World of Warships – Missouri Working as Intended

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (599 votes, average: 4.70 out of 5)

Sharing ’s investigation into a possible dispersion issue. Hope you have a wonderful day and I’ll catch you next time!

Tier IX Missouri Replay – Discord Server


  1. I don’t care what anyone says – these guns are different, worse than they used to be, and they are horrible.

    • missouri is the worst ship ive ever played, inaccurate as fuck…feels so diffrent then playing on CT…they fucked it up again. It must be accu nerf for sure…dont listen to wg, before the patch it was a bit better.

    • It is a different ship than it was a month or more ago.  I started playing it again recently when I needed to grind for silver, it just feels like it does not produce the same results it was prior to its removal.  Its still a good ship, but it certainly seems like something has changed. 

      It was the same with WoT on XB1.  “Wargaming never nerfs premium tanks”  Sure.  Its just coincidence that performance regularly takes a dive on it when something newer comes out or people complain about it being OP.  Of course its OP, that’s why I bought the damn thing.  🙂

    • i don’t care about facts. the earth is flat and the moon doesn’t exist.

    • The Gaming Python

      I’ve always felt that Iowa was more accurate than Missouri. I’ve never really loved Missouri. Prefer Iowa. Except for the money making of course.

  2. i removed the -11% mod and my accuracy got better, people in game have agreed too

    • I agree as well. I slotted the reload mod immediately which probably makes my damage values worthless. But I can hit DDs and bow-on ships again! And my XP earned went up from below 1200 to 1400 again (2nd place in my team on average now – before, I was forth place on average with aiming mod)!

    • MchalesNavy yeah……. No

    • Does the Iowa/Montana have this problem as well (and can be fixed removing the accuracy mod) or just the Missouri

    • Drunk Squirrel I’m not saying that’s how it’s works now with this whole accuracy issue, see my own posts elsewhere on this vid. I’m saying that that is a big part of the reason you further improve accuracy on an already accurate ship. It’s the same reason why the Montana is the go to pick in competitive. Ships are spotted far less, players at high levels give far less broadside, so when mistakes are made they need to be punished quickly. The more accurate the ship the more you can punish in the single salvo you’re likely to be afforded. Apart from that, buffs are percentage based, so it makes sense to buff characteristics that are already strong.

    • Just happy the monty is still accurate as hell. I felt the Missouri’s accuracy was shit compared to the Iowa.

    • Hey do you live in Georgia? By chance? Random question…

  3. I don’t care what ANYONE says. Missouri was changed. Now… It may be “changed back” but Missouri was 100% a different ship. Haven’t played much this last hotfix. Just a few games, but not enough to be sure that it’s “back”. But we know the ship!!

  4. Go meet Yuro senpai at the CC gathering 😉

  5. I dont know why WG would nerf the Missouri after they took it out of the shop.

    It could be some bug.

    But the Missouri is a ship that gets played often. I think that if WG changed, or bugged the Missouri those people would notice it.
    I mean, why are rumors abour changes and bugs comming up, when there didnt change anything.

    I even got double citadeled trough the nose by a Gascogne. That is something that gets me thinking.

    • The Iowa is the exact same ship as the missouri statswise. They have different consumables, yes.
      Its not logical to nerf a ship so many have, because the missouri earns loads of exp one uses to convert to free exp using doublons.

      Whats was the tremendous appeal of getting the Missouri in the first place, when the Iowa is the same ship?
      For me it was the money and exp making abilit. Which is the sames as before the patch.

      WG never nerfed a ship they put out of the shop. And it doesnt make a reason to do so now.

    • Noix_init I’m sorry but are you high on crack?

      Remember the Tirpitz nerf with its secondaries and reduced fire chance?

      Remember the global smoke changes that in a way nerfed the Belfast and Kutuzov and they offered Doubloons for it?

      Another nerf is the one to premium aircraft carriers. You might be thinking how??

      They buffed the defensive AA power of US and Russian destroyers especially the kidd which makes the aircraft even more fragile. Short of touching a premium ship directly, wargaming keeps implementing global changes to nerf premium ships.

      ‘WG never nerfed a ship they put out of the shop. And it doesnt make a reason to do so now.’

      This is a misleading statement.

    • How did they nerf the Tirpitzs secondarys? With buffing the range to 7.5km?

      A reduction with a great increase in other stats is not a overall nerf to a ship.
      U didnt state a single ship they nerfed in your blablablub comment.

      Belfast did not get nerfed.
      Kutuzov did not get nerfed.
      A gamemechanic got reworked. And WG even payed you back what u payed for them.

      Man, your stupid overall game changes that u stated arent nerfs to specific ships. They simply affect Premium Ships.

      That really is mostly retared bb lowbob talk u do. But what to expect after your first sentence.

    • The game mechanics got reworked cause of their ever ridiculous premiums. Everyone spamming Belfast and Kutuzov when they were released. Even the Blyskawica was affected by the global changes. It’s not exactly the same product as advertised is it?

      The Tirpitz nerf was a nerf. You made a statement and I proved it false. The ship ‘did’ receive a nerf to its fire chance which was different to what it originally had.

      Why don’t you spew your nonsense in wows subreddit or forums. They’ll put you back in your place.

    • I have all the premiums they “nerfed”, but the problem is u cant say they nerfed them cause they changed some game mechanics. Its like saying they nerfed a Premium ship by releasing another line of silver ships that counter the Premium ship hard.
      Blyska is pretty terrible now, but it did not get nerfed directly. Every ship got affected by the global changes. Thats why they are global changes. Global changes are always the backdoor for WG to indirectly nerf Premium Ships.

  6. The WG comment says the modules that affect it work, not that they compared dispersion to before and after. Not saying there is a difference, but that did not answer the question. That is equal too, “Is person A now lactose intolerant?” Answer: “Milk has lactose.” Doesn’t answer the question. Yes, the modules affect the dispersion, but they would even if the initial dispersion was changed. So? Though I do think dispersion gets worse when ever ships angle, and players are doing that more.

    • Somewhat off topic but I think you mean Lactose, to Lactate is to produce milk.

    • See, like a politician, I get terms mixed up and don’t bother to correct myself until someone points it out. WG does political type responses as well.

  7. Well, I am certain that I cannot speak on Flamu’ behalf but he just noticed that his Russian server’s Mizzou average dmg improved after he switched from “Artillery Plotting Room Modification 2” to “Gun Fire Control System Modification 2”.

    • Saw that happen right on stream. Chat suggested the change, very next game and he’s landing more shots.

    • True, chat suggestion!

    • Plot twist….. artillery plotting room is increasing dispersion by 16% not reducing it?

    • Chris Ganoe increase range of shots, technically it shouldn’t if the dispersion curve is linear

    • I switched as well after seeing Flamu doing it. My Missouri is was more consistent now. My damage hasn’t increased as much as I hoped (perhaps because I can now hit DDs again and shoot them more often again). But my XP increased a lot! I am now second on XP earned in my team on average. I wasin forth place with the aiming mod. These stats are averaged over 25 games with each mod.

  8. Can’t agree with this vid. In my personal experience, I can take an NC or iowa out, shoot what I want, when I want, get solid hits. Take the missouri out, can’t hit the side of a barn. Why should it be different? Then there’s watching Flamu on stream. His stats on Russia vs EU are 20% lower, but his iowa stats are fine? He as well can’t hit anything. Full broadside ships going unpunished all game, just can’t hit them. Someone in chat suggests he remove the dispersion mod and run reload instead, suddenly he’s hitting stuff at will again. All on stream. Something has definitely been broken.

    • MchalesNavy I struggle to get citadels against slow moving broadsides targets now where I didn’t before. The dispersion is unquestionably different.

    • I switched the modules as well after I say Flamu having success with it. The Missouri feels way more consistent now! I believe, the aiming mod now increases dispersion by 11% instead of decreasing it…

    • I’ll have to give demounting it a try and see if it makes a difference.

    • and I thought it was just me missing barn doors at 8km…..full broadside mino aimed for the right point…smiling to myself and what heppens not much damage at all! Also the credits appear to be nerfed too 🙁

    • You know, Business6 mentioned last year that he felt there was an issue with the dispersion mod. He’d stopped using it and it did increase his hit%. So there must be credence to this as the problem. Everyone puts so much faith in sigma; however, if you have a 3-football field size dispersion zone, sigma only means more hit somewhere in that circle if not the target. The Alsace has awful dispersion and down right bad sigma (1.7). It’s as bad as the FdG in my opinion. They’ve probably ninja nerf’d accuracy on all BBs (or more to the point US battleships because they’re “too accurate” if you listen to the cruiser players complaining about being deleted while sailing broadside. 😉

  9. Hmmm, I think they’are just lying about Missouri’s aiming….Since last patch shell’s disperion is nut! Even with module -11% dispersion……

    • they want people to buy musashi

    • Try the reload mod. I know, it sounds stupid – but my Missouri now feels way more consistent again! I can hit dds and bow-tanking ships – which was impossible with the reload mod. It seems as if the aiming mod increases the dispersion by 11% instead of decreasing…

    • Lord Roo agreed this guy is on to something. Ive done the same thing and produced results showing improvement.

    • Emphasis felt a little pointed on the “we checked all the dispersion mods” dialogue. That statement says jack all about baseline dispersion. Which could essentially be stealth modded by not following the displayed dispersion stat in port. Also, ‘Circle gets smaller’ is a pretty incomplete statement and has nothing to do with sigma which is distribution inside said circle.

  10. You’re such a fucking shill. They have been stealth nerfing BBs since patch 5.5.0. The Alabama and MO are not the same ships they were when the launched. WG claimed the Arizona’s sigma was changed before launch but it was changed after without them saying a word. Only the data that was mined showed the truth. They are nothing but liars and are only interested in milking the player base for money.

    • You start off with calling him a shill. Why don’t you stop wasting your time and just go elsewhere on youtube? Wouldn’t your time be better spent that way? Bye bye and take care.

    • A shill that has on multiple times cost them thousands in sales by telling everyone to not spend money on their products, lol your comment is ludicrous

  11. Yes they are different… My Iowa is far more accurate than my Missouri since the patch.

    • ^^^^ This SO much THIS. The whole reason I got the MO was because the Iowa was my favorite ship (even edging out the NC). The dispersion on the Iowa was just sooo darn good! I got the MO and I couldn’t make it work, the guns are just too inconsistent, which makes no sense! All of my stats in the Iowa are just plain better than the Missouri, and not just by a little. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE IF THEY ARE THE SAME SHIP???? In fact I will play the MO get frustrated with the dispersion, quit, load up the Iowa and get WAY more consistent gunnery. I thought it was just some sort of bias on my part, but if other people are noticing this than SOMETHING is wrong.

      Something has to be wrong. I’m just surprised no one else has looked into the Iowa yet. The best way to find a problem is to play both ships and compare them. The MO is an Iowa CLONE. If you get bad dispersion in the MO and not in the Iowa, that is a CLEAR indication that something is wrong, with the Missouri, SPECIFICALLY.

  12. Just rewatched Battleship, gawsh i really want this ship.

  13. The answer WG gives at the beginning of the video is pretty fishy… “Everything is working as intended” doesn’t address whether or not it was CHANGED. A change can be “intended”… Kind of a non-answer answer.

  14. I don’t think it’s the Missouri, but the dispersion buff module. I noticed it the most with the Lyon, when I removed the accuracy mod and changed it to secondaries I had better dispersion on my shots. The same for other BBs. I do think some BBs suffer more from this issue than others, and especially with the Missouri that was accurate like a sniper you definitely notice it is a lot worse than it was.

    • They probably changed the algebraic sign – it now increased dispersion instead of reducing it…
      Does the “normal” aiming mod you get on the non-American ships give problems as well!? I didn’t hear about that..

    • I have not heard anything about it, but I could notice it instantly when I switched the mods on the Lyon. Before I had lots of trouble even hitting enemy ships, and the first battle after changing it I got 7 citadels… Average damage has sharply risen 🙂 So it is something I am now experimenting with if I have problems with accuracy as I do feel it makes a difference 🙂

  15. What? The citadels on the Conqueror and KMS BBs was a bug! Wtf?

  16. I’m pretty sure it’ll be a bug where dispersion upgrade just got a “negative” respond instead of “positive” or vice versa

  17. I still call BS. I love this game but more and more I’m noticing things that are changing that used to be just fine. The MO being one of them, not only with dispersion but credit winnings as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if WG is straight up lying with their vague answers. To those that ask, “why would WG nerf a ship that you can’t get anymore? (etc)”. The answer… because they already have your money, why care. Not all spent real money like myself on converting ship xp, but I guarantee some will feel my pain. Heck even normal credit winnings for standard ships seem nerfed. As the years go on I swear they’re making the usual grind harder so you’re almost FORCED to spend real money to get anywhere. WG is getting to be like any other money hungry (yes I said it) company. I’m disappointed. While I applaud them for the advances they’ve made such as graphics, new ship lines, rewarding challenges… it just doesn’t offset the negative. And one final thing, I keep getting containers with things for collections I’ve already completed, so essentially I get crapped on with wasted, useless rewards.
    Quick edit: I understand you can’t just run a free game, however, if this is how it’s going to be then just charge to purchase the game and certain aspects (whether it be certain lines etc) used as DLC. At least then there would be a method to the madness, so to speak

  18. “they would never openly reduce the power of a product they sold” Not sure if Ive quoted you correctly there, but I think thats the gist of your statement at the 1:00 mark. In relation to this statement my answer is ‘Type 59.” How this tank was marketed, sold on mass, then nerfed several times after they took our cash and didnt offer refunds, is one of the reasons I eventually stopped playing WOT in 2012. I refuse to pay premium in WOW (which I think is a far better game, so Im happy to be a casual scrub) and I will only put limited small amounts of cash into it. Wargaming has a long standing history of releasing items that are strong, especially premiums or new tech trees and after they have your cash, nerfing them. Depending on how obvious the nerfs are, they will either acknowledge them or just straight up lie. I dont have the Missouri as I refused to pump cash into converting free XP, however all owners of it in my clan agree that its earning less cash than it was a few weeks ago. BTW “working as intended” was something they used a lot in WOT which often meant “we may or may not have nerfed it, but we are not telling you.”

    • You don’t need to buy premium acc in wows at all. Play PTS and earn the rewards – especially the special flags and premium acc. That’s mostly 2 days of premium per month – which is enough for the casual grinds you face.

    • Very similar outlook to my rant. I totally agree

  19. Notser, you should read WG’s response more closely. It’s a complete non-answer.

  20. IJN DD split is basically pointless… Sure Akizuki is GREAT, but I do not even feel compelled to go down that line since there is no tier 10 at the end of the line.

    • It’s doesn’t really matter. Even if you’re uptiered, the Akizuki does great. And if you’re top tier, you shit on everything that’s not a cruiser.

    • It does to me. I can’t play Akizuki in Clan Battles. Even without CBs I would still appreciate a T10 to grind.

    • The Budgie Admiral

      Akizuki was my first tier 8 boat. Unforgiving but when you get the hang of it she is awesome, there is something ridiculous and amusing about shooting every 3 seconds. If you like DDs this is so much worth it. In fact I decided not to bother with the main line because they are so enragingly bad. I regularily had matches where I did not get a single torpedo hit while staying alive for the entire game. So frustrating.

    • Oh, okay. I get the clan battles thing, but I was referring more to Randoms or even Co-op.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *