Jump to content


Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

22 Neutral


  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Was in a match last night and our CV was a Graf. He got six kills, three of them with secondaries. All three kills? BBs that tried to bum rush him. Ironically, the DD that initially stalked him lived, by hiding in smoke, but was utterly unable to close to effective torp range because the Graf's secondaries were surprisingly (to me) strong. The CV driver said he had a secondary build, and I believe him. Yeah, CV sniping is situational, and I agree that the tier makes a big difference. In general, ships should probably do what ever they can to help win the match. Much of the time, for a DD, that will probably not involve spending half the match out of the fight circling around for that golden torp shot on a CV.

    Issues installing new WoWS update

    In my case, it would download, then fail to extract, with a message saying to check the log. The log revealed...not much, except, um, it failed to extract. What's more, at that point the uninstaller wouldn't find the game to uninstall. I had to nuke all the files in the folder and then re-download the game (and this time, the game center thingy as well) and everything worked fine.

    Battleships are far too manouvreable

    As a BB driver who has endured his fair share or more of torp hits, I'm not convinced, shall we say, that BBs need to be even more sluggish. It's a game; all of the performance stats are relative. As it is, BBs are the least maneuverable, most sluggish ships in the game, as they should be. Given the short engagement ranges, compressed time frames, and amazing information availability that each battle offers (in contrast to anything remotely historical), the current maneuverability of big ships is essential to give them parity with everyone else. DD's are far more capable of landing torp hits on warships than was ever possible historically, just as BBs are far more capable of landing main battery hits, etc. As for the physics, well, does anyone really want to play a game where 60000 tons of displacement takes 20 minutes to get going, or where you start the game actually having to fire up boilers and wait for high-pressure steam to get to the point you can actually move? No, I didn't think so. As to torp bombers, well, the air meta is still in flux, so who knows what will happen later. But the air game is so screwy that I'd hesitate to base anything on it.
  4. Eh, given how godlike the AA on CVs is now, which has made CV sniping pretty much impossible, I seriously doubt there is any need whatsoever for a powerful offensive weapon like the Alaska to hang around in the back with the carrier. If I see one doing this in a match I'm in, I'll pretty much file the battle under the lost column at that point.

    Hotfix 0.8 and CVs still over powered

    Clearly, the solution is...more threads! I mean, if a bajillion threads about CVs aren't doing it, maybe a bajillion and one? (And yeah, I know, I know, posting here isn't helping that!) My .$.02 is...meh. No, really; it's a mixed bag. I like playing CVs more now, though that type of ship is far and away my least played, because I get to do stuff that's kind of cool, if, um, so far fairly ineffectual (Ranger and Shokaku, mainly, though for some odd reason I bought a Kaga when it came out, so I have that, too). I also kind of like having to manage the sectors for AA fire, and the rather busy battlefield when you have two carriers a side, with all the planes zooming about. Mixes it up sort of, and even in a DD I don't find it much worse than the usual radar meta. On the other hand, from what I've seen and the end of battle standings I've looked through, I'd be more inclined to say that for average and below CV players, the changes have made carriers less effective and less able to really stand out, while good players continue (not surprisingly) to be, well, good. I personally have no issue with getting my butt handed to me by someone who has invested the time in becoming really good with carriers. These people are few and far between, even at Tier X. But I wonder if enough people will endure being relegated to mid to low pack in terms of experience and credits match after match, with few or no kills, to ever get to Tier X with the will to practice to become better. I know it's sort of unrewarding right now to play the mid CV tiers, at least for me, given the uptiering and the AA storms. And I do share some of the feelings of those who question whether CVs really fit the WoWS gameplay model all that well. But they are a fact of life, and I'm ok with that. Adapt, learn, try to do better, etc. tl;dr, nothing in this latest update and hot fix roundabout seems, to me at least, to have really altered my enjoyment of the game that much. If anything, the overall novelty of it all has sort of made things a bit spicier....

    Giulio - why should I EVER buy a premium again, Wargaming?

    Perhaps a more interesting question is, what do we mean by "balance," and what do we want when we talk about balance? One tendency of all multiplayer games seems to be to "balance" everything until everything is pretty much the same as everything else except for the skins. Theoretically, if you have, say, three primary characteristics, each of which are exactly as important as the other two, you can balance pretty simply by emphasizing one of the three over the other two, and still have different things (boats, tanks, swords, whatever), each of which does A, B, or C really well, but the other two things not so well. But, it never works out that way, does it? Games are too complex, and whether it's tanks, ships, or swords, there are never just three things (or even four or five) that you can tweak, and more importantly, there is never a real equivalency between all the potentially tweakable characteristics. Say you have the traditional vehicle trinity of firepower, protection, and mobility. In theory, each should have exactly the same impact on effectiveness, and you can balance by insuring that the total value of all three is the same, while the distribution of value changes between the three characteristics. But it doesn't work that way. Usually, firepower or the ability to damage things however you phrase it, is king; people will always do better with more oomph to their weapons, while protection and mobility either have too high a skill ceiling to be effective counters for most players, or simply don't fit the meta. In WoWS, the attempt to balance stuff seems based on analysis of data from large numbers of matches played by large numbers of players, where the goal is to make sure as much as possible that all ships of a particular tier do roughly about as well as all other ships of that tier. This, even though the ships have radically different roles, and those roles often preclude certain characteristics from even being relevant. The net result seems, to me at least, to be an inevitable slide towards an undifferentiated pile of anodyne, boring ships that don't really do anything particularly well or with any particular flavor, but instead are tweaked to be inoffensive statistically. The devs aren't dumb, they see this, and thus we get what many call gimmicks, where they try to give unique characteristics to ships, without fundamentally changing their worth. This proves...challenging, as the only "gimmicks" worth a damn are those that, um, change the ability of the ship to succeed, that is, kill other ships, because really the only characteristic of a ship that matters here is its ability to do damage effectively. Admittedly, protection, mobility, stealth, and what-not can certainly help a ship do that, but it doesn't change the reality (again, IMO) that the net value of any ship in this game is in its offensive ability. tl;dr, balancing is hard, there are different ways to define it, and none of them are likely to please everyone, or even most people, because the task is effectively impossible outside of a rock/papers/scissors abstraction.
  7. Not a big CV player, though I do have a Ranger, a Shokaku, and a Kaga (no clue, really, why I had purchased it, but there it is, unplayed for a year until this patch). My first big impression from 8.0 is that playing non-CVs is more fun and involved, because of the new AA mechanics but also because there is more "stuff" going on that you have to take into account. Makes it interesting and seems to offer the possibility that ships can actually do some role-specific things that had sort of atrophied over time (cruisers for instance can now actually make a difference more easily in some cases). My second impression is that playing a CV is something I definitely have to get used to. I kind of enjoy the new hands-on approach, though I'm not terribly good at it; while the old way was potentially more lucrative in terms of damage, it was very abstract for me and I never really "got" it. I'm interested in trying to get better with this new system as it's a lot more engaging. As to balance and stuff, eh, it's an online competitive game with a zillion moving pieces. Stuff will change, constantly, gotta roll with it.

    Refund for AA themed ships Atlanta and Texas?

    Oh, no argument there. I don't have a dog in the CV rework fight. I'm just tossing in another thing to think about I guess, and to point out that, to me, there are much stronger arguments to be made on this subject than those based solely on how many planes get shot down.

    Refund for AA themed ships Atlanta and Texas?

    Of course it's a game. People are arguing over the validity of the change to AA mechanics though, and blurring real-world and in-game arguments anyhow, so it's not like the topic is purely one or the other. And even the game models disruption at least as much as actually killing planes. Most of the time, too, you are pretty happy to avoid a torp or bomb regardless of whether you actually kill any planes.

    Refund for AA themed ships Atlanta and Texas?

    Have to disagree with you here. The ratio of downed planes to rounds fired from anti-aircraft artillery, historically, is minute. Yes, an anti-aircraft shell is designed to destroy/damage, but as a system, anti-aircraft artillery fulfills its function if it keeps the target from being successfully attacked. This is true whether or not the attacking planes are destroyed, or even hit, though naturally that's an intended side effect. If flak success was based solely on killing planes, it would be across the board a dismal failure. Even in WoWS you can see how this works. Pop your AA consumable and even if you don't kill a bunch, or any, planes, the disruption to the attacks is often worth the cost of admission.

    Refund for AA themed ships Atlanta and Texas?

    Historically anti-aircraft gunnery success wasn't judged on how many planes got shot down, but on how it affected the ability of the attackers to press home their attacks and effectively engage the target. Flak was primarily meant to disrupt and disperse the enemy, with actual kills being something of a bonus in many cases. As long as your AA forces the enemy to stand off, miss you, or otherwise become ineffective, it's a win, except of course for silly missions and stuff where you actually and somewhat ahistorically have to kill a bunch of planes.
  12. My game went sort of like this one, though only two ships sunk. I found the dispersion, in this limited sample, to be better than I was used to, but everything else was pretty much as you said. Different mountains, same result.
  13. Only played one battle in it, but the guns seem a lot less troll-y than the usual US BB rifles. Plays nice if you like US mid-tier BBs, and didn't hate the Colorado.
  14. Play (and pay) until it isn't fun, all things being equal (as in, probably a bad idea to spend the rent money on an Azur Lane crew). I did time in WoT, like five years or so including a couple years at least of fairly intense Clan War stuff, and I've been in this rodeo since early beta. The money I've spent has been pretty much in lieu of other video game stuff (I've been playing computer games since, um, the late seventies when I'd "acquire" passwords from physical bulletin boards at a local college and use their mainframes for primitive line-printer games), and WoWS is pretty cheap compared to buying hardware and software to play a bunch of other things. At this point, I have every line done up through ten except CVs (which I suck at even more than I suck at regular boats) and all the premiums I actually want enough to buy. I spend some bucks on premium time, as that's IMO sort of essential to avoid total frustration even if you're just racking up commander EXP and free EXP, but anything else is sort of, eh, if I feel like it. tl;dr, as others note, as long as it's part of your recreation budget, and you aren't living in a cardboard box or neglecting obligations to others, get the stuff you like as long as it, um, floats your boat.

    Results from 40 RN Containers

    Seems in line with my much more limited experience (five purchased, five from sovereigns), in which I got exactly one ship mission.