Jump to content

TANSTAAFL

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    13154
  • Clan

    [SIX]

Community Reputation

26 Neutral

About TANSTAAFL

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. After the patch I noticed that things looked a bit, not sure I'd say fuzzy, but like they were being oddly filtered. Not crisp. I turned off post-processing as noted above and it helped a lot. But something definitely changed, as the pre and post patch look without changing settings was demonstrably different.
  2. Interesting discussion. Of course, there are only a bajillion threads like this, but the more the merrier. I have nothing to add--I suck horribly at CVs, and the only ones I have are the free IV and VI British and German ones I got via missions. I take them into co-op once in a while to fiddle with them, and I find that I am totally inept. Hat off to the good CV drivers--from my perspective I certainly do not agree that playing one effectively is easy. Getting singled out in a match by a CV is frustrating. Is it more frustrating than getting focused by a Smolensk (did you know that when a Smolensk sinks, and angel gets its wings?)? I am not sure, really. Depending on the ship I'm in, and the gun arcs, spotting, and all that, I may or may not be able to whack the little island humping pest. So I'm not really concerned about that aspect of the CV argument. There's always something that is going to harass you. I guess for me, it comes down to a couple of things. One, CVs in my opinion don't really fit the basic structure of the game, which is pretty much an arcade version of stylized surface combat. None of the classes really act in a historical manner, based on the extremely limited historical experience of large-scale surface engagements between capital ships in the 20th century. But they interact in interesting ways, a sort of rock-paper-scissors relationship when all the planets align. CVs have the same disruptive effect they had historically (a bit of irony here perhaps), in that they don't fit the paradigm. The original RTS-style system even had gameplay that was radically different from the FPS-derived surface mechanics. The rework did a good job of bringing CV mechanics closer to the rest of the game mechanics, but IMO it exacerbated the disruptive impact of the class. It doesn't fit neatly into the hard-counter logic, it stretches the historical/realism framework even further than it already is (and it's pretty far into fantasy land right now, not that I mind really), and while it creates some interesting options it doesn't interact really well with the existing module/upgrade structure. Hence the back and forth on modules, AA rules, captain abilities, all that. It's a system struggling to adapt to things well beyond its design parameters. That leads me to the second thing that comes to mind when thinking about CVs. They are conceptually awkward, especially for players not in CVs. Opposing ships you kill, or damage enough to drive them to their self-imposed exile on the J line or whatever. With CVs, even if the system is working well and the damage done to you is in the proper proportion to the tier and the situation, it doesn't feel like you are doing anything much. In the old system at least, if you killed planes, you killed planes. They were gone; you saw the connection between your actions and the results. That system had numerous issues, to be sure, but at least it was more coherent. Now, even if you are effective in managing your anti-aircraft tools, the results are only meaningful in a spreadsheet way. There is no visceral or emotional or intuitive pay off. You take X amount of damage which your AA mitigated from Y by a value of Z. Whether you dodged, or set your priority sector correctly, or used DFAA at the right time is unclear and disconnected from what you see and feel happening. In short, your agency seems irrelevant, even when the system is, technically, working. tl;dr, I'm more interested in adjusting things so both CV and non-CV players feel that their actions matter, and that there are cause and effect relationships that are satisfying even when RNGesus hates you.
  3. Thanks for the vid; I like the Yoshino as well :). That's not the sort of island humping I thought was being discussed, though--it's more like using islands while maneuvering, which sounds neat. When I think of island humping, I'm thinking of pulling in to an island and sitting still for 90% of the game hosing things down with high-arc HE. That's what I find boring :).
  4. Salt aside, this is a good topic for discussion. I love the USN cruisers, and pretty much all cruisers in general, in theory, In this game, their roles and capabilities diverge somewhat let us say from at least my understanding of historical examples, but that's the hand we're dealt. The different lines do have generally different characteristics, at least, making for some interesting choices. I have struggled with US cruisers too (ok, I struggle with everything in this game), trying to balance their often very good damage potential with their equally strong affinity for getting all blowed up as we would say where I am from originally. I like the advice from @DolphinPrincess, as it fits my understanding of the US cruisers strengths and weaknesses, though I will say that @JaysUsedBoatParts's comments certainly reflect the way I see _most_ US cruisers played (or cruisers in general). I am very bad (more bad than usual) at island humping. I usually just inflict untold miseries on the poor landmass, then get hung up on a rock and get torped or Smolensked(tm) into cinders. I don't find it fun, either, that static sort of play, no matter how profitable it obviously can be. I figure if I'm going to suck anyhow I might as well suck trying something I like, such as open water fighting. With as many games as I have played now, I don't have much expectation of my win rate skyrocketing, so I'm willing to play around with different methods for more dynamic play.
  5. TANSTAAFL

    0.9.7 news?????

    Ain't no palm trees in Atlanta, I can tell you that.
  6. I have the Hood, the Ashitaka, and the Duke. I actually enjoy all three, for different reasons. If I could only have one, though, it'd be the Ashitaka. Got my only Solo Warrior in that ship, and usually have decent games in it. It's got long range and decent survivability. Only get it, though, if you like IJN battleships, as it shares most of the strengths and weaknesses of that line.
  7. All I know is the one game I played with subs (in a T-61) I had 29 depth charge hits on the same sub, and didn't come close to killing it. Makes me wonder how many hits you need to kill the little buggers.
  8. TANSTAAFL

    Orkan is in the Armory

    It's in the "European Navy 2" category, not the "Ships for Doubloons" category, so no, it does not seem the coupon applies. Clever, that.
  9. TANSTAAFL

    KMS Siegfried

    The end.
  10. TANSTAAFL

    Siegfried

    Act IV?
  11. TANSTAAFL

    The Kleber is a JOKE

    In every mulitiplayer game that has specific "things," like classes, ships, tanks, whatever, specs are going to change. Up, down, sideways. If you get fixated on one specific configuration of stats and abilities, you will be frustrated. You have to embrace the overall archetype, and roll with the changes. It's like playing, oh, an MMO like World of Warcraft. If you play a mage, you have to commit to mastering how the mage plays in general, as the details on the spells and abilities and gear will change over time. If you get fixated on playing only, say, an ice mage using X staff and X robe, you will get burned. Same with Warships. If you can get comfortable with the archetype, how the boat plays in general, you might still hate the nerfs but you can at least roll with them and adjust. If you get fixated on one trick or one style of play, you are doomed for sure. Note I only have the Mogador, not the Kleber, and the nerf hasn't hit the Mog nearly as hard (I don't find it much different, really), and I'm a mediocre player, so I'm not claiming any great insight into the Kleber here. Just a general observation.
  12. Oh, I have no doubt that if you actually try to grind this puppy you will be going against doctor's orders for sure.
  13. TANSTAAFL

    Smolensk- well worth the coal

    As others have said, seems more like the Khab's big brother. I bought one, because, well, I had the coal, and it seemed fun. Played only one game in it but it was, indeed, a hoot. I do not pretend to know anything about its overall quality, comparative value, or anything else, but it looks neat, it's fun, and I have a Khab captain that works pretty well with it.
  14. 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.
×