SuperNikoPower

LittleWhiteMouse - Mega Ship Review Guide Page

  • You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.

59 posts in this topic

The Dunkerque review has been linked.  The Flint review will be linked soonish (I've sent the URL to Niko).

The Flint review was the largest to date (if you exclude the Lertboxes), totaling almost 7,000 words.  There was a lot to cover here, as she's argued to be one of the most overpowered ships in the game.  I didn't set out to disprove this, but rather to put it into context ... and that took a lot of explaining.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psst...

 

All of these reviews are linked in the Wiki entry for each of the premium ships as well. ;)

 

We've been busy improving the premium ship pages the past couple of weeks before moving on to the regular tech lines.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfect it should have always been Pinned but I like WG's help keeping it organized now for LWM. +1 for both of you!


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we envision a time ever when premium, not-in-the-tree ships can simply be integrated as another tab within port? And do you know if the armor models for those ships will be available when the Ship Armor View option is enabled? tia


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we envision a time ever when premium, not-in-the-tree ships can simply be integrated as another tab within port? And do you know if the armor models for those ships will be available when the Ship Armor View option is enabled? tia

I'm of two minds on this.  On the one hand, it's nice to be able to see all of the information.  More info = good info.

On the other, I can imagine how people would feel when they look at a really nice ship and realize it's "not for them".  Overall, I would lean towards the former, though.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a list of ship reviews from LittleWhiteMouse. As she creates more, they will be added. Check back for more.

 

 

2016.08.15  Flint

2016.08.12  Dunkerque

2016.08.08  Scharnhorst

2016.07.15  Krasny Krym
2016.07.01  Arizona

2016.06.27  Yubari 2.0

2016.06.22  Sims 2.0

2016.06.08  Arpeggio of Blue Steel Kongo-class Battleships

2016.05.31  Smith

2016.05.29  Indianapolis

2016.05.24  Emden

2016.05.20  Tirpitz 2.0

2016.05.13  Molotov

2016.04.30  Ishizuchi 2.0

2016.04.29  Mikasa

2016.04.25  Texas

2016.04.22  Campbeltown

2016.04.07  Saipan

2016.03.31  Diana

2016.03.27  Murmansk

2016.03.25  Mikhail Kutuzov 2.0

2016.03.18  Marblehead

2016.02.23  Lo Yang

2016.02.21  Arkansas
2016.02.18  Atlanta 2.0

2016.02.11  Kamikaze-class 2.0

2016.02.11  Tachibana

2016.02.10  Anshan 2.0

2016.01.21  Atago 2.0

2016.01.09  Arpeggio Myoko

2015.12.26  Blyskawica

2015.11.27  Imperator Nikolai I

2015.11.26  Warspite 2.0

2015.11.25  Aurora

2015.11.19  Gremyashchy

 

 

Hey niko, the kamikaze 2.0 has the link to the tachibana


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of two minds on this.  On the one hand, it's nice to be able to see all of the information.  More info = good info.

On the other, I can imagine how people would feel when they look at a really nice ship and realize it's "not for them".  Overall, I would lean towards the former, though.

 

As an Atlanta driver, that's how I felt when I saw the specs of the Flint :(

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or did the review for the Flint seem twice as long as normal?  Still a great read, but it just seemed like a larger in-depth review than usual.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or did the review for the Flint seem twice as long as normal?  Still a great read, but it just seemed like a larger in-depth review than usual.

 

It is longer than normal.  I'm not happy with it's length but there was a lot to cover.

  1. Reviewing the ship itself.
  2. Comparing it to the Atlanta.
  3. Addressing perceptions of it being overpowered.

 

The first part is obvious enough.  Writing a pure review of a tier 7 ship would normally take about 3000 to 3500 words in my usual format.  But with the politics surrounding the ship, I couldn't leave it just like that.  To many players, she's just an Atlanta.  To others, she's the most overpowered, unbalanced ship in the game.  So I added lines and sections to compare her directly to the Atlanta and reference the lead of her main-class.  This added a little, but not too much.  Where the bulk of the material comes is addressing her smoke generators.  Normally in one of my reviews, the options section is pretty trim.  Here you get a blob.  Similarly, my summary is also pretty trim.  Blob #2 populates that section.  Both are focused on addressing the smoke meta and people's perceptions of it being overpowered.

 

With the amount of time necessary to acquire this ship, I felt it important to clarify.  To me, few things would be as bad as someone throwing themselves at Ranked for the sole reason of trying to acquire this ship, putting in hundreds of hours of game play they might not be enjoying (and risking burn out) only to find that the ship isn't as powerful as they were led to believe.


4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is longer than normal.  I'm not happy with it's length but there was a lot to cover.

  1. Reviewing the ship itself.
  2. Comparing it to the Atlanta.
  3. Addressing perceptions of it being overpowered.

 

The first part is obvious enough.  Writing a pure review of a tier 7 ship would normally take about 3000 to 3500 words in my usual format.  But with the politics surrounding the ship, I couldn't leave it just like that.  To many players, she's just an Atlanta.  To others, she's the most overpowered, unbalanced ship in the game.  So I added lines and sections to compare her directly to the Atlanta and reference the lead of her main-class.  This added a little, but not too much.  Where the bulk of the material comes is addressing her smoke generators.  Normally in one of my reviews, the options section is pretty trim.  Here you get a blob.  Similarly, my summary is also pretty trim.  Blob #2 populates that section.  Both are focused on addressing the smoke meta and people's perceptions of it being overpowered.

 

With the amount of time necessary to acquire this ship, I felt it important to clarify.  To me, few things would be as bad as someone throwing themselves at Ranked for the sole reason of trying to acquire this ship, putting in hundreds of hours of game play they might not be enjoying (and risking burn out) only to find that the ship isn't as powerful as they were led to believe.

 

As I already said I thought it was your best and most complete review yet, if people dont want to read it all they can skim it imo:)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Japanese, it's called Mikakunin de Shinkoukei.  I watched it based on someone's review that described it having some interesting emotional depth.  Instead it was rather shallow and pandering to a younger male audience.  I was so disappointed.  But, being a sucker for a clever animation sequence, I nicked Kobeni's bouncy-dance from the intro sequence for my avatar.

 

*watches intro*

 

nah, girl, you need to change that to a proper avie :P

TKCgcRQl.png

Edited by TheSupremeOne34

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance for a Prinz Eugen review before she leaves the premium shop? I know it's basically a slightly worse Hipper, but it's always nice to hear your thoughts. 

Edited by Falls_USMC

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance for a Prinz Eugen review before she leaves the premium shop? I know it's basically a slightly worse Hipper, but it's always nice to hear your thoughts. 

 

I'm waiting to get access to her.  I had her only for a brief period -- enough to make a preliminary article but not to populate the entire essay.  During testing, we didn't have camouflage either so that also held me up.  It will take me about 6 to 8 hours to finish what I have once I get the ship again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of two minds on this.  On the one hand, it's nice to be able to see all of the information.  More info = good info.

On the other, I can imagine how people would feel when they look at a really nice ship and realize it's "not for them".  Overall, I would lean towards the former, though.

Even if "you can't have this", Its EXTREMELY nice to see what you're up against when playing that tier. Just because I didn't/couldn't get a premium  (bought or awarded) ship, doesn't mean I won't have to oppose it in a match, and it's stats shouldn't be a secret.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm making some edits to my first post.  I'll use it to add explanations to some of the more stylized elements to my reviews to help explain the way I categorize things.

There are also reviews now for the König Albert, Iowa, Warspite (3.0) and Prinz Eugen.

 

If you have any questions relating to the reviews or wanting more explanations, feel free to ask them here so I can add to that first post.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great work LWM!!!!!!!!! use this info all the time!! Thank you for your time and effort that you put into these, that allows us lazy bums to benefit from your work!!


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both the Bogatyr and Belfast have reviews (sorry for the alliteration!). 

I've been taking a break from reviewing tech tree ships on a schedule with Ranked Battles being in full swing.  It looks like I'll have a bit of a lull after Belfast before the next premium ship comes about, so I'd be happy to take a request for a ship to look at (either a premium or non-premium).  Feel free to suggest something.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I ever slack off last month.  Only one review?  Sheesh.  Let's start November off right with a review of the HMAS Perth.

 

Edited by LittleWhiteMouse

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added a section explaining the break down of my Recommendations on my initial post.

It's C&Ped in the spoiler below.

 


Recommendation Section

Some people take exception that I don't come out and say right from the word go if a ship is "good" or "bad".  I'm kind of at a loss on how to address this.

 

This disparity of a dichotomy in my reviews comes from having contact with and experience in talking to lots of different gamers over the years.  This opened my eyes to the fact that not everyone plays the game for the same reasons.  While everyone plays for "fun", where they find their enjoyment comes from different aspects.  Some players hinge their amusement based on their success rate, be it winning, high damage, or whatever other parameter they choose to define their performance.  Others are content to never let such minutia cross their thoughts as they derp about and enjoy simply playing a well handling ship.  Yet others want to taste a bit of history.  Still others want a unique experience with a bit of a prestige and recognition for playing something rare.  To this end, I felt I had to divide my recommendation section up to try and accommodate the various play styles that are out there.  While this will not cover everyone, it will hopefully provide a more balanced series of opinions that can be applied to the cross-section of gamers that make up our community.

 

So sorry, I'm not writing my review specifically to cater to your needs.  You're not a special snowflake.  I know, PBS lied to me for years, too.  My recommendations are intended for the reader to think about why they play, what they're looking for.  They can decide for themselves whether they play to grind, to be competitive, because of the history behind the ships or for a unique, entertaining experience.

 


 

RANDOM BATTLE GRINDING

When I'm saying "yes" or "no" to Random Battle Grinding, I'm looking at the following characteristics:

 

  • Does the ship earn a lot of credits or is it expensive to run?
  • Do you need to use signals to make the ship perform?  How well does it earn signal flags?
  • What are the experience gains like for this ship?  Will it make a good Captain Trainer?
  • How well does it perform when it's bottom tier?  Can it carry?  Will it hurt a player's stats?

 

Let's take a closer look at some of these.

 

For Credit Earning, I'm primarily looking at how many premium consumables are necessary to run on the ship to make it play to an acceptable level.  Note that "acceptable" is entirely subjective and based upon my own play style.  Once a ship starts making use of two or three premium consumables regularly, this really eats into the profitability of a ship.  In addition, lower tiered ships, generally, do not earn as much per battle as higher tiered ships.  So by mashing these two factors together, I then weigh how much bank she's making me.  If I see less than 200,000 credits being made with a premium account after costs, then this isn't going to be getting a nod from me.

In regards to Signals, I'm looking to see how easy it was to earn signals.  Was I able to get a Kraken Unleashed?  What about Confederate and High Caliber?  Does the ship have a good secondary armament that can make use of and earn back Close Quarters Expert medals?  Is there some unique quality to her weapons that will facilitate getting a Witherer medal?  Maybe she's got great AA or aircraft that makes earning Clear Skies.  On top of this, I'm also considering what signals the ship will consume regularly.  While often optional, there are some ships that greatly benefit from the use of signals so I try and keep this in mind too.  If I didn't earn any at all during my play testing (or very, very few), this gets a big red X.

 

For Experience, I'm primarily concerned with how well the ship earns experience for training Captains to facilitate transferring a Captain from one tech-tree ship to another.  For ships of their own nation (Poland, France, UK up until recently, Pan Asia, Commonwealth), the ship has to have some gimmick to compensate for this as this to be worth recommending.  The Anshan does this by earning more free experience, for example.  Now, if a ship struggles to perform, then bonus or not, it will be hard to sell here.  If you can't earn a good baseline experience value, then modifying it with bonuses will only prop it up to acceptable levels.  I do keep things like this in mind, such as with the Prinz Eugen.

 

For her Carry Potential, I'm looking if the ship is powerful enough to decide the outcome of matches.  One of the elements players use Random Battles for is grinding out a better win-rate or other personal statistics.  If someone was looking to pad their numbers, would this ship assist them in that or are they facing an uphill battle every time they take the ship out of port? 

 

I will generally try and touch base on these points when I give my yes or no verdict for this section.  I tend to put a lot more weight on Credit Earning and Experience Gains, using the Carry Potential of a ship as an explanation as to why this is difficult or trivial as a result.  So if a ship is powerful, it's easier to recommend as it will tend to earn more.  However, if it requires a lot of consumables to get said performance or all of this experience is going to be locked into a dead-end tech-tree, then I'll add that caveat.

 

COMPETITIVE GAMING

For competitive gaming, I'm looking at two fundamental characteristics.

 

  • Does your team earn a significant advantage for having her on their roster as a Support Ship?
  • Does the ship perform at an Optimal level?

 

Does the ship out perform?  Can she punch over her weight class consistently?  Does a player wrap themselves in more advantages than disadvantages when they bring this ship into match?  Competitive Gaming embraces every competitive mode you can consider.  While this may seem to focus primarily on Ranked Battles and Team Battles, it can also apply to Co-Op and Random Battle gaming too for those players competing with their own numbers and looking to pad those stats.

 

The difficult part about this section is considering how the ship fits into the meta and appreciating that this changes depending on the game mode played.  What works for Random Battles doesn't necessarily transfer over to Ranked and Team Battles, for example.  Appreciating that the performance of the ship may change significantly in the hands of a Novice or Expert player is also key.  This is the most difficult section to apply a recommendation to as there is way too much information to process and then it all needs to be boiled down to a simple "yes/no".  I could go on at length about the merits and flaws of any ship's role in Ranked Battles alone, never mind also trying to touch base on various situations in Random Battles and the still-missing-in-action Team Battles.

 

In short, I try and boil it down to this:  Will you win more and perform consistently by bringing this ship into battle?

 

COLLECTORS

There's a lot that goes into collecting.  This seems like it could be a dummy sub-section and that of course, anyone that's serious about collecting will have to have them all.  With so many of the premium ships included in the game having extensive histories, how could I not recommend a ship to someone who likes collecting ships?  Well, pretty easily really.  There is more to collecting than just hoarding pixels.  As with Random Battle Grinding, I divide this into sections and consider the following:

 

  • Is the ship rare?
    Some ships are collectors items simply for their perceived exclusivity.  Some people want to be recognized for having something others do not.  Part of the appeal of ships like the Gremyashchy and Imperator Nikolai I is that they're not commonly available anymore.  Part of the appeal about getting a Katori or Kamikaze (not the Fujin or Kamikaze R) is that they're not available (yet) on the North American server.  I can understand this sentiment a lot.   I get to play test ships before anyone else has them and there's something pretty exciting about having something others do not, if only for a short time.  Collectors of rare ships are forever on the lookout for the odd-duck that others may miss.   They'll sit up and take notice if a rare boat becomes available for a brief window while others might not even notice because of its performance.
     
  • Does it look good?
    Yes, some people play ships because they perceive them as aesthetically pleasing.  Take the König Albert:  Gorgeous boat -- absolutely gorgeous.  I spend more time looking at her than playing her.
     
  • Is it a historically significant vessel?
    This may seem like a gimme, but not every premium ship that comes to World of Warships is a historical vessel.  The Fujin and Kamikaze R, for example, are both fictitious (though the Kamikaze is historical).  There are "what if?" premiums like the Ishizuchi and Imperator Nikolai I -- ships that were never completed in steel but still sold. 

    Now here your mileage will certainly vary, but it's still possible to appreciate the historical significance of amazing ships and their careers like the SMS Emden (so awesome ... so, very, very awesome).  I am no historian.  It remains one of those weaknesses in my education that I want to shore up... if only I could perceive a way to turn it into a paying job.  So I usually don't touch very heavily on the history of a given vessel in my reviews.  I leave that to more wise and knowledgeable persons than myself.

    This is a shame, really, because I love the portion of the videos Uncle Jingles does that talks about the history of ships when he does a review.
     

FUN FACTOR

Is the ship fun to play? 

 

Heh, what an awful question.  Didn't I just say that people define their "fun" by different measures and means?  Why do I bother including it?  Well, because some ships are just terrible and they're still a hoot to play.  The Mikasa is a good example.  So is the Atlanta.  Yet others can be very powerful but turn people's stomachs because they don't handle well.  Look at the HMS Warspite.  I absolutely love this boat, but I recognize that slow turning turrets are a real put-off for many players.  This section ends up being sort of a catch-all, where I slap everything together and just go with my gut on how the ship feels.  I will usually take into account what my other Community Contributors and the Supertesters have fed back to me while playing the ship. 

 


In closing...

You'll note that for all of this elaborate explanation, I still try not to say if a ship is "good" or "bad".  I fail sometimes and feel bad about it.  There's a reason for this:  It's stupid.  While saying if a ship is good or bad is great click bait, what good does that do me or my readers?  It's a wonderful way to create a heated discussion about who's right or wrong but that's not what I'm after.  I don't monetize my reviews.  I'm not compensated if a ship sells well.  So I leave the inflammatory commentary to others that need to make a living by attracting clicks.  I'm more interested in presenting facts. 

Take the Mikasa as an example.  She's a "bad" ship, right?  But she absolutely prints Close Quarter Expert medals which is invaluable for someone who has a Bismarck they like to play.  By owning a Mikasa they can shore up the number of Mike Yankee Soxisix signals they have to improve the Bismarck's secondaries even further.  For this reason, the Mikasa is great for Random Battle Grinding if that's what you're after.  But a universal "bad" labeled review might omit this, especially if the author chooses not to elaborate.  Similarly, the Sims is a "bad" destroyer if you simply looked at her Random Battle performance.  However, she has the right combination of traits that made her an absolute beast in a Competitive arena where the meta of a destroyer-heavy brawl made her tick all of the right boxes.  This same kind of environment just isn't present in Random Battles.  Presenting either ship with the dichotomy of "good" or "bad" can limit addressing these shades of grey if the reviewer isn't careful.  Some will.  Some won't.

 

I take the systematic approach and make sure I do cover these facets by breaking them up and covering them individually.  My readers are individuals, able to make up their minds based on their own play styles.  Far be it for me to assume everyone plays like me, or should play like me. 

 

Edited by LittleWhiteMouse

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.