Max gun range on the Flint. Am I missing something?

[gassy_pug]

I just don't understand why the guns on the Flint are range nerfed compared to the Atlanta. I love both ships but the max range on the Flint is nearly a full klick less and they are exactly the same rifles, only less of them. Anyone know why? 

Edited August 21, 2023 by gassy_pug

[Ensign Cthulhu]

Because the Flint has the luxury of hiding in smoke.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Because the Flint has the luxury of hiding in smoke.

😄

Or at least that's the idea.

Doesn't Flint get longer ranged torpedoes than Atlanta as well?

Short answer is 'game balance' and 'ship differentiation'.

[Andrewbassg]

2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

 

Short answer is 'game balance' and 'ship differentiation'.

Aka bull..😜

[Yedwy]

As per topic title - yeah you are missing the AFT you could once pick on her to get the gun range to somewhat more managable numbers...

[Nevermore135]

19 minutes ago, gassy_pug said:

I just don't understand why the guns on the Flint are range nerfed compared to the Atlanta. I love both ships but the max range on the Flint is nearly a full klick less and they are exactly the same rifles, only less of them. Anyone know why? 

Both ships used to have identical range before the commander skill rework. When the skill rework dropped and cruisers lost access to AFT (which increased the firing range of DD-caliber guns) Atlanta had the range increase from the skill baked into the ship, much like what was done years ago with M. Kutuzov years ago when AFT was changed to no longer affect 6” guns. This may have been to keep the ship viable (AFT was pretty much a mandatory skill) or it could have been an effort to appease the playerbase by avoiding “nerfing” a doubloon/cash premium in line with the spirit of WG’s official post-GC stance on adjusting premium ships.

Flint, however, was supposedly over-performing (probably due to having smoke) and kept her stock range. A patch or two later Flint did have her range buffed slightly alongside a ROF nerf. Flint being a premium that has never been sold directly for doubloons or cash meant that this was technically in line with the letter of WG’s policy toward premium ships post-GC, and it served as the precedent for future nerfs to other such older non-tech tree ships (including special ships that are only available for in-game resources).

Edited August 21, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

31 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Aka bull..😜

Now, now, this is a silly arcade game...not a simulation.

This kind of stuff is normal.

If you want a simulation, I can recommend a good one.

24 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

this was technically in line with the letter of WG’s policy toward premium ships post-GC, and it served as the precedent for future nerfs to other such older non-tech tree ships (including special ships that are only available for in-game resources).

Technically, WG can change any ship at any time for any reason.

The whole idea of a 'policy' for changing premiums should be given the same trust level as WGs statements like 'no subs' and 'in order not to change the anniversary event'...

[Nevermore135]

12 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Technically, WG can change any ship at any time for any reason.

The whole idea of a 'policy' for changing premiums should be given the same trust level as WGs statements like 'no subs' and 'in order not to change the anniversary event'...

Of course they can, and I’ve always argued that it should be so.

Nonetheless, WG did make a statement on the issue and have made an effort to adhere to that policy since. The fact that it is an arbitrary policy that they could abandon at the drop of a hat doesn’t change that. Throwing the players a bone was likely a large part of WG’s decision to buff Atlanta’s range, just as setting the precedent for nerfing certain ships (in the context of an overall buff) was likely part of the calculus that went into the changes to Flint.

Edited August 21, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Just now, Nevermore135 said:

Of course they can, and I’ve always argued that it should be so.

Nonetheless, WG did make a statement on the issue and have made an effort to adhere to that policy since. The fact that it is an arbitrary policy that they could abandon at the drop of a hat doesn’t change that. Throwing the players a bone was likely a large part of WG’s decision of buff Atlanta’s range, just as setting the precedent for nerfing certain ships in the context of an overall buff was likely part of the calculus that went into the changes to Flint.

I've been burned so much by the 'we have a policy' that is applied only when it benefits WG...

...that I just discount it's existence, as practically for me, it doesn't actually exist.

[Nevermore135]

26 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I've been burned so much by the 'we have a policy' that is applied only when it benefits WG...

...that I just discount it's existence, as practically for me, it doesn't actually exist.

It’s existence is notable because we should hold WG to their previous statements. I personally think their response to the entire GC-rebalance attempt was a huge mistake and has hurt the overall health of the game, and I wouldn’t be too upset if they reversed course. But it is something the devs assured the playerbase, so it needs to be noted and commented on if/when WG changes course.

Edited August 21, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Andrewbassg]

2 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Now, now, this is a silly arcade game...not a simulation.

Well yes... and also no. 🙂  Now it is but, used to be not so. Also, all team combat games are also simulators. Combat simulators and depending on the complexities, ...they simulate tactical combat to varying degrees.

2 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

This kind of stuff is normal.

And again, yes and no. Talking about balance and Weegee ,in the same sentence, makes me laugh, when Cvs and subs exist and also when there is such a disparity for ex between babbies and cruisers...

So yeah, nope.

Edited August 21, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 minute ago, Andrewbassg said:

Well yes... and also no. 🙂  Now it is but, used to be not so. Also, all team combat games are also simulators and depending on the complexities of tactical combat.

And again, yes and no. Talking about balance and Weegee ,in the same sentence, makes me laugh, when Cvs and subs exist and also when there is such a disparity for ex between babbies and cruisers...

So yeah, nope.

 

 

 

Ah, but this isn't a team combat game. It's really, IMO, a casino game where there happen to be a setup where you get to play your ship in a battle between two forces.

I'm fully aligned with you that WG doesn't balance the game properly or at all.

That's why I said the fact that the same gun has different performance on different ships is normal. WG is actively not balancing this...therefore them being inconsistent is normal to their monetization strategy and vision for the game.

We are basically saying similar things from slightly different angles.

[MBT808]

The issue with flint and Atlanta isn’t with range, it’s ballistics. The horrid ballistics of the American 127mm/38 mk.12 guns (except San Diego’s guns for reasons) make 11.5km basically the maximum against the majority of BBs. Taking AFT nowadays is a complete waste of skill points for these guns on destroyers and only San Diego would benefit now.