Wow, BIG ship balance changes!

[Wrath_of_Deadguy]

Hayate - I won't argue with this. I already liked the ship, now I'll like it more, 'nuff said.

Clemson - A little part of me is sad, but the rational part understands that the Clubson will still be a monster.

California - I'd have liked a 30s reload, but any main battery reload buff is welcome, likewise the accel buff. Probably not enough to make me play her instead of WeeVee, though.

Indianapolis - With this and the previous plating buff, she might actually be fun now.

Mikoyan - 2/3 of a Kirov turns into... 4/5 of a Kirov? Still gonna be a bad ship, but perhaps the fun, challenging kind of bad instead of the sad, lonely, barnacle-collecting kind of bad. I'm a bit surprised they even bothered, considering that she was a freebie for the Soviet cruiser split and has only been available since then as a crate pull.

Khabarovsk - Probably not the buff most folks were hoping for, but I'm a filthy Co-op main so I don't care about range anyway. Superheals, on the other hand, I will happily accept more of.

Leone - A step in the right direction, but I don't know if it's enough. 8s would have been better; it's not as if the rest of the ship does anything to make up for the long gun reload.

[WES_HoundDog]

2024 Year of the Surface Ship.?

Instead of releasing more and more cancer, WG could make plenty of money for years adjusting and updating older ships. not only to bring them to the attention of newer players but give older players a reason to give them another look. Hopefully this is what they are thinking at this point in time.

 

As for the Hayate.   I like this ship.   I suck in it as i do in most all dd's, but i still liked it.   But now with the torp reload booster.  Besides the half k better concealment, why would i play a shimmy over this?

[pepe_trueno]

7 hours ago, Sailor_Moon said:

I know, I tried to sell the 30s reload buff to Wargaming, but they just wouldn't have it. I seriously have tried SO. MANY. different buff requests for the poor girl, not even just main battery reload.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

maybe you should try a different approach. Both texas and california where sold as AA ships, a role that got gutted in the AA rework.

with some luck they will be more willing to give them the +50% AA range they use to have before the rework. with all the planes being introduced as of late i am quite sure players will appreciate having the old no fly zone texas and california making a comeback.

 

 

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

8 hours ago, Sailor_Moon said:

I was literally like

Thor and @Sailor_Moon.
For "Love and California!"  🙂 

  
 

[Helstrem]

5 hours ago, Itwastuesday said:

Likely still a CB staple, but it's completely extinct from randoms already. It's the only cruiser in the game that was designed to do something fun and useful so I don't like that it gets nerfed.

Maybe on EU.  I did three Tier X battles on NA today and saw five of the things.

[3LUE]

On 1/25/2024 at 9:39 AM, Jakob Knight said:

 

Perhaps you could expound on this highly illuminating and communicative post.  My inquest into the ramifications of your declaration requires additional elucidation for proper assessment of possible options in formulating a rejoinder.

 

 

Meaning not World of warcraft as a pun. 

[Jakob Knight]

2 hours ago, 3LUE said:

Meaning not World of warcraft as a pun. 

 

Ahh, I see.  The context was a bit too obscure for me to get it, but I see now you were looking at the thread title.  

[GandalfTehGray]

On 1/24/2024 at 10:16 PM, Kynami said:

Well if you had checked the news sub-section that also has a post about these balance changes... you'd have found her post.

Everyone knows the only forum channel is the General Discussion one 😛

[Sailor_Moon]

On 1/25/2024 at 8:11 PM, pepe_trueno said:

maybe you should try a different approach. Both texas and california where sold as AA ships, a role that got gutted in the AA rework.

with some luck they will be more willing to give them the +50% AA range they use to have before the rework. with all the planes being introduced as of late i am quite sure players will appreciate having the old no fly zone texas and california making a comeback.

 

 

 

Ohhh, I even tried requesting adding DFAA. As I said, I gave them like ALL the options to consider for buffs. Even MBRB consumables. Improved/Quick heals. Turret traverse. Battlecruiser Dispersion. Improved AP Angles. Improved HE.  Improved Accel /Decel (acquired). And of course, main battery reload buff. (Not all at once, of course ;P)

[Nevermore135]

On 1/25/2024 at 11:52 AM, Sailor_Moon said:

I know, I tried to sell the 30s reload buff to Wargaming, but they just wouldn't have it. I seriously have tried SO. MANY. different buff requests for the poor girl, not even just main battery reload.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I suspect that someone at WG balked at the idea of giving her a 14% reload buff in one balancing pass. Considering that CA is a “protected” premium, I can understand the devs taking a conservative approach.

1 hour ago, Sailor_Moon said:

Ohhh, I even tried requesting adding DFAA. As I said, I gave them like ALL the options to consider for buffs. Even MBRB consumables. Improved/Quick heals. Turret traverse. Battlecruiser Dispersion. Improved AP Angles. Improved HE.  Improved Accel /Decel (acquired). And of course, main battery reload buff. (Not all at once, of course ;P)

CA’s fundamental problem from pretty much when she was released is that she lacks a unique identify. Florida does the “accurate 356mm guns” feature better with her battlecruiser dispersion and 45s turret traverse on a much more comfortable hull, and having DFAA means that in effect she also has superior AA.

While I appreciate WG giving CA a reload buff, I feel like they missed an opportunity to address the ship’s deeper problem (especially since FL also received a reload buff). I personally would have preferred it if WG retained the 34.2 reload, but given the ship 45s turret traverse (a badly needed QoL change) and fast reloading heal alongside the improved acceleration characteristics. This would still have been a notable buff, but would also give her a badly needed sense of identity: she suddenly becomes a tier VII Kansas, a premium precursor to the US dreadnought branch in the same way Toulon relates to the French CB branch. This would also still have left space open for a future offensive buff if needed (I personally like the idea of improved pen angles).

Edited January 27 by Nevermore135

[SureBridge]

On 1/25/2024 at 11:42 AM, MnemonScarlet said:

Hopefully this will make that dog Sevastopol a little bit more fun to play. Have a feeling that Flamu is right and these buffs don't really fix its issues...but we'll see.

Sevestapol is a fun (but challenging to play) boat. Thanks for the reminder, I need to take her out in this brawl season 🙂

[Wulf_Ace]

I can take the slow of California, and bad armor of Florida but they both have too long reload that doesnt justify the power of the guns or the damage they produce.

So buffing their reload would make them playable

[Sailor_Moon]

3 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

I suspect that someone at WG balked at the idea of giving her a 14% reload buff in one balancing pass.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that came up, it sounds familiar.

"we can't let it do everything" despite not even being able to do anything it was designed to do well at all 🙃

Quote

CA’s fundamental problem from pretty much when she was released is that she lacks a unique identify. Florida does the “accurate 356mm guns” feature better with her battlecruiser dispersion and 45s turret traverse on a much more comfortable hull, and having DFAA means that in effect she also has superior AA.

I agree, she definitely suffers from that lack of identity. Also, Wee Vee '44 can replicate California's AA shtick, on top of everything else it can do, and despite that, is actually balanced. Which really goes to show just how badly off California is/was.

Edited January 27 by Sailor_Moon

[Sailor_Moon]

14 minutes ago, Wulf_Ace said:

So buffing their reload would make them playable

Yep. The reload buff WILL help, even if it's just for making the gunnery simply less painful to use. You no longer have to wait quite so long to fire, that does help. Had an accuracy buff like battlecruiser dispersion been added to California though, then a reload buff wouldn't have been necessary, obviously 🙂

[MnemonScarlet]

On 1/27/2024 at 3:56 PM, SureBridge said:

Sevestapol is a fun (but challenging to play) boat. Thanks for the reminder, I need to take her out in this brawl season 🙂

The idea of it was fun to me, but not actually trying to make it work. I'm usually big on niche ideas like that, but Sevastopol's tuning really went too far for me. But if the buffs fix that, hey my RP won't be wasted afterall.

[CaliburxZero]

On 1/27/2024 at 6:15 PM, Sailor_Moon said:

Yep. The reload buff WILL help, even if it's just for making the gunnery simply less painful to use. You no longer have to wait quite so long to fire, that does help. Had an accuracy buff like battlecruiser dispersion been added to California though, then a reload buff wouldn't have been necessary, obviously 🙂

I should've guessed you were on here, lol.

Well... look at it this way.  With the addition of the incredibly strong WV44, You can just annoyingly point towards that ship as a direct comparison on how wholly inadequate California is now.  Personally, I feel the ship should get like a 30s turret traverse with a 30 second reload, combined with like a 1.9 sigma... then give it the quick heal or the improved amount heal the main line gets.

Then maybe, just maybe... I'd consider her "good".  Or at least above average... which to be fair, wholistically T7 BBs are mostly nothing impressive.  I can think of only a few stand outs these days in the overall balance.  

[Sailor_Moon]

13 hours ago, CaliburxZero said:

I should've guessed you were on here, lol.

Well... look at it this way.  With the addition of the incredibly strong WV44, You can just annoyingly point towards that ship as a direct comparison on how wholly inadequate California is now.  Personally, I feel the ship should get like a 30s turret traverse with a 30 second reload, combined with like a 1.9 sigma... then give it the quick heal or the improved amount heal the main line gets.

Then maybe, just maybe... I'd consider her "good".  Or at least above average... which to be fair, wholistically T7 BBs are mostly nothing impressive.  I can think of only a few stand outs these days in the overall balance.  

I was seriously going to argue with you that Wee Vee '44 is REALLY quite balanced, but then you say later that California needs a 30s reload and 30s turret traverse, which I would NOT be adverse to/agree with (I was suggesting a 45s turret traverse lols, so....30s traverse is very solid). Soooooooo......annoyingly pointing at ships aside..... 😜

I GUESS I agree with you? At least on California. I admit that the small buffs Wargaming gave her may or may not be enough to TRULY get her out of the dumps she's in. But we'll see.

The problem is that Wargaming simply wasn't going for large buff suggestions like what you're proposing. Trust me, I've tried them all. I've tried 30s reload, they didn't bite. I tried 45s turret traverse and they didn't bite, either. :S

It's almost like they're TERRIFIED of buffing California because her AP DPM is admittedly decent, BUT DPM isn't everything, and doesn't take into account the game mechanics (or any stats pertaining to the main battery either).

[Wrath_of_Deadguy]

14 hours ago, CaliburxZero said:

With the addition of the incredibly strong WV44, You can just annoyingly point towards that ship as a direct comparison on how wholly inadequate California is now.

Nooooooo. That'll just convince them to nerf WeeVee.

[Sailor_Moon]

On 1/25/2024 at 6:52 PM, WES_HoundDog said:

2024 Year of the Surface Ship.?

I wouldn't go THAT far...Piñata Hunt, Early Access to Commonwealth Cruisers, Submarines Update and more - Closed test 13.2 - Development blog (worldofwarships.com)

LOTSA sub buffs. Oh sure, there's a couple token sub nerfs, but there's a LOT of sub buffs. The new upgrades alone are crazy good. Not to mention the 15% damage increase to alt torpedoes(!).

Yeah no, definitely NOT Year of the Surface Ship.... :S

[Sailor_Moon]

9 minutes ago, Wrath_of_Deadguy said:

Nooooooo. That'll just convince them to nerf WeeVee.

Well, to be fair, I myself pointed to Wee Vee '44 as the prime example of how to balance California, because Wee Vee '44 IS actually properly balanced. She's strong in some cases, but weak in others. She's definitely not strong overall. She's no Tier VII Massachusetts. She's more like a Tier VII Oklahoma, if we're being realistic here. So yes, knowing this, and comparing Cali to Wee Vee '44, California absolutely needed a buff. But then heck, a LOT of Tier VII battleships could outperform California. *coughs in Hyuga*

Wee Vee '44 on the other hand doesn't really need a nerf, because she's already quite balanced. I'm impressed with HOW balanced she actually is. In fact, I recall CMs have called her "California 2.0" at least once before, which is quite apt : )

[CaliburxZero]

3 hours ago, Sailor_Moon said:

I was seriously going to argue with you that Wee Vee '44 is REALLY quite balanced, but then you say later that California needs a 30s reload and 30s turret traverse, which I would NOT be adverse to/agree with (I was suggesting a 45s turret traverse lols, so....30s traverse is very solid). Soooooooo......annoyingly pointing at ships aside..... 😜

I GUESS I agree with you? At least on California. I admit that the small buffs Wargaming gave her may or may not be enough to TRULY get her out of the dumps she's in. But we'll see.

The problem is that Wargaming simply wasn't going for large buff suggestions like what you're proposing. Trust me, I've tried them all. I've tried 30s reload, they didn't bite. I tried 45s turret traverse and they didn't bite, either. :S

It's almost like they're TERRIFIED of buffing California because her AP DPM is admittedly decent, BUT DPM isn't everything, and doesn't take into account the game mechanics (or any stats pertaining to the main battery either).

I had a feeling, but then again I've given up a long, long time ago on getting WG to listen... after all, that's why we're here and not on a official WG forum because they won't and they're done trying to pretend they do.  

I think WV44 is fairly strong, above average but not at the top of the heap for T7 BBs.  Well... With how they do things California it'll be good, eventually... maybe... possibly... lol.

I also think you're right on their reasoning.  DPM is something they look at above all else in damage output, this is a fact that is solidified in their buffing of reload by like fractions of a second which look to be a mostly pointless change either way... aka they're paying attention to overall datapoints and not actual usage.  Which makes sense after all... they don't play their own game and ignore those who do.

[Sailor_Moon]

4 hours ago, CaliburxZero said:

I had a feeling, but then again I've given up a long, long time ago on getting WG to listen... after all, that's why we're here and not on a official WG forum because they won't and they're done trying to pretend they do.  

I think WV44 is fairly strong, above average but not at the top of the heap for T7 BBs.  Well... With how they do things California it'll be good, eventually... maybe... possibly... lol.

I also think you're right on their reasoning.  DPM is something they look at above all else in damage output, this is a fact that is solidified in their buffing of reload by like fractions of a second which look to be a mostly pointless change either way... aka they're paying attention to overall datapoints and not actual usage.  Which makes sense after all... they don't play their own game and ignore those who do.

Well the biggest problem with that (and I've shown the CMs the math on this before) is that again, DPM values do NOT take into account any ingame mechanics (accuracy/misses, penetration damage/overpens, how many times a gun can conceivably reload within the timeframe of a minute, overmatch capability, shell ballistics, reload time, gun angles, etc.)

So, if we were being even slightly more realistic:

10500 damage per shell x 12 guns x 1 reload (because California cannot reload her second salvo by the time one minute is up, so only one reload can be accomplished in said 60s interval)

So still assuming full citadel all hits (unrealistic to say the least), with this SLIGHT math change, California's DPM goes from 221,052 to....126,000 DPM. Much lower than the DPM charts would have us believe. and that's still with unrealistic values, just slightly less unrealistic values 😛

In short, the DPM maths are wack XD While I understand they could POTENTIALLY show you if a ship has "high" DPM or not, it's only an indicator, and frankly not a very accurate indicator at that. Average Damage is actually more useful as an indicator of a ship's damage potential imo.

Edited February 2 by Sailor_Moon