RoF vs Alpha?

[Gavroche_]

Which one, in your personal opinion, is preferable?

I prefer Alpha over RoF. In a sneaky cruiser, if you can get the drop on another ship, even battleships will feel an alpha strike.

The examples I have are the Zao and Atago;

Both of these IJN Heavy Cruisers use their high alpha damage rather than RoF to accomplish being OP.

The Des Moines and the New Orlean and the Chapyev/MK just can't compete with them.

High alpha damage means you can sorta wriggle around effectively and make the best of your armor. In my Des Moines, I either give up wriggling or just forget my third turret.

 

Lotta people seem to think that RoF>Alpha, but I disagree.

[10T0nHammer]

I vote insignificant. The arcs and dispersion are more important to me. They really affect how well a ship does. You can give a ship weaker shells and she will still perform better than the ship with the stronger shells with worse arcs. Case in point is the Chappy vs the New Orleans.

 

[atPrick__]

lol no option for Bacon

 

in a perfect world though my vote would be for "all of the above".

 

Zoa's fire chance and detection mean more to her OP'ness than her ridiculous high HE alpha...

[CanadianArmoured]

Well Alpha is good as long as you hit in the right spot where RoF you can pepper the target getting a better chance of a citadel. Cruiser vs cruiser I prefer RoF just because you angle, bounce the shot and while the alpha ship is waiting to reload you pound him into scrap.

[Killjoy1941]

I vote insignificant. The arcs and dispersion are more important to me. They really affect how well a ship does. You can give a ship weaker shells and she will still perform better than the ship with the stronger shells with worse arcs. Case in point is the Chappy vs the New Orleans.

 

Point and match, though ROF still beats alpha for second place.

[LuminousWraith]

I vote insignificant. The arcs and dispersion are more important to me. They really affect how well a ship does. You can give a ship weaker shells and she will still perform better than the ship with the stronger shells with worse arcs. Case in point is the Chappy vs the New Orleans.

 

 

I agree with 10Ton here. I'd take a ship with mediocre RoF and average Alpha for good arcs, tight dispersion and fast traverse. RoF is putting shells in the air. Alpha is the size of the potential damage pool. But arcs, dispersion et all mean you can put the potential damage into actual use, and help your team win.

[Sinboto]

agree with 10 high rof don't mean jack if you can't hit what you're aiming at. 

[Personator]

I can kill a Nurnberg 1v1 in my DD if we're both broadside to each other. Why?

Citadels

 

[Killjoy1941]

I can kill a Nurnberg 1v1 in my DD if we're both broadside to each other. Why?

Citadels

 

 

Most appropriate ammo icon ever.

[Personator]

 

Most appropriate ammo icon ever.

 

It's too bad I can no longer mod that icon. I can't find the image file for AP shells anymore. 

[BelgaraththeSorcerer]

I can kill a Nurnberg 1v1 in my DD if we're both broadside to each other. Why?

Citadels

 

I killed a Zao like that a while back in my fletcher.... the poor bastard never saw it coming....

[ERROR404_Logic_Not_Found]

In the Case of Fubuki v Benson, DPS of the Benson via its ROF wins out... (on basically all DDs), but only at shorter ranges as the shell velocity of the Benson means it looses at long range, works the same way for USN v VMF

 

The Tash rules at longer ranges due to its shell velocity and arcs; however, close up, It'll be dominated by the pure raw DPS of the Benson....

 

And Yes the Zao is known for its fire chance AND Stealth-firing AND arcs AND accuracy, 24% with everything... with its accuracy, BBs should fear you as they burn (or not because it makes a good BBQ), wouldn't care much for its DPS/alpha/RoF as long as that fire chance and stealth-firing

[GhostSwordsman]

I'd say that generally, alpha > RoF. Hitting someone, or getting hit, with a massive amount of damage in one salvo will make them/you think twice about your approach and how you engage. RoF, for the most part, is just annoying to deal with.

 

However, I'd also say that all the above is thrown out the window when you introduce the fire mechanics that are currently in game. Alpha? RoF? Doesn't matter if you can turn your opponent into a raging inferno.

[TabbyHopkins]

Arcs, travel time, and ability to actually punch through enough armor to get a 33% dmg hit, along with accuracy. Hmm, sounds like I'm talking German Cruisers...Because I am. I love fireing all 12 gun from Hindenburg and geting 20k dmg on a Yamato at 18km.

[centarina]

better players,  alpha,    casual players,  ROF  

 

[Personator]

better players,  alpha,    casual players,  ROF  

 

Not necessarily. I'm not that casual of a player and I like to do things quickly. It's a balance between the two. If a shell has both good alpha and penetration for lower RoF compared to something that has bad penetration, good alpha, and good RoF...  it just depends on what I feel for the day 

[Sturg303]

ROF. I like ships like Des Moines.

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

Depends on how easy it is to hit the target, if you have slow shells, a maneuverable target, or both (rip baltimore) then ROF is better. If you are sure you can get good hits on a target and make them count then alpha is better because you can knock stuff out quicker. 

 

Of course on the other hand you can just choose the Molotov or Moskva:

[HARDCORE_BR]

Alpha damage is what I like about BBs and IJN CAs , but RoF in certain situations is so much better like DD hunting , or to catch a ship in a turn with AP ammo . In general  , Alpha , feels more satisfying to sink/deal a large amount of damage in a single blow .

[Sinboto]

Depends on how easy it is to hit the target, if you have slow shells, a maneuverable target, or both (rip baltimore) then ROF is better. If you are sure you can get good hits on a target and make them count then alpha is better because you can knock stuff out quicker. 

 

Of course on the other hand you can just choose the Molotov or Moskva:

 

Stonk Russian Battlecruisers! 

[MrDeaf]

I am loving Molotov...

 

Alpha strikes are excellent if you have many guns that can reach out to exposed broadsides and reliably penetrate their citadel.

I think 12km is good, 15km is excellent and 18km+ is astounding.

If your guns cannot alpha strike from far out, then they become situational and inflexible. (good example is Yorck)

 

High RoF is excellent, but only if you can land your shells reliably, and they have to cause consistent levels of damage.

Again, this is the same issue with alpha strikes.

If you cannot make use of your RoF, they become situational and inflexible. (good example is Cleveland and Atlanta)

 

Another thing to consider, is turret traverse and range.

Range is obvious.

Turret traverse is less obvious, but faster is clearly better.

 

So, all in all, what I think makes certain cruiser guns superior over others, is primarily their trajectory and accuracy, with RoF and alpha/fire capabilities adding in a little extra.

 

If I wanted a totally OP cruiser gun, I would just combine 2 traits of any of the T10s.

DM RoF + Moskva shell arcs

H-burg RoF + Zao napalm shells

[HazeGrayUnderway]

I vote insignificant. The arcs and dispersion are more important to me. They really affect how well a ship does. You can give a ship weaker shells and she will still perform better than the ship with the stronger shells with worse arcs. Case in point is the Chappy vs the New Orleans.

 

 

The means of readily, easily applying damage I agree is more important.

 

Stonk Russian Battlecruisers! 

 

Powered by the love of the Proletariat against capitalist and fascist pigs!