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 0.9.9, changes to test ships (USN BB Nerfs and RN CL Buffs)

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,118
[-CAT-]
Member
2,253 posts
11,218 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.

 

X Plymouth

  • Main battery firing range increased from 14.27 to 15.3 km.

VIII Belfast '43

  • Number of "Short-Burst Smoke Generator" consumables increased from 3 to 4. 

VIII Kansas

  • AP shells' parameters were changed:
    • Maximum damage reduced from 12,400 to 11,800.
    • Ballistics were changed: now AP shells will lose speed a bit faster and their flight trajectory became slightly more arcing. 

 IX Minnesota

  • AP shells' parameters were changed:
    • Maximum damage reduced from 13,500 to 12,800
    • Ballistics were changed: now AP shells will lose speed a bit faster and their flight trajectory became slightly more arcing.

V Oklahoma

  • Main battery reload time increased from 34 to 40 s.

 

Links:

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/82

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,437
Member
4,662 posts
8,750 battles

Kansas: exists

WG: "It's Nerfhammer time"

What have the State of Kansas and Oklahoma done to WG to deserve this?

 

The ship's initial stats must have been so OP that she has been nerfed constantly since announcement :Smile_popcorn:

BBs being nerfed makes Paladinum happy. 

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
186
[LGND]
Member
509 posts
12,566 battles

I love USN BB honestly but day by day when see new usn bb got treatment like that i just feeling angry and upset, its just feel better they cancel it and just went full italian bb focus....

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[NCOTS]
Member
352 posts
10,789 battles

Lmao 40 seconds, why though

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
702
[LBAS]
Member
3,021 posts
14,392 battles
32 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

Kansas: exists

WG: "It's Nerfhammer time"

What have the State of Kansas and Oklahoma done to WG to deserve this?

 

The ship's initial stats must have been so OP that she has been nerfed constantly since announcement :Smile_popcorn:

BBs being nerfed makes Paladinum happy. 

Wait till you see Italian Battleships shell nerf and 0.5 sigma + Longer drag time :Smile_trollface:

Edited by IJN_Katori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,821
[CLAY]
Beta Tester
4,370 posts
19,407 battles

Me from the first announcement of US BB line split through to now...
yNlQWRM.thumb.jpg.488bd6c78bc1df31559fef34993b0edd.jpg

No, seriously. What the actual **** are these horrid behemoths going to be?

I mean look at it... it's just a big fat target...
63360454_WorldofWarshipsScreenshot2020_09.24-21_37_48_38.thumb.png.48f1d48f82ea8663cdba8f091addee65.png

...

I mean...

WHAT?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
593
[KOREA]
Moderator, Community Contributor, Super Tester_
795 posts
7,908 battles

40s for Oklahoma :fish_palm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,118
[-CAT-]
Member
2,253 posts
11,218 battles

My feedback for Oklahoma is bring her reload back to 34 ~ 35 seconds.

She is a tier 5 battleship with 21 knot top speed. She does not have access to upgrade slot 6.

She does not deserve that nerf.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
695
[SMOKE]
Member
1,905 posts
15,910 battles

fail to see for real Royal Navy CL buff here .. am I missing something ???? its buff to a single Premium ( or 2 ) not the Royal Navy Line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
528
[AN-DO]
Beta Tester
1,608 posts
5,573 battles

34 Seconds is better for Oklahoma Tyvm. USN Dreadnoughts is already too dumb.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
993
[OAKUM]
Member
2,107 posts
16,015 battles

What would be the point of getting oaklahoma, with 40 second reload?   That will be the biggest reload in the game...

Seriously do these people play them before nerfing them?

34 seconds is bad enough, & we are talking about a ship thats between new york & arizona....

Do they even REALISE that T5 BBs mostly get UPTIERED to T7 games ?!?!?

 

Wake up & get REAL, WG !!!!!!!

:Smile-angry:  :cap_viking:

 

@mademoisail tell WG to get real, & stop screwing up ships

Edited by Ordrazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,396
[151ST]
Member
2,460 posts
10,160 battles

Look I'd love to jump on the bandwagon but until we get our hands on the actual ships, we don't know what we're talking about, only STs would.

And there's STs in this forum who I trust far more than the hype/anti-hype we get from CCs and the floupies.

And our STs can't really say anything (understandable rule but highly annoying).

The only exception I can see with all of the announcements lately is Vittorio, we know that she could be really poor because Roma isn't the most reliable and she's a copy-paste as a basis...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[IJN]
Member
232 posts
4,630 battles
12 hours ago, S0und_Theif said:

Main battery reload time increased from 34 to 40 s.

Sped : MemeMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
635
[BLESS]
Member
1,186 posts
10,653 battles

The USN BBs are going to be uninteresting and unreliable in play. You have tremendous firepower and armor, but whether you can get to the fight in time to make use of it will often be completely out of your control.

It's a high tier version what I call "The Kawachi Problem": the situation where your ship could contribute greatly to the battle if only your teammates deliberately slow down their advance to wait for you.... but this never happens in game because barely any players have that level of patience.

Edited by Rina_Pon
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,437
Member
4,662 posts
8,750 battles
14 hours ago, IJN_Katori said:

Wait till you see Italian Battleships shell nerf and 0.5 sigma + Longer drag time :Smile_trollface:

SAP (on the cruisers) simply deal way too much damage. That's how I see it.

If those deal only as much as HE on the other 203 (~3000), their reload time would never close to 20s (10 - 16s), and become less of a menace to DDs.

381 SAP on these BBs deal more damage than Montana's AP. 14000 vs Monty's 13500. And it's 381 vs 406.

The execution of the SAP concept has always been very questionable because of the insane alpha damage, even when compared to their own AP.

Being heavy at nerfing the SAP (to 5100 - Roma's HE) would allow these ships to have standard reload time, and potentially better dispersion without go to the extremes of nerfing other things to maintain the so-called "traits".

SAP does have a mechanic that hinders it - damage saturation, but BBs should rely mostly on AP to deal damage, which makes the mechanic largely irrelevant.

 

Apparently WG don't see the same way, so whatever I guess.

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32
[POIBC]
Member
85 posts
7,361 battles
15 小時前,Paladinum 說:

Kansas: exists

WG: "It's Nerfhammer time"

What have the State of Kansas and Oklahoma done to WG to deserve this?

 

The ship's initial stats must have been so OP that she has been nerfed constantly since announcement :Smile_popcorn:

BBs being nerfed makes Paladinum happy. 

WG nerfs them because they are free-givens.

 

However, they also sells lots of garbage, thats my confusing point.

 

Share this post


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

×