Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
S0und_Theif

ST 0.9.7, changes to test ships (buffs and nerfs)

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,247
[-CAT-]
Member
2,460 posts
11,553 battles

Please note that all information in the development blog is preliminary and subject to change during testing. Any showcased features may or may not end up on the main server. The final information will be published on our game's website.

 

IX Paolo Emilio:

  • Main battery guns reload time lowered from 12 to 10.7 s;

VIII Anchorage:

  • Smoke screen dispersion time lowered from 124 to 104 s;
  • AP shells replaced with similar to VII New Orleans's:
    • Damage lowered from 5 000 to 4 600;
    • Velocity increased from 762 to 853 m/s;
    • Armor penetration lowered.

VII München:

  • Main battery guns reload time increased from 4.8 to 5 s;
  • Ballistics were changed: now HE and AP shells will lose speed faster and their flight trajectory became more arcing. 

VII Florida:

  • Main battery guns reload time increased from 30 to 31.5 s;
  • Maximum AP shell damage lowered from 10 500 to 9 500;
  • Ballistics were changed: now HE and AP shells will lose speed faster and their flight trajectory became more arcing. 

VIII Kansas:

  • Restoration of hit points by Repair party consumable lowered from 0.66% to 0.5% of maximum hit points per second.

IX Minnesota:

  • Restoration of hit points by Repair party consumable lowered from 0.66% to 0.5% of maximum hit points per second;
  • Armor of deck, sides and anti-torpedo bulges increased from 32 to 38 mm;
  • Sigma parameter increased from 1.7 to 1.8

X Vermont:

  • Deck armor increased from 32 to 51 mm;
  • Sides plating armor increased from 32 to 38 mm;
  • Restoration of hit points by Repair party consumable lowered from 0.66% to 0.5% of maximum hit points per second;
  • Turning circle radius lowered from 960 to 850 m;
  • Sigma parameter increased from 1.7 to 1.9
  • Ballistics were changed: now HE and AP shells will lose speed slower and their flight trajectory became flatter. 

X Franklin D. Roosevelt:

  • Changed rocket parameters:
    • Damage lowered from 2 000 to 1 650.
    • Chances of HE shells causing fire lowered from 7% to 5%.

 

Links:
https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/62

 

Like everyone said, T8 Kansas revived the short end of the stick. "Looks like we're not in Kansas anymore".

DevBlog also mention as 0.9.7 and not 0.9.7.1. So update is mostly PT and no changes for the main game.

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
729
[LBAS]
Member
4,893 posts
11,005 battles

As I expected 

bunch of good ships were pissed off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,542
[151ST]
Member
2,606 posts
10,423 battles
9 hours ago, S0und_Theif said:

Like everyone said, T8 Kansas revived the short end of the stick. "Looks like we're not in Kansas anymore".

That still doesn't surprise me.

Take out the dispersion for a second and it's a Montana broadside... at tier 8.

That's Montana broadside vsing T6 CA/BBs.

Honestly the USN BB split annoys the hell out of me; not because of the fact that they are getting one (although that's another point in it's entirety) but because it's the definition of design creep.

Yes I know, I know they aren't the best right now but I would argue a lot of that is because they're trying to balance silly things.

The gunnery on the T8 is a prime example. Let me put it this way; at release Montana had the biggest broadside weight in the game... That is now at T8...

Their chonkiness is insane as well. How do you balance that? Armour, HP or Heals... All of which are in an of themselves power creep at T8.

It's because WG are afraid to design within the current limits of the game for fear of a line of ships being 'ordinary'. The community is partly at fault too, thanks to their perceptions of balanced lines.

We saw this with RN CAs. They are objectively decent ships with access to good HE shells, good concealment and a heal... But because WG wanted them to feel as different as possible they pushed the heal and limited the range which subsequently meant citadel and armour scheme for the most part have massive weaknesses.

And they got slammed for the entire line because god-forbid the line should be remotely balanced and normal!???

Personally I love the line but hate Goliath and Hawkins is just a crap T5...

But that's because they pushed the wrong specs on both. (And I haven't tried Hawkins since the string of buffs, that's video content for another day).

Goliath could have been amazing but Drake was the epitome of that design, Goliath added more guns and payed a price that made her unfun to play.

So yeah, mostly WGs fault but also a large chunk of the blame is on the wider community...

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,799
[TLS]
Member
4,187 posts
20,354 battles

The expectations that each line must be "specially unique" has crept in. 

The USN BB split line they have already gotten into their heads that they must be fat, slow targets. Right now, it looks like a pain to balance they will be prime targets for a BBQ. That said, if they ever manage to get up close, they'd be monsters especially with Vermont's buffed armour. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
669
[BLESS]
Member
1,234 posts
11,049 battles
4 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

Honestly the USN BB split annoys the hell out of me; not because of the fact that they are getting one (although that's another point in it's entirety) but because it's the definition of design creep.

Yes I know, I know they aren't the best right now but I would argue a lot of that is because they're trying to balance silly things.

The gunnery on the T8 is a prime example. Let me put it this way; at release Montana had the biggest broadside weight in the game... That is now at T8...

Their chonkiness is insane as well. How do you balance that? Armour, HP or Heals... All of which are in an of themselves power creep at T8.

It's because WG are afraid to design within the current limits of the game for fear of a line of ships being 'ordinary'. The community is partly at fault too, thanks to their perceptions of balanced lines.

A lot of insights there to unpack. In general I agree 100%. Recently I get the sense that WG are running out of (good) ideas. The British CA line was uninteresting and, like you said, uninteresting because they were forced into having their "flavor" defined by the superheal and the penalties needed to balance that. The Russian cruisers do not, I feel, bring all that much that is new or positive to the game. And now the US BB split. Min-maxxing got us here: no speed, no ROF, but huge numbers of large guns and massive armor. The problem there is your boat is becoming more and more of a shore battery. Devastating when the firepower can be brought to bear, useless otherwise. Well, I mean I ask you, what benefit is there to having such a unit in the game?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,542
[151ST]
Member
2,606 posts
10,423 battles
2 hours ago, Rina_Pon said:

A lot of insights there to unpack. In general I agree 100%. Recently I get the sense that WG are running out of (good) ideas. The British CA line was uninteresting and, like you said, uninteresting because they were forced into having their "flavor" defined by the superheal and the penalties needed to balance that. The Russian cruisers do not, I feel, bring all that much that is new or positive to the game. And now the US BB split. Min-maxxing got us here: no speed, no ROF, but huge numbers of large guns and massive armor. The problem there is your boat is becoming more and more of a shore battery. Devastating when the firepower can be brought to bear, useless otherwise. Well, I mean I ask you, what benefit is there to having such a unit in the game?

Yeah agreed. Russian CAs are basically just broken specs with some other stuff thrown in to 'balance' them.

50mm bow on a CL/A shouldn't be a thing.

Magical shells with all the best characteristics shouldn't be a thing.

To balance these and other traits you get some wonky dispersion and almost pointless radar duration.

And yet Petro IMO is still OP in many situations.

*Shrugs*

They're not going to stop, they've been doing the same thing in WoT for years.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,542
[151ST]
Member
2,606 posts
10,423 battles
7 hours ago, dejiko_nyo said:

The expectations that each line must be "specially unique" has crept in. 

The USN BB split line they have already gotten into their heads that they must be fat, slow targets. Right now, it looks like a pain to balance they will be prime targets for a BBQ. That said, if they ever manage to get up close, they'd be monsters especially with Vermont's buffed armour. 

Yeah I don't think they'll be fun to play, slow tanky things that are annoying to play and annoying to kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[IWN]
Member
265 posts
2,862 battles
19 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

Yeah I don't think they'll be fun to play, slow tanky things that are annoying to play and annoying to kill.

Just ask the CV, and DD they should be fast on kill them 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,270 posts
13,219 battles

Vermont is starting to look interesting but Montana still seems like a better ship at the moment. Vermont's slow speed, long reload, standard heal, and towering freeboard all seem a bit too much of a trade-off for just a bit extra alpha and Cruiser overmatch. Definitely curious to see how it ends up on the Live server, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×