Jump to content

TANSTAAFL

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    13728
  • Clan

    [SIX]

Community Reputation

28 Neutral

About TANSTAAFL

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. TANSTAAFL

    Siegfried eh?

    Huh? Not speaking for you. You responded to my take on the issue, and I acknowledged it and noted that it wasn't a big deal for me. Not sure what the issue is.
  2. TANSTAAFL

    Siegfried eh?

    I like secondary builds, for the lulz, but I'm not wedded to them. In practice I find secondaries to be unreliable when you need something dead quickly. In certain situations, sure, but I have started to rethink how I play my secondary focused ships. In some cases I'm refocusing the modules and captain skills towards more general purpose use. So with Siegfried, the loss of secondary power doesn't hit me as a fatal blow. The ship has a lot of strengths still.
  3. TANSTAAFL

    Siegfried eh?

    Supposedly the commander skill revision will hurt ships like Siegfried, mostly by eliminating BB survival builds because as a cruiser that won't be possible under the new system. At least that's what I gleaned from somewhere here. I like my Siegfried, though, and I'm not too worried about the changes. It's a solid ship and fun to play.
  4. TANSTAAFL

    First Solo Warrior in a WHAT?

    One I think, in the Ashitaka. But the Krispy Kreme is one of those ships I should hate, but oddly love.
  5. TANSTAAFL

    Developer Bulletin for Update 0.10.0

    I'm sure it's addressed somewhere, but does this mean that a commander can be trained/specialized for three (or I suppose four) different ships, one of each type? So, say, your North Carolina commander would also be specialized for, say, the Benson, the Cleveland, and the Lexington?
  6. TANSTAAFL

    PSA:Belfast '43 in NA Premium Shop

    I have the original Belfast, so I'm not sure at all why I'd want this one. At VII the OG Belfast is quite fine, but this VIII version does not seem super appealing. Not bad, at all, but it's not like I have a dearth of Tier VIII cruisers.
  7. TANSTAAFL

    Montana or Venezia as first tier X

    As noted elsewhere, it's sort of a matter of what you prefer. The Venezia is IMO a less frustrating ship. Although it shares the vulnerabilities of most cruisers at high tiers, it's guns are reliable, the torps are a nice addition, and the ability to fire while moving in smoke makes it a little more forgiving at longer range engagements than many cruisers. Monty, well, let's just say that IMO it's been powercrept a bunch, it's guns are trollish in their random inaccuracy, and at least for me I'm just as likely to have a disastrous game as a good one in the US BB. Venezia plays more consistently I think. But they're both ships that you can do well in, like most of the tech tree ships.
  8. TANSTAAFL

    Running WOWS From A Ram Disk

    Ring Ring! Hello? Hey, it's 1994 calling! It wants its memory management shenanigans back! Along with its QEMM! Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Other than as an experiment, don't think I'd ever want to mess with that sort of thing again.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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 :).
  12. 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.
  13. TANSTAAFL

    0.9.7 news?????

    Ain't no palm trees in Atlanta, I can tell you that.
  14. 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.
×