Development Blog - New Ships, Massive Blog

[Project45_Opytny]

1 minute ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Technically speaking, in WOWS two out three of those ships can meet in battle. How's this in any way more appropriate?

They can meet in battle due to matchmaking rules does not equal to claiming that they are equal in combat effectiveness (and should be made into "era appropriate Tier X") despite being historically and obviously not so.

Blame the MM, not tiering for this.

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 minutes ago, Project45_Opytny said:

They can meet in battle due to matchmaking rules does not equal to claiming that they are equal in combat effectiveness (and should be made into "era appropriate Tier X") despite being historically and obviously not so.

Blame the MM, not tiering for this.

Why do you think "era appropriate" should mean the same as "equal in combat effectiveness", though?

[ArIskandir]

24 minutes ago, Project45_Opytny said:

And that simply illlustrates why "era appropriate" is inherently flawed despite being raised once in a while: King George V is no match against Iowa which in turn is at a significant disadvantage regarding "classic" gunnery and protection comparing with Yamato.

With the current "tonnage-speed-firepower comprehensive valuation" have been working fine for tech trees in general, I wonder why do you bring out the "era appropriate" again and again.

'Era appropiate' doesn't need to mean "Equal power level", but if some 'balance' was desired between ships with disimilar characteristics, there's a lot you can do via soft stats, utility and dispenssing with the concept of 'overmatch'. Stuff like armor plating is artificially tweaked to fit arbitrary Tier standards, Citadels are oddly shaped and placed without any particular 'realistic' criteria. If you really wanted to set KGV on more balanced terms against a Yamato, there's nothing preventing you from doing it, even  preserving some historical flavor.

I mean, the game is 'balancing' a DD against a CV or a BB... balancing KGV against Yamato is child's play in comparison

Edited June 7 by ArIskandir

[Project45_Opytny]

9 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

'Era appropiate' doesn't need to mean "Equal power level", but if some 'balance' was desired between ships with disimilar characteristics, there's a lot you can do via soft stats, utility and dispenssing with the concept of 'overmatch'. Stuff like armor plating is artificially tweaked to fit arbitrary Tier standards, Citadels are oddly shaped and placed without any particular 'realistic' criteria. If you really wanted to set KGV on more balanced terms against a Yamato, there's nothing preventing you from doing it, even  preserving some historical flavor.

I mean, the game is 'balancing' a DD against a CV or a BB... balancing KGV against Yamato is child's play in comparison

Even without OM mechanics, Yamato has more powerful guns, only slightly slower speed and superior protection comparing with the weakest of the "Treaty" battleships.

So KGV would be balanced purely with gunnery radar and late war AA suite and more soft stats?

[ArIskandir]

1 minute ago, Project45_Opytny said:

Even without OM mechanics, Yamato has more powerful guns, only slightly slower speed and superior protection comparing with the weakest of the "Treaty" battleships.

So KGV would be balanced purely with gunnery radar and late war AA suite and more soft stats?

From a gameplay perspectives, better Concealment and mobility provides the initiative and control of the engagement. A better heal makes her more durable to DoT, once You take out the arbitrary overmatch rule (and arbitrary T7 plating, fire resistance, HP, etc) she could be able to burn down Yamato with a fair chance to survive. Even then, she might not be expected to take down a Yamato 1 on 1, but she can be stronger in other áreas like providing more utility, being a better CA hunter-killer, etc