Community - Forum - View old data

Categories :  

Test Server Discussion

  Index

  • 27th Sun CV Test Results

    02. 27. 2011 14:25

farazelleth
Diligently I logged today to find only siriusa present for the CV test, so after reading
firefox's forum post i was able to get Rehor and devils to help me test as a grp of 4.

As far as Planes go DragonStar made an excellent post for plane stat changes ->
http://www.navyfield.com/board/view.asp?Num=191641&Sort=C07&Order=re_upday&PageSize=20&Page=1&Ctg_1=&Ctg_2=&Ctg_3=

d/l link for spreadsheet --> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=NG8YITJA


The testing we did today was more ship orientated (submergance, HE def, aaw, armour/speed)
with some fighter duels between SU T3 and KM/US T3 and T4 fighters all lvl120.

**Fighter Results
SU T3 planes have approx 2min 12sec fuel or 132 seconds total, which gives them the
highest fuel capacity of all T3's. If we are to follow the national trait Soviets have
joint lowest fuel with UK, ergo they should be closer to 119 secs fuel.

SU T3 engaged US/KM T3's with a win/loss ration of 0.9/1 almost consistantly but required
a great deal of micro to keep the SU fighters tight (more on this later).

SU T3 engaged US/KM T4's with a win/loss ration of 1.1/1 bizzarly they did better. This
can probably be explained because T4's have less health and the SU T3's have joint highest
offense, (possible to 1 shot low health KM/US T4's)

*supplementary info, the SU T3 fighters I have found to have low enegagement range,
somewhere between interceptors and normal fighters, this makes micro an issue when
attempting to break engagement and re-engage... if your not careful your waves can get
split with one or more waves flying entirely away from the dogfight and haveing to be
re-re controlled and sent back into the fight. <-- ie bad

tl dr; -> SU T3 do bad against other T3 and better against T4 (km/us) of same pilot skill
&level. Low engagement range means more micro to keep fps tight & under control. Fuel
changed to 119 sec.


**CV 5 ship testing results
We tested submergance, He def and AAW with a control against the UK CV Malta and UK t2
TB's for aaw. A soviet bb5 with lvl110 guns (manned by rehor) fired for submergance values
and HE def.

*AAW*
SU CV5 AAW is stated at 324, Malta is 283? (hard to read text) and Frenchies are 341.
(needs to be lowered for both MN and SU).

The SU CV5 easily killed UK T2 tbs flying at sea level over the deck of said carrier, the
AAW easily killed all 10 tbs on the first pass. Personally I was supprised because UK Tb's
especially at 105 can fly literally over anything and not take a hit.

*HE defense* The lower the values here the better.
The SU CV5 has a HE def value of 998, the Malta 2368! and the MN 1241. This makes the SC
CV5 noticable more durable when fired against than the Malta. Even thou the malta has
24500 HP and the SU CV5 24100, SU would live longer against standard BB fire.

*Submergance* The lower the values here the better.
From Rehor's calculations the Malta has a submergance value of 3474, which according to
him is inline with other BB5's of the core nations (ie not MN). The SU CV5 has a
submergance value of 2982!

What does this mean? Well 4 shells fired from the Soviet BB5 with lvl110 quad guns against
the Malta did consitantly 18k damage (all deck hits). Shots against the SU CV5 did
consistantly 15~16k damage!

*Armour & Speed*
SU CV5 with level 120 crew and HH on the gun slots with 10 ammo, approx 150 bulge and 0.4
belt / 0.4 deck at max possible displacement. Without engi at 31knots overheat (ie slow
compared to malta's 34). With a 105 engi (ran out of 120 sailors) the CV5 goes 35 knots.



**end results
That's all we achieved without futher guidance on what needs looking at. Personally I feel
we need to know the submergance values of the CV4 PCV and CV6. As well as possible
displacement and armour with at level and fat lvl120 crews, with and without engis.


Fara.
  Index

  • Re : 27th Sun CV Test Results

    03. 08. 2011 16:14

chinlin
Please do not only look at the account data.
In the KR server, FT2 actual combat capability is surmounts FT3!!

(this example before FT4 comes out MN to be possible to confirm,
MN T3 before T4 comes out is radically residual)

In NFNA test server, U.S & KM actual combat capability is lower than the normal server, why?

Please look at sailor quantity & Ability...
Then again compared to normal server's RN, IJN, MN same rank sailor.

  • Re : 27th Sun CV Test Results

    03. 01. 2011 12:44

V2CxBongRipz
Yeah, I know what you mean about that. its funny How much time was put into even DDs
compared to CVs by the almighty "test team"

  • Re : 27th Sun CV Test Results

    03. 01. 2011 12:30

farazelleth
The point is V2 I havn't heard anything from mailman or the powers that be, so eve if we
did test and find a perfect balance .... is anyone listening?

  • Re : 27th Sun CV Test Results

    03. 01. 2011 10:11

V2CxBongRipz
If you want to get together sometime this weekend to test T1/2 DBs/TBs I'm up for it. I
should have more time during the day this weekend.

  • Re : 27th Sun CV Test Results

    03. 01. 2011 08:50

farazelleth
we didn't test dive bombers and after 2 hours of testing between the 4 of us we called it
quits.

However that being said, the current bomb damage I found is significantly lower than the
origonal 3400 and is probably at it's new and intended 2850?

The bombers group well and dive well and at level 105 with T2 dbs they don't die from AAW
fire. Without specifically testing anymore that's all I can say.

I don't know the current fuel load of the bombers but if you check the patch notes it's
probably been reduced to be inline with the other core nations and not overpowered like MN.

  • Re : 27th Sun CV Test Results

    03. 01. 2011 06:05

hemainman
sorry but i did not see any data regarding the Dive Bombers ? or i missed it?

  • Re : 27th Sun CV Test Results

    02. 28. 2011 10:00

richardphat
Well, since they completely messed up with the cv patch, AAW means jack squat to
fighters
anymore. Even a lvl 90 bve planes, base 10, could manage to hump a sodak for a
while. Technically, it sounds fine to leave the aaw. But that will cause another bugg
messed againgt bomber.
Nerfing the aaw, will just give the fighters the ability to fighter camp with poor
vets/experts maintening which is wrong.

Regarding CV submergence, it may not need a change. As the AP hull cap for every
current
CV nation is also low. Unless there was something I missed. Unless, they plan to re-
fix the
whole CV submergence of every nation, which will probably makes the devs work
harder and
messed up few things more.

  • Re : 27th Sun CV Test Results

    02. 28. 2011 07:01

ljsevern
@Kin Luu

AP Defense was belt weight

@Fraz

Its kinda a non issue, unless it can viably armour whore.

  • Re : 27th Sun CV Test Results

    02. 28. 2011 05:59

farazelleth
@ lj My point was the HE def values are grossly out of porportion to the core nations. But
can be balanced by useable displacement? After adding crew, guns and bulge/deck/belt its
ability to protect itself is roughly on par with some US CV's. UK Malta can still fully
protect itself with max bulge, while lex & su cv5 is around 150 bulge approx.

1) One of the last and significant changes that need to be done is the submergance values
for the CV4, 5, 6 and PCV. Currently they are on par with NFKR values and ergo are
overpowered much like MN.
2) AAW seems to be overpowered, but the stated AAW value for the SU CV5 is like 324 while
the Lexington is 319. So why is it the SU CV5 totally destroyed the UK t2 tbs? Perhaps the
SU CV5 aaw is different from stated. <--- Be great if other ppl could confirm my
findings, especially for cv4,5,6,pcv.

As for planes, the patch notes stat the fuel for SU T3 is 119 sec, but i used a stopwatch
and got 132 approx. <--- Other ppl can test this plz. As far as fighter duels go the SU T3
is still a viable plane, it has good strength and weaknesses against other nation T3's and
T4's, I would however stress the need for a SU T4 to be in the works.

As for engagement range, I had rehor and devils fly a variety of flight paths and engaged
with my SU T3's, personally I found the engegement range to lower than other nations, you
literally had to force them into the enemy, and as mentioned above when microing the fps
in a fighter duel its entirely possible for a wave to fly off and not reengage (while
still having ammo) simply because the engagement range is low.

What gets me is the chart provided by DragonStar shows the T3's to have good sight range,
perhaps I missed something or there are patch notes I've failed to read. <--- a test on
sight range or details from a mod would be really helpful for accurate figures.



Fara.

  • Re : 27th Sun CV Test Results

    02. 28. 2011 05:15

KinLuu
Was it not deck and belt armor weight?
1 2