Jump to content

Did Cesare not get the ASW memo, or am I missing something?


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, SoshiSone said:

Seems I see 8km on ASW strike distance on Tier V BBs. This was a 13.1 update.

But Cesare is still at 4km.

???

Only Ohio, Thunderer, and the Jean Barts got their ASW range buffed. MA, GC, and Musashi still have abysmally short range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, SoshiSone said:

Seems I see 8km on ASW strike distance on Tier V BBs. This was a 13.1 update.

But Cesare is still at 4km.

???

Yes all according to WG “logic” if it Can help you the Massa at T8 also been left behind against the Subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like so many ships before her WG found a way to shadow nerf her.

Now she's just meat for the subs to eat while she has no power to fight back.

Took me years to get her just to watch her jump to the top of the SUB FARM list.

😏

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoshiSone said:

Seems I see 8km on ASW strike distance on Tier V BBs. This was a 13.1 update.

But Cesare is still at 4km.

???

You want to buff a well known overpowered ship? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, clammboy said:

Massachusetts 5km is on the subs farm list. 

Yep, i still play my Massa but you just know that a sub can sit 5.1km away and dump on you without any penalty, or without me really being able to do anything.

 

The sad thing is that WG writes the following "we are working on solving major problems with submarine interactions "  and yet some ships are being dumped on by WG. But at least they are finally telling us what we have known from teh start, that subs dont fit into the game, and now they will make them fitting even worse trying to fix it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SoshiSone said:

Seems I see 8km on ASW strike distance on Tier V BBs. This was a 13.1 update.

But Cesare is still at 4km.

???

see what happens when WeeGee asks you if it's ok to nerf your ship and you say no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

Only Ohio, Thunderer, and the Jean Barts got their ASW range buffed. MA, GC, and Musashi still have abysmally short range.

Did all the T5 BBs already have 8 km drop ranges prior to 13.1?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bai7200 said:

Yep, i still play my Massa but you just know that a sub can sit 5.1km away and dump on you without any penalty, or without me really being able to do anything.

 

To make matters worse the Massa is literally always in tier 9 and 10 games. I don't know about you guys it but seems like especially lately I am always up tiered. It's really no fun playing against a Gato with 5km ASW and bad main battery fire range to. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also gave all subs a 20% increase in maneuverability and a 10% increase in dive time because 3 ships out of 100 tier 10s got sub surveillance. It's a buff to them no I  don't really get it?

Edited by clammboy
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoshiSone said:

Did all the T5 BBs already have 8 km drop ranges prior to 13.1?

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/505

Prior to this patch, tier V BBs except for GC had 6km ASW airstrikes.

There is a short list of ships in the Dev blog linked above that retain their “special ASW settings,” and that list includes GC.

Edited by Nevermore135
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Prior to this patch, tier V BBs except for GC had 6km ASW airstrikes.

I do play the Guilio Cesare on my EU account, and I will say that 4km ASW is really hard to live with at times despite GC being an outstanding ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HogHammer said:

I do play the Guilio Cesare on my EU account, and I will say that 4km ASW is really hard to live with at times despite GC being an outstanding ship.

I (unfortunately) do not have a GC, but based on my experience with other battleships with similarly gimped ASW I have no problem believing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nevermore135 said:

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/505

Prior to this patch, tier V BBs except for GC had 6km ASW airstrikes.

There is a short list of ships in the Dev blog linked above that retain their “special ASW settings,” and that list includes GC.

Oh, so "special" = "piss poor"?

Gives a new meaning to a special player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SoshiSone said:

Seems I see 8km on ASW strike distance on Tier V BBs. This was a 13.1 update.

But Cesare is still at 4km.

???

Guilio Caesare is probably awesome enough to keep your team-mates alive, thus you benefit from theie ASW capabilities, eh?  🙂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, SoshiSone said:

Seems I see 8km on ASW strike distance on Tier V BBs. This was a 13.1 update.

But Cesare is still at 4km.

???

Massachutets is also still at 5 km ASW range... Nerfing by WG with completely new class...

Edited by WildWind84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/505

Prior to this patch, tier V BBs except for GC had 6km ASW airstrikes.

There is a short list of ships in the Dev blog linked above that retain their “special ASW settings,” and that list includes GC.

If it's a short list, why make the player rely on the Dev blog and the special name (pun intended) instead of just stating what it means in the patch notes.  I read the patch notes. I don't read the dev blog.  The patch real estate used for the special ASW text (which has no tractable meaning sans the dev blog) could have been replaced with just stating what that means.  Hell, might have even saved some real estate. 

I don't mind so much that the GC has piss poor ASW as I've lived with it so far without much problem.  I'll only see T6 subs.  So ho hum there.  I just mind not having it CLEARLY communicated in the PATCH NOTES that it was not part of the ASW balancing act.

It won't affect my seal clubbing trolling.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SoshiSone said:

If it's a short list, why make the player rely on the Dev blog and the special name (pun intended) instead of just stating what it means in the patch notes.  I read the patch notes. I don't read the dev blog.  The patch real estate used for the special ASW text (which has no tractable meaning sans the dev blog) could have been replaced with just stating what that means.  Hell, might have even saved some real estate. 

How so? WG posted the bare minimum necessary to communicate the changes: they listed the “non-standard” ships that were changed, while stating that all other “non-standard” ships were not changed (because they weren’t explicitly listed in the patch notes). One could argue that including the table from the Dev blog in the news article would have made the whole situation more clear (the information regarding special ASW settings on ships is all available, just not readily memorable for all players), but it definitely wouldn’t have taken up less “real estate.”

5 hours ago, SoshiSone said:

I just mind not having it CLEARLY communicated in the PATCH NOTES that it was not part of the ASW balancing act.

I guess I don’t understand why this particular instance is so notable and worthy of frustration. This is par for the course - WG has never placed clarity of communications as a high priority (in fact, the number of times that inaccurate information has been communicated shows that they don’t even treat that with high regard). For example, how often have we been misled by “translation errors?” As I already said, it can be argued that WG could have communicated the information better, but they did put in the bare minimum effort/word count to accurately communicate the changes that did occur.

Edited by Nevermore135
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

I guess I don’t understand why this particular instance is so notable and worthy of frustration. This is par for the course - WG has never placed clarity of communications as a high priority 

Yeah, I undestand that.  I guess it's notable and worthy of frustration becasue of expectations.  I was looking forward to seal clubbing subs in by GC.  

I really don't have an issue with not being able to do that.  Just frustrated over an expecation otherwise smashed.

GC is still a killer T5 BB, and I'll still play her when I feel like it.  Probably the best way to measure how OP it can be is to compare my overall winrate of about 58% with my GC win rate of 65%.  That's OP.  That said, there are few DDs down there that perform even better.  Not by me...but by DD mains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.