I will do some work on the SN BB 234 ranges this evening.

Mm

I don't know. I wouldn't be sure this time.


I don't balance that ship for me anyways. I work on this ship to make it worthwhile, and
not crappy. Plus, it's for the people ( who have the knowledge on how to play a bb at
least) I am doing this.


The only thing I have constantly hear people whinning, or elaborating reasons is the
hangtime for amagi, or P24 which renders less performing than other bb6. I don't have an
amagi, nor p24, but I know including you hate a hangtime when speaking in bb6 fight.




We could try to do something for this time.


Sure there are other viable option and if it is better than mine, I would welcome their
idea. Also , I am not the one to ask to balance.

I am just the bug tester and try to fix their broken content. I just throw the idea,
whether or not to put it is up to you.


Edited.

Again, that is if you sail in a straight line. I'd very much like it that people on a battle line
always sailed in a straight line. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen. You have to take
swinging into account when determining range. The reason why people complain about
it, is that the P24 on live server have 19 turning force, while the Nebby has 22. Once
the TF of the P24 is buffed to either 21 or 22, it should be fine IMO.

No need to range test, since I already did and recorded it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7Pf-Mk57Y

True range and effective range, both outrange nebby.
The large hitbox makes it difficult to use like h44 vs l2/sy.

You can see that I am able to land a full salvo without getting full nuke, or land much more
shells than a nebby can hit me back.
Which obviously shows that P24 outrange nebby in every way.

Now, like I said, it is hard due to extreme large hitbox

It is why I see, a hangtime tweak is much more suitable in this situation.

Typo fixed.

A number of people have complained that it has the same range. Will you be available
tomorrow evening to do some range tests to confirm/disprove this?

You meant SN. Well it does anyways.

SN is meant to outrange US.

Is the current range not sufficiant?
I mean the range difference now vs nebby is similar to H44 vs L2.

Unless, we ask them to lower the hangtime by little bit, that way, we won't get ranged
screwed.
Plus, giving them shorter hantime (well not that short) is also an alternative to buff it.

Last time, it took 3-4 patch to finally fix the range to what we want.

I thought you meant give them godly armour penetration Richard! Lol!

Fixes needed;

P24 range should be slightly buffed to range Nebby a bit more if what people are saying
are correct. I would like to do some Nebby vs P24 and some Kaiser vs P24 range tests
to check if this is correct.

The BB4 12" guns need to be nerfed, with the 16" buffed.

We desperately need range charts for all the ships, aswell as damage amounts, speeds
etc.

CV hulls arent done when gunspace (and arcs for cv5) arent done yet. Furthermore as i
already stated out the amount of bulge and turningforce arent in line with other PCVS for
MN yet. So CV hulls belong to the undone stuff but to the one that can be done rather
quick too especially when people give reasons and explain why they want which change and
not just set some values and everyone has to accept that. For r-slots of cv 5-6 i suggest
so big that it can mount 6.1inch duals with a few binds since most cv5+ can use 6inch+
dual guns on thier cvs.

As i already suggested for the patchlocks it would be great when u dont just write
gunspace/r-space for ship/gun x changed to that value but rather add the gun u want to use
it next to it.
e.g.:
CA Algerie
r-space xxx-->yyy (8inch dual second set)

or for guns:

8inch dual gunspace xxx-->yyy (so CA Algerie can use it and ship z cant use it)

this would really held to understand changes since with so many patches/changes its hard
to keep overview.


edit: still i dont understand why gunspace for the new aa guns has to be this much. It are
AA guns guys. I can mount KM40 AA on Z99 but cant moun 5.1inch dual AA guns on mogador.