And this is the issue here. It’s a paper figure that Gaijin has accepted as fact. For all we know it would have ended up with a 2 minute reload.
When primary sources for other ships that were actually built to get increased reload is denied because “Developers considered it unnecessary to further increase the rate of fire” (source)then I think there is room to use reload as a balancing tool. Soyuz would in no way suffer by having it’s reload reduced to 35 seconds which is probably a more realistic figure anyway.
Goal of 2.5 doesn’t seem unrealistic as US battleships, with heavier shell and weaker motor, was able to achieve 2.5 in their loading angle. Iowa’s report about buffing it to 24 seconds got denied on ‘balance’ reason. This means developers’ thought on both ship is that 30 seconds is what they think for balance on ‘realistic’ figure.
Soyuz also didn’t got it’s best figure from design. It got 29 seconds instead of 24 seconds what it could got best. So it is fair.
Besides, among 8.7 battleships, Yamato is the only one got best paper figure as she can reload in 30 seconds only on loading angles.
Actually I’m on more of buffing both ship’s reload to 24 seconds while nerfing their BR to 9.0. Those two are definitely at the same level of Yamato even with their ‘nerfed’ figure compared to Yamato.
Also, Rodney’s case is not the same case to Soyuz as at that time when Report was denied, Rodney was facing even 6.0 cruisers when report was denied. I also support that report and got angry when developers said that, but things have changed, and maybe on current status that report can be passed.
There are no specific reason of nerfing it to 35 seconds except ‘because it’s Soviets blah blah’, or it is unfinished ships. In that case, I want to watch what you’ll say if developers decide Lion class battleships’ reload to 35 seconds, which even has less work than Soyuz.
AFAIK the reason was because 25 seconds confirmed for old turrets, not on Vanguards new turret(have little different loading system beacuse of shell room/magazine location swapped)
If we’re going on datamines, then all non-fixed shells explode 100% of the time when the module is completely destroyed, with explosion chance due to fire varying based on the ship and amount of damage. Bravy’s missiles are counted as rockets and are notoriously inert, so you can’t detonate them.
I don’t know the exact formula used to calculate detonation force, but I believe the aux ammo uses the same logic as shell rooms. Therefore, the less ammo you bring, the weaker the explosion, with AP rounds doing less damage because they have less filler.
AA boxes are counted as aux stores for the purposes of the damage model. As for secondary fixed and semi-fixed ammo, I think there’s a provision in there for propellant, but like I said, I don’t know how that specific value is determined.
Why it is special treatment when it is not best reload in design? I saids, their goal was 24 seconds in loading angle and ingame they got 29 seconds. It seems more of balance that developers chose.
Plus, then what with all other unfinished ships ingame(German and Italy one) that did not prove they will show their best reload in real life, and some finished ships that gets unreachable reload(Richelieu, Bismarck), or ideal reload(Yamato) in their configuration?
While I repeatedly saids, why trying to nerf one ship that developers already chose some ‘balanced’ then not best on it’s design, while there are plenty of other way to buff other ships? What will you guys would say then when in the future Gaijin comes to those others ships and saying ‘Now it seems that this ship is OP and we will going to nerf, even though current figure is realistic’
you said yourself that figure comes from testing SS guns in coastal battery, not on the ship. Gaijin already took creative liberty when deciding SS loading time.
As Movran said:
That already is a preferential treatment, unique to SS.
If this hypothetical future ship is clearly overperforming other ships at its BR, I would probably see it as welcomed balance decision.
Theres clearly an argument to be made that SS needs some sort of nerf, and RoF would be probably the least invasive decision to make. Gaijin said reload time is soft balancing factor and change it as they see fit when it comes to tanks, i dont see a reason why this wouldnt work for ships.
You should look again what I said. I saids those figure is come from turret design, not testing gun mount. Testing gun mounts would be even more slower because it has no connection to shell room, and there are no power assisting mechanisms.(It is just gun and holding mount, because it is made only for test puropse)
Not unique to SS. Richelieu also got 32 seconds reload which it can’t achieve during wartime, and Bismarck got 23 seconds which in real life would break her hoist. Yamato got 30 seconds which could be only achieved at loading angle(in same condition, Soyuz and Iowa could achieve 24 seconds)
It is not unique SS preferential treatment, actually against-SS treatment cause of balance.
ROF is the most invasive decsion in real game, considering my experience of playing Rodney and standard battleships in the past.
And on that side, as I said, there are ways to buff other ships. Iowa can achieve 24 seconds at loading angle, for example. Or let’s remove barbette fire spread which is totally inaccurate, to save Bismarck and Roma(also buffing Iowa)
My experience on Sovetsky Soyuz makes conclusion that ROF nerf will not make balance better, as it’s invincible bow standing at long range won’t be solved by that. It is just terrible decision to unsatisfy both who plays Sovetsky Soyuz and those who play against it.
Well then. Just “balance” it through repair costs? Cause theres no way you should pay the exact same repair costs of around 46000 sl to repair a yamato, which is less than 1/4th as effective as a soyuz, while also having the exact same modifiers. But exploding to every semi well aimed incoming salvo, whether it hits the angled bulkhead, main ammo, secondary ammo or even absolute stray shots hitting you aa ammo midships. While the other ship is basically invincible if its just sitting bow in or angled. Makes for absolute enjoyable naval top tier experience in the coming months/years. Similar to the scharnhorst situation, only version 2.0 upgrade because this one, it also has guns which are effective at range and hold twice as much tnt equivalent for its shells compared to anyone else’s. I pity everyone playing that, srsly
46 608 sl repair cost divided by the efficiency factor difference from yamato to soyuz gives a solid 10973 SL repair cost for yamato. Probably should be even lower because in addition to paying the same amount to repair and getting much less rewards through kills, guess what? Its win rate (win modifiers on earnings) is 45.9 % compared to the soyuz which comfortably sits at 58.4% in rb despite facing itself.
But, then again, idc i dont really play naval rb anymore. For reasons
Okay so englighten me, because I might be confused. How was SS RoF estabilished? Was it entirely guesstimation solely from how the turret was designed, or did they hold a test? If so, how was the test held?
fair enough.
How it is the most invasive? Youre not removing any shell, youre not removing any capability of the ship, you are not nerfing its armor nor speed.
You are not adding extra modules unique to single or few vehicles at time (like adding turret baskets to only two MBT families and making them part of turret roration mechanism, even the parts that dont actually affect turret rotation), you are not nerfing its turret elevation and depression angles (like by arbitrarily deciding that single MBT family cant depress its gun over the back while not adding this feature to any other MBT family in game).
Yes, buffing other ships in RoF would be the least could Gaijin do. Alas, again:
So it is the best armored ship at naval top tier currently, and theres absolutely nothing wrong with excelling in single category. But, as far as Im familiar with naval, issue is SS isnt excelling in single category. Correct me if Im wrong, since I dont have game open currently, but SS currently has one of the fastest reloads found at top tier, and also best AP shell, no?
But deciding to do nothing and keeping as things currently are isnt solution either. Given how reluctant Gaijin is to buff things, because god forbid that whatever Gaijin decided to be meta isnt well recieved by players, what else is there to do?
Not play that bs. Oh wait thats already happening (constant 3 vs 3 naval rb matches filled with bots on maps of which 50% are either too small or just open circles but at least bigger). Nevermind. The snail won’t learn. I mean i would love to play a working naval rb gamemode. But the snail isnt exactly hellbent on improving/balancing it.
I have had almost full matches for a short period after the patch. and for at least a year or something until a couple of months before the patch it was 5v5 and 6v6 or even more (im playing on eu servers and always forget to enable other regions when switching to naval, since latency doesnt matter much in naval gameplay i could do that).
Besides, you dont even need to find my profile ingame.
Im asking how soviet engineers reached these numbers. Was it entirely guesstimation or was some sort of test held? If so, how was it held?
and yet, its soft balancing stat as gaijin stated themselves. If vehicle is too weak, they can give it faster reload time (as happened with Abrams). If vehicle is too strong, they can give it slow reload (as is with Leo2s). Generally speaking there should be little to no difference in reload times between 120mm L/44 gun and its derivates armed tanks, yet here we are.
so how is the Naval damage decided if not by explosive filler? For tanks its primarily decided by either epxlosive filler or mass of the round if HE filler isnt aviable.
Which gaijin is extremely reluctant to do. While SS statistics are way above its contemporaries, and even significantly better than Iowa.
