Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
El autor de este tema ha marcado una publicación como la respuesta a su pregunta.
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Already explained to you that Bourgogne at Tier 10 has 380mm, Colorado at T7 has 406mm.
Anhalt at Tier 8 has 350mm which do not cross the same overmatch thresholds; Marlborough at T9 has 356mm guns, same calibre as the New York at tier 5 that the user was talking about in the other thread.
See how the tiers and the calibres don't directly correspond?
Remember how I showed you a video of me in a T5 BB tanking a T7 Nelson that has large calibre guns AND does have overmatch?
The overmatch mechanics don't care about tier, they care about calibre and the thickness of the plate they hit. Just one of the many many ways in which gameplay is determined by the mechanics, which are only indirectly determined by tier.
By your argument, Marlborough or Anhalt having only T5 overmatch capabilities means they should be unplayable; in fact they're fine if you don't just ignore their actual stats in favour of fixating on their tier instead of their specific strengths and weaknesses.
A T5 misjudging a match-up and trying to bow-tank something with overmatch is no different to a heavy cruiser misjudging a match-up and doing likewise against a lower tier target that overmatches them, or indeed any target that overmatches them irrespective of tier.
Because <claps hands> it's not the tier that matters, it's the mechanics.
You keep doing the same. You take some examples and act as if that is prove for the entire population. Yes there is overlap between the tiers. All ships have a balance those that have better guns will be worse on something else. That does not take away the fact that T7 ships are over all stronger ships than T5 ships.
If even within the same tier, it matters what ship you choose and what stats it has, it surely matters if the pool of ships to choose from is 2 tiers lower.
I do not wish to defend mr Oracle but ships are balanced according to spreadsheet performance.
That means in game anything with a larger gun will probably have woeful accuracy and/or a toecurling long reload and/or a hairpulling ultra-slow turret rotation.
SOME thing will force these ships into not doing more damage then others, so the occurrence of an overmatch ignoring armor will not be after each salvo fired.
This is the reason i do not have more ships with extreme caliber. They have too few guns and miss most shots. They frustrate me, and once in a while devstriking a full hp ship is not making up for it.
Besides that such ships are very vulnerable to pencil-thin DD and Cruisers rushing up to them bow on and simply shoving torpedo's at them at ranges the whole spread will hit. You can almost feel the frustration as they point their main guns at you, you see the shells incoming but they RARELY ever hit. And then you blow then up. And secondaries usually do little to defend against that either, not having invested in them the more so.
(But the general trent surely is that gun calibers are larger at higher tiers. So a T7 ship will outgun more than half of the T5s and vice versa, The T5s will outgun fewer T7s. And in those cases where it is reversed, you most likely pay for it with as you said, horrible accuracy, reload times, or something else)
Yes, generally the matchmaking is unfair, with upper tiers freely killing lower tiers that are at an extreme disadvantage.
This is to give players with certain characteristics the feeling that they are skillful or powerful, and their stats mean anything when they "sealclub" at Tier 9 or 10. Tier 9 ships can see Tier 7 ones that stand no chance at all if they find themselves locked in a duel. Not even with 2 T7 ships facing one T9.
That was why there was a lot of complaining at introduction as Tier * could club tier 10 and they were no longer top of the food chain. But tier * are unattractive to use as the burn a LOT of credits instead of providing them, so cowardly T9/T10 seal clubbers that exclusively play at the tier to inflate their stats still rarely get clubbed themselves. I like to take out a tier * CV once in a while though, to do exactly that :-))
It is not unplayable as there are as many lower tier enemy ships as your side has, so you can engage them. You also enjoy increased rewards damaging or sinking higher tier ships.
But to the company is more important when players feel weak, they are more likely to want to speed up progress belonging to the upper tier "elite" that can "seal club" also, spending doubloons to get there.
You can avoid it by playing ranked though. Then there is no tier disadvantage, and player skill matters more. But ranked is usually available ranging from t6 to t10 entry so excludes the lower tiers.
I can keep going if you like? Both Scharnhorsts...
If we're looking at high tier ships that will bounce the bow of a Des Moines, whereas T7s like Colorado, Nagato, Ashitaka, etc, etc won't (not to mention T6s like Mutsu, West Virginia): Alsace, Richelieu, Gascogne, Roma, Littorio, Colombo, Le Panto, Veneto, Tirpitz, Bismarck, Monarch, Hawke, Vanguard...
The list goes on.
Your argument "it's the tier that matters" falls apart once there's so many exceptions it just becomes a nonsense.
The difference between a T7 Colorado's overmatch and a tier 10 Bourgogne's isn't an "overlap" - the gap between those two tiers is so big that they can only ever meet with a fail division. If you look at the 406mms on a T6 West Virginia, for the 410mms on a Mutsu - then you're completely outside of the spread of normal match-making.
That's not an "overlap" - that's the ships having specific statistics and mechanics that determine their match-ups completely irrespective of tier.
As you were told, but seem incapable of learning.
And this applies to ships in T5 as much as any other ship.
It's why the likes of Kamikaze, Mutsuki, and Minekaze outspot every single T7 in the game - most by a substantial margin.
Because <claps hands> it's not the tier that matters, it's the mechanics.
We weren't talking about some wishy washy back-pedalled strawman vagueness.
We were talking about the actual game and the actual impact that being T7 has on it. I provided you a video of me in a T5 scoring a High Calibre against a T7 that has overmatch - why? Because I understood the mechanics and made decisions to mitigate the negatives the mechanics imposed upon me whilst optimising my own play, using the T5 ship's strengths to generate value.
Again, here you go: https://www.youtube.com/@Ace42x/search?query=bottom%20tier
Dozens and dozens of matches of me carrying whilst bottom tier.
If people understand the game mechanics, the match-ups, and make good decisions based on this knowledge they will score well, they will carry, they will win even when bottom tier.
If they mistakenly generalise a ship's characteristics based exclusively on its tiers, they will do the opposite: They'll get themselves sunk; they'll neuter their damage output; they'll throw matches needlessly, and then they'll use their bad performance to reinforce the false notion the problem is their tier, rather than their understanding of the game and thus their decision making in battle.
Spoken like someone with a negative winrate...
That's not what you were saying. At no point did you say "oh, yeah, they're balanced, but T7s have a slight statistical edge that it's easy to play around if you play to your ships strengths and mitigate its weaknesses".
What you were arguing is that T7s faceroll T5s. Which isn't the case at all - match-ups depend on the match-ups. Tier is coincidental to this.
So no, experienced players aren't "BSing" new players by pointing out that there's so many exceptions to their beliefs about tier and its significance that it totally destroys their whole assumption.
The only gap between the position you've since retreated to, and what I've told you all along, is you're missing the bit where the "overall" strength of a higher tier ship disappears if you make decisions that stop any specific ship's strengths from coming into play; and it's overshadowed by *your* ship's strengths if you make plays that correctly leverage that.
So the ship has negatives. And overall more negatives than the higher tier ship right ?
But you use your skill to overcome them.
So you will need more skill to get the same out of the T5 than you need to get out of the T7 which has overall, less negatives ?
And thats where the core of the issue is. There is a difference. And you like flaunting your skills by convincing us there is no difference because your superior skill can makes up for it.
The only true question that remains is quantitatively: How big is the difference and how much of a skill gap is needed to overcome it ? Maybe you could even overcome a 4 tier ship difference ? Maybe the best player on the server could overcome a 6 tier difference against average players and laugh at you when you say 6 tiers difference is too much ?
The reoccurring event asymmetrical battles provides you with an answer in that direction : lower tier ships in those usually outnumber higher tiers ships 3:1
Then they can actually win sometimes. But at the cost of many losses of course, only made up by being more numerical and overwhelming higher tiers ships, preferably by focusing fire on them.
Are the "features" to make the other classes competitive.
Smoke screen under cyclone... sonar don't detect submarines... the glitch from some islands and the "height" of the ship to make him invisible and still shooting.
and of course... the "changes" to please the whales that cannot buy skills.
WG don't have more credibility.
"Wows will never have Submarines" Developer words.
Really?
Bless. Cos the bots (even with improved AI) are so scary.
Regardless, please have a look at the OP. He was asking about Gneis/Bis and not requesting a revival of tired arguments about being downtiered sometimes. Thanks!
One that *is inconsequential*... A Helena having better "overall strength" than an Omaha won't make it immune to getting dev struck. A Nelson having better "overall strength" doesn't stop its AP shells from ricocheting against sufficiently thick T5 armour belts.
Feel free to find me saying otherwise if you can find it.
Feel free to copy and paste me saying otherwise if you can find it.
All ships have strengths and weaknesses irrespective of tier. The significance of those strengths and weaknesses is down to the specifics of the match and the circumstances, not down to something as facile as being top or bottom tier.
The only situations where tier - in its general vague sense that you're using it - (as opposed to RNG, the mechanical details of specific match-ups, spawn positions, game mode, consumable choice, captain skills, teammates, etc, etc) is a determining factor in a match is going to be when two opposing players are so skilled that they know that tier as an issue is marginal to all of the above.
Does this apply to you? Does this apply to the people you claim I was trying to "BS" by explaining this to them?
I use my game knowledge to make good decisions. The same knowledge that has led me to explain to you that tier doesn't matter.
You can call that "skill" if you want - but this isn't a twitch-shooter. My game knowledge doesn't gift my Tier 5s immunity to overmatch that yours do not; nor does it make my tier 5s overmatch targets that you would not.
But sure - if I was ignorant as you are and shat my pants every time I'm bottom tier, I'd probably expose my ship's specific weaknesses to the enemy for no reason and thus get punished for it too. Ditto for refusing to simply use my ship's advantages to achieve battle impact by exploiting the vulnerabilities of top tier ships.
Which is pretty much my whole point.
Nope.
All those ships with 380mm guns on them? They require more "skill" (game knowledge) to get the same out of them as a lower tier with 406mm.
Herp-a-derp Colorado can just misposition, stay angled, and spam AP at heavy cruiser noses and fluke some battle impact.
All those ships with 380mm guns need to position better in order to avoid getting ricochets off the nose.
An Omaha who incorrectly believes tier matters, so totally accidentally decides to island camp (correct playstyle for the ship) through fear will have a better match than a Helena who thinks being top tier means they can push the enemy and rely on the fact that they have T7 DPM and max health to succeed - and ends up getting dev-struck by a T5 battleship through their broadside.
Same skill possessed by both - but the lower tier has better outcome because, by sheer accident, makes the correct play.
Mechanics matter, match-ups matter, decisions matter. Tier is coincidental.
I would recommend you play the Gneis. She is a solid ship for her tier.
Everyone has their own preference in what to play and what to skip. So do what you will. I assume credits are not flush with you or you would buy and try.
The system I use, is to try every ship(1st time trying out a branch in the tech tree) and dont use free xp unless you really are not finding your way with a ship(after 10/20 battles).
By doing this you learn the intricacies of each ship/platform/mechanic which gives you the knowledge to learn other ships quicker and also to know your opponent and allies ships.
Once you have completed a branch of the tech tree and you are redoing it, then you could use free xp to speed up moving to the next ship but make sure you use each ship once so you get your research tokens.
So 4 or 6 tiers difference would be fine for you too ?
If not, how is that possible ? If 2 levels don't matter, twice or trice zero is still zero.
I'd farm T8 battleships in my meme-specced island-camping Marblehead just as happily as T7s.
Nagato has enough gunpower to nuke a broadside Izumo's citadel (or even a Yamato cheek weakness), just like it can nuke a broadside Amagi:
https://youtu.be/sR7gY7-Cq2o
What magic power do you think T8 Roma would get that a T7 Gneise or Nagato do not get? A teleport?
Mogami has less health than a Myoko, you think that makes it *more* resistance to eating a broadside from a T5 BB and getting dev-struck?
I know you think this is some great "gotcha!" - but really, it's not that big a deal. Especially considering that fail-divisions do face +/- 3 tier matchmaking - as already explained to you.
Go through my bottom-tier vids and spot how many of the outcomes would be materially different if the top tier ships on the enemy team were actually the tier higher. If you find any, it's going to be because of the ships specific mechanics changing between the tiers, not because "they're just better" in some vague abstract general sense.
https://www.youtube.com/@Ace42x/search?query=bottom%20tier
You don't understand how a difference that is inconsequential could potentially become consequential if that difference becomes bigger than it currently is?
The difference between 380mm and 381mm in terms of overmatch is 0... By your argument, because it doesn't matter how many times you multiply that 0 effect on overmatch, there's no benefits to having 406mm guns because "X times 0 effect is zero".
The disparities between tiers is additive (and cumulative, in a sense), not multiplicative. +/-2 is not the issue you think it is. +/-3 is substantially more of an issue; +/-4+ is the wild west because the ships in the game were balanced around the former matchmaking spread, not the latter.
Or, to put it another way, WG try and give each bottom tier ship at least one area in which it is competitive vs comparable top-tier ships (whether it be speed, or concealment, or DPM, or consumables, or accuracy, or any other number of soft-stats). They do not guarantee that is true over greater-than-normal spreads. And, of course, the job they do of this is inconsistent - not every ship is equally balanced to other ships of its tier, let alone up or down-tiering equally as well as others of its tier.