How do the developers choose what battle ratings & tech trees ships go into?

Dev Server "Hornet's Sting" General Discussion - Dev Server
,
1

Alright so this is a bit of a follow on topic from the last update as per this post of mine:

Which is this ship from 2.43:

1955fb87c0c42-screenshotUrl
1955fb87c0c42-screenshotUrl1920×1080 226 KB

And in this upcoming update 2.45 there are two ships being added these on screen now:

(Thanks again Adarvik for the dev server screenshots)

Screenshot_2631
Screenshot_26311920×1080 197 KB

Screenshot_2629
Screenshot_26291920×1080 202 KB

The Matsu class Light Destroyer/ Destroyer Escort/ Kaibōkan & the Maelstrale class destroyer Grecale.

Now myself & like minded individuals having been taking about the BR’s.

(Just armament comparison & chat on battle ratings)

How are the Grecale & Matsu both only 3.7 while the Ghibli is a 4.0? even just going by Italian ships the Ghibli is less effective than the Grecale yet the latter is a lower battle rating while having a higher speed, heavier main armament
with four 120 mm cannons vs two 100 mm cannons & debatably somewhat better LAA in the form of 37 mm autocannons verses 20 mm autocannon. plus heavier 533 mm torpedoes in a triple centreline mount vs two twin 450 mounts on each side of the hull.

Than a comparison of the Ghibli to Matsu sees the latter have also a heavier main armament be it calibre & number of barrels (three 127 mm vs two 100 mm), more LAA than the former with it having thirteen single 25 mm alone vs the ten 20 mm, than torpedo armament is a heavier 610 mm torpedoes in a centreline quad mount vs again the two twin mounts.

It just doesn’t make sense to see these at 3.7 while the Ghibli is a 4.0.

(Tech Trees)

Furthermore the tech trees, how is such a horrible vessel such as the Ghibli a coastal ship at Rank V while say the Matsu is a Rank I bluewater? All other similar ships to the Matsu are currently found in the coastal tree be it Destroyer Escorts, the only other Kaibōkan is there as well with a similar armament layout (1×1 cannon fore 1×2 cannon aft) along with it being essentially the successor type after the (not in game Ōtori class Torpedo Boat) which is the successor type to the Chidori class Torpedo Boat in game. And even then if it’s light armament then why is there a full blown Destroyer in the coastal tree? (Ayanami class Destroyer).

I’ve spoken with some players that were expecting it to be after the Chidori yet here we’re after the Momi.

I really would like to know what it’s the devs decision where a ship goes & what system they use for expected battke rating as this is just confusing.

(Future speculation)

This does beg a question now that there’s a Matsu class in game, if an when added where would JDS Wakaba go? surely if added it wouldn’t be fair to see the same ship type but in another tree at a higher cost but worse armament.

(Final thoughts)

Either the Ghibli is to get a lower BR or the Matsu & Grecale get increased to 4.0, and either Ghibli or Matsu get a tree change as this is just getting daft.

6 Likes
2

In my opinion the main problem here is overtiered RN Ghibli coupled with a general issue of frigates forced to spawn at the same area as usually superior destroyers.
I agree that RN Ghibli should be lowered in br at least to 3.7, but better even lower, because currently it’s worse than any reserve destroyer and most of frigates.
Additionally the issue of frigates having to spawn at destroyers (and be targeted by destroyers secondaries) spawn point should be addressed.

1 Like
3

Also there could be a small buff for RN Ghibli and other Italian vessels equipped with 100/47 cannons, they could just increase rate of fire to 12 rpm, as for same Italian “Minizini” cannons, but on Soviet vessels. Although it won’t change the whole situation of course.

1 Like
5

Either the Ghibli is to get a lower BR or the Matsu & Grecale get increased to 4.0, and either Ghibli or Matsu get a tree change

Matsu & Grecale already struggle at 3.7. See: French Leopard or Soviet Opytny in bluewater trees. I wouldn’t increase their BRs, cause then they’d have it difficult to even survive.

IMO, the way to go is for Ghibli to be pushed down into 3.7.

And just to remind you: BR 3.7 🇯🇵 Isuzu exists, it would eat all 3 for breakfast ;)

1 Like
6

As a player that tested naval from its beginning I always tried to understand how Gaijin implements new ships in the game.

Before the split it was fairly simple, if a ship was a direct upgrade from the previous it got a 0.3 increase, boats were packed in a tight rank and so the ships.

Now I can’t really understand how they do it.
It’s not about the number of guns, reload speed, shell types, AA, torpedoes or the Ghibli would have been placed far below its current Br.
I think they just go with the “gap filler” method. They find a hole, place the ship there, look if its better or worse the two ships that are above or below it and draw its br from that.
It’s the only way to explain how many ships ended up at such random Brs that are way above or below their actual strenght.

1 Like
7

Matsu, which is not a kaiboukan, very clearly belongs exactly where she is in the tech tree, Bluewater and after Momi; she would be massively out of place in Coastal. We’ve already been over this.

3.7 was also the very obvious BR for her. I literally called all of this (Bluewater, after Momi, 3.7) the moment her name was announced because it was that obvious.

 

The only real issue at play (aside from compression, which affects everything) is that high-tier Coastals (Shounan and Chidori, here) tend to be over-BRed for some reason.

There are also other things that could be addressed (and have been mentioned in other replies) such as frigates being targeted by destroyer secondaries and having the same spawn point as destroyers, but those are larger gameplay things that are a little further from this topic itself.

8

Well, the one determines BRs or rank placement do not play the game.

Check Schütze for further proof.

In terms of the new Italian ship, I think 3.7 is suitable

9

I’ve only referred it to such due so many people be it websites/ videos having mentioned them as such (even some people I trust moreso then myself to classifications).

TBH nearly every ship over 500 tonnes shouldn’t belong in the coastal tree, yet due to speeds or light armament they seem to always end up there, myself an a few others just figured it would logically go there.

It just seems imho hella unfair from a research standpoint to have something worse higher & cost so bloody much yet see something like this put into the lowest rank at a lower BR, how I miss the old tree so bloody much over this bull we see now.

Sidenote, if it was added. Where would you stick the JDS Wakaba? similar hull of the subclass type but postwar rebuild. (logically it would seem unfair in stuck in the more expensive tree while the lead vessel is cheap, my thoughts).

10

That’s a good point, how the hell does a steelhull minesweeper with a 40 mm/70 be placed at 3.0? Let alone it having access to HE-VT ammunition which all vessels with those 40 mm/70 Model 1953 autocannons are 4.3 even with a single barrel (e.g
Bundemarine Nasty class/ Brave class) of course higher speeds/ torpedoes. But I can probably see that getting spammed out in the next update.

I would make the same jokingly jab about who makes these BR’s but I learnt that lesson on the day 2.43 dropped…

1 Like
11

I don’t know, but I don’t think they play games or pay attention to the community. Otherwise, it would not always create changes that were opposed by the overwhelming majority.

12

JDS Wakaba would be a cool addition, but would almost certainly go to Coastal. She is a rebuilt Tachibana-class (Matsu sub-class), but it seems that after sitting underwater for ten years, she basically shared the physical hull and little else, with new superstructure, weapons, etc.

Armament-wise, she’d have a single twin 3-inch gun… and that’s it besides anti-sub stuff. :P