited by YouSatInGum
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
314
[WOLFH]
Members
740 posts
31,800 battles
52 minutes ago, YouSatInGum said:

BTW - where's Thunderer? 

Just a little bit above Smolensk with a 50.31% win rate.

I suspect both ships win rates suffer from being bought by a lot of average/poor players who saw all the rage/complaints about them, but I'll stand by my opinion that while both ships are very annoying to play against, if you want to boost your win rate they're not the ships you want.

Boost your damage numbers yes, win rate no :cap_yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,272 posts
5,302 battles

That is an interesting list...The Musashi, and Kron would be higher if it wasn't for me, lol.. 

I blame the Kamikaze and Little Cesar for all the fun I've had in Ranked. :Smile_veryhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,689
[-VT-]
[-VT-]
Members
2,262 posts
26,520 battles

Yes, wargaming plans to remove itself and go bankrupt with current game design

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,856
[WOLFC]
Members
6,101 posts
17,230 battles
10 hours ago, Crucis said:

I kinda wish that the devs hadn't just done a copy and paste job on the Groningen.  I think that it would have been nice if they could have taken the same basic ship but given a different feel, like maybe a single rack of torps, maybe at the cost of a bit of her gun reload.  And perhaps better concealment.  Just a thought.

Groningen was always going to be a clone of Friesland, as her implementation (and the concurrent removal of Friesland) was a compromise to avoid the complications of converting Friesland from a European ship to a Dutch ship. The previous instance when a ship changed nations didn’t have any negative side effects because Blyskawica was the sole Polish ship in the game. Rather than coming up with a complicated plan to convert players’ captains as well, WG decided to just implement Groningen as a clone and offer Friesland owners the opportunity to exchange their Friesland for the new Dutch ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,403
[SALVO]
Members
28,054 posts
41,668 battles
29 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Groningen was always going to be a clone of Friesland, as her implementation (and the concurrent removal of Friesland) was a compromise to avoid the complications of converting Friesland from a European ship to a Dutch ship. The previous instance when a ship changed nations didn’t have any negative side effects because Blyskawica was the sole Polish ship in the game. Rather than coming up with a complicated plan to convert players’ captains as well, WG decided to just implement Groningen as a clone and offer Friesland owners the opportunity to exchange their Friesland for the new Dutch ship.

My point was that I wished that they'd shown a little originality, rather than do a lazy copy and paste job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,856
[WOLFC]
Members
6,101 posts
17,230 battles
6 minutes ago, Crucis said:

My point was that I wished that they'd shown a little originality, rather than do a lazy copy and paste job.

I know. My point was that she was never really meant to be her own ship. WG wanted to simply make Friesland a Dutch ship, but because of the issues involved with players’ captains the decision was made to implement a Dutch clone instead, while at the same time removing the original ship from availability.

Groningen being a unique ship was never considered to begin with, because that would be completely contrary to her purpose. WG didn’t want two different ships of the same class with different gameplay.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,282
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
38,144 posts
30,906 battles
18 hours ago, YouSatInGum said:

Good list.... in fact the only ship I would guess being in danger would be Ragnar.  Not really OP in average player hands but super tough in good hands.

As for your stats....  I'd wouldn't take the WR numbers for WOWS-Numbers to seriously since some of that data is so stale as to being total irrelevant.  For example take Flint, back in the day it was much stronger but more importantly was mostly only in the hands of comp players or those to were good at ranked....in words, good players.... Good players have good WR.... is it the ship or the player?  In Flint's case it was the player.  Every month (30 day snapshot) for the last year that I've looked (at least 6 months worth) Flint WR was in the bottom half of T7 cruisers. 

Some ships like Staly aren't as good as they used to be.....but others like Belfast still have a WR that screams broken.

Anyway....the point is..... look at current data to really see the story.

 

BTW - where's Thunderer?

The problem with pulling server stats today is that said sites lump the values from the entire history of the game since launch together.  The game has drastically changed over the years

2015 - CV changes, nerfs, and implementation of Fighter Barrages (often called Strafing by players)

2016 - IJN DD and Torpedo Nerfs due to Torpedo Soup;  Spread of Radar by WG, even to ships that did not have it before.  It became featured with VIII NOLA, IX Baltimore, X Des Moines, and VII Atlanta, ships that didn't have Radar prior.

2017 - Stealth Fire Removal

2019 - CV Rebork

2020 - IFHE Nerf and Armor Standardization

2021- Captain Skills Rebork

 

USN Battleships at Tier IX-X used to have skyscraper Citadels.

German Cruisers for years did not have the HE Penetration Buff that they have now.

High Tier Pan Asia Destroyers only recently got a big buff where they can have Torp Reload Booster and Smoke at the same time.

Etc.

 

Many changes over the years, so when you look at stats of a ship on some site, especially for a bote that has been in the game a long time, the stats are invalid.

 

There's also an issue with inflated WR% of ships, especially Premium Ships.

1.  Premium Ships are fully upgraded, at their peak performance as soon as you get them.  Meanwhile, a Tech Tree Ship is playing at stock modules when you first get them.   Yeah, well established players can FreeXP and play at fully upgraded modules before their very first game if they want, but not all players are like that.  Some players are still pinching their credits, saving, because they just blew all their credits to get the next tier ship.  Stock Modules means shorter gun range, slower speeds, worse torpedoes, worse rudder shift time, etc.  Stock hull modules are more likely to catch fire than upgraded hull modules, even though it's all on the same ship.

 

2.  Low battles played on a ship is very easily influenced to have better stats by the few, veteran players using it.

Etc.

 

IMO, looking at ship server stats is useless because of these many factors.  Said stats are useless unless you can filter the results to more limited windows.  Warships Today many years ago used to offer 7 and 14 day stat filters but that site died long ago.  Maplesyrup used to present server stats by the quarter, and that was amazing.  But Maplesyrup is shut down now.  I don't know of any WoWS stat sites that had any filtering or categorization for time periods anymore.  They're all like WoWS Stats & Numbers, using the whole post-launch history of the game, and it's inaccurate.  I'd like to be proven wrong though.  I honestly do.  It'd be a great resource.

===

Iowa, Montana, Missouri operated for years with Citadels like this.

Lxc23L5.jpeg

Montana below.

Montana.jpg.57b1e36063d273db7e0d6ae119b5

On 3/13/2017 at 6:36 AM, HazeGrayUnderway said:

2 pictures spliced together from a match I was in yesterday.  Silence169 was a teammate in an Iowa and was about to go down, most especially he was now engaged with a very high HP Missouri.  But, well...

 

  Hide contents

HL8mYmB.jpg

 

I asked Silence169 how many citadels he got from that.  5.  FIVE citadels!

For years those ships operated with such Citadels and were easy to delete.  The stats from those years are still counted in stat sites today, alongside the current stats.

 

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,856
[WOLFC]
Members
6,101 posts
17,230 battles
17 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

High Tier Pan Asia Destroyers only recently got a big buff where they can have Torp Reload Booster and Smoke at the same time.

The recent buff was the addition of the TRB consumable, with the added benefit of it being in a new slot. The consumable choice these ships always had to make at high tiers, and still do, is between smoke and radar.

Japanese DDs are the ships that often have to choose between smoke and TRB.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,282
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
38,144 posts
30,906 battles
15 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

The recent buff was the addition of the TRB consumable, with the added benefit of it being in a new slot. The consumable choice these ships always had to make at high tiers, and still do, is between smoke and radar.

Japanese DDs are the ships that often have to choose between smoke and TRB.

Oh, I still remember when IJN DDs after their split could have both TRB + Smoke at the same time.  Shiratsuyu showed up in Tier VII Ranked with that capability.  My friends that did Ranked always talked about sending "Walls of Skill" at all the smoke campers that were recently added to the game:  Fiji, Belfast mainly, as well as DDs popping smoke.

I still have the NA Server ranked results from Shiratsuyu's only appearance in Ranked with that setup being possible: 

(the image is sharp if you clink on it)

On 3/18/2017 at 8:11 PM, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Ranked is almost finished and it's been about a month since I showed CV Ranked performance.  This is how all this season's Ranked ships did sorted by WR%, not just CVs.  Take a look who's Number 1 in WR%.  Take a look who has the lowest WR% and just laugh or feel pity.

 

DAzDYie.jpg

 

There isn't a d**n thing USN CVs other than Saipan can do right.

Considering how much she was played, and placed in WR% alongside some very notably strong Premium Ships, that was an amazing performance.

TRB + Smoke Shiratsuyu was a popular and effective choice that Ranked Season.  And not even a few weeks after it concluded, WG nerfed IJN DDs so that TRB + Smoke was not possible anymore, and the players had to choose one or the other.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

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.

×