Jump to content

Pyrofiend

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    586
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1053
  • Clan

    [BS]

Community Reputation

269 Excellent

2 Followers

About Pyrofiend

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

WG

  • Position
    ---

Recent Profile Visitors

1,085 profile views
  1. Pyrofiend

    How soon until Russian carriers?

    Kostromitinov and Project 71
  2. Pyrofiend

    When no doesn't mean no

    TLDR: Subs didn't kill NF. Other things did. Subs didn't fit into NF because of the lack of high level ASW. WoWS does not have this problem. There are many things that killed NF, and I wouldn't even put subs in the top 3. Technical problems like crashing, desyncing, and freezing. The incredible barrier to entry for new players. Low level was pay to win blitzkrieg getting farmed by people who paid the money to have BVE gunners that could blockshot. Mid level was being cannon fodder in great battles for an insanely long time. Basically you didn't start having fun until you got to BB4 at about level 89. You forgot the Hackshield exodus. SDE put Hackshield in the game in 2011 or 2012. It set off a bunch of red flags from antivirus programs. Players refused to patch it onto their computer. Conveniently World of Tanks was in beta at this time. That's how many former NF players got into Wargaming franchises. Hackshield was later removed, but the players never returned. As for subs, I don't think they had much of an impact until the tier 4 subs and higher were introduced into the game later on. The first 3 tiers weren't super special or game-breakingly overpowered. They were even allowed into the player made clan battle leagues. The first tier subs were actual dogshit. They went 15-18 knots in a game where everything else went at least twice as fast. They didn't have enough air to submerge long enough to get to the enemy BB line. The second tier subs were okay. They had more air, but they were still plagued by low speed. The third tier I would say were overpowered. Like that video you linked there wasn't much counterplay (in great battles) to them before hedgehogs were put in the game. The fourth tier of subs and onward were the really overpowered ones. They're the ones that broke gameplay. These were added into the game later than the first three tiers, and they're the ones people think of when remembering OP subs in NF. Even though I said all that, rather than subs being overpowered or underpowered, I just don't think they fit well in the game at all. A level 2 Frigate could manhandle a level 60 sub, while that same level 60 sub could manhandle a level 100 battleship. They were too strong in great battles while being too weak in organized play. The biggest problem with subs in NF is that they massively out-tiered all ASW ships. Excluding the Kitakami, light cruisers were around level 35. Subs, especially the later tiers, were level 60+. There was no incentive for players to play ASW ships or even hunt subs if they could. EXP from sub hunting was terrible. So you had a problem where there were way more subs than sub hunters. WoWS does not have this issue. There are tier 10 DDs and CLs. They have dedicated playerbases. That's why I don't think NF and WoWS are comparable when it comes to subs.
  3. Pyrofiend

    WG you want Balance+Happiness?

    NF1 or NF2? The latter was a disaster because they excluded everything players like about the former and added even more pay to win mechanics.
  4. Pyrofiend

    WG you want Balance+Happiness?

    NF was really far from a "biblical disaster." It survived 10 years even though it had massive technical issues.
  5. Pyrofiend

    Do you play more naval games on pc?

    You guys are forgetting about Navyfield. I played that game for 7 years along with people like iChase, Farazelleth, PhlyDaily, and a lot bunch of other guys. My opinion is that a large number of WoWS players, especially the more hard-core gamers, really missed out on peak Navyfield. It's still on Steam, but I wouldn't recommend it—it's not the game it once was. The game was basically killed off by the developers.
  6. Pyrofiend

    The iChase Case

    LJ busted 1stSSF for ABing. https://nfna.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/1st-ssf-battlegroup-abing-again/ The most common form of ABing that I saw was just not shooting at your own fleet's players. A lot of times these players will go opposite ways to avoid shooting at each other. Like one team going south and the other going north. It was more risky in organized play like harbor assaults and fleet wars. It wasn't really accurate to say there wasn't an incentive to go after them. Killing even just 1 enemy CV could win you a competitive battle. But it was so hard to do against competent teams that it just wasn't worth the risk of getting deplaned. Great Battles, yeah, potatoes aren't going to stop you. But most CV players were also potatoes so it wasn't worth the time to sink them. Focusing the best BB on the enemy team was usually the better idea. Most of those CV kills were early/mid game with many of them while using a CV4. Like I mentioned earlier, SDE made the change to Great Battle 2 to have CVs be the only recipients of the flagship status. This meant sinking the enemy flagship CV often won you the game. That was the major incentive in NF for CVs to find and sink enemy CVs whenever GB2s were played. Even though BBs had much better repair/support crews, you could almost always find one that was not at full HP that you could probably finish off or cripple bad enough to where your team could. CVs were nearly always at full and sitting in the back.
  7. Pyrofiend

    The iChase Case

    Ehhhh. Those same players/fleets also made pacts not to attack each other's battleships, too. It wasn't just a CV thing. ABing included all ships. The reason CVs didn't get bombed often was because it was genuinely a large risk. You had to fly through more AA. Planes had to fly further, meaning more fuel consumption and a higher chance of enemy fighters catching your bombers. You couldn't one-shot high tier CVs. A CV at 10% HP was just as useful as one at 100%. This meant that there was very little point to bombing a CV unless you could either one-shot it or guarantee a second bombing run to finish it off. Even still I personally bombed a lot of CVs, especially in Great Battle 2, where CVs were the flagship. That's from my bomber-only CV where about 1/3rd of all ships I sunk were CVs. At least in NF and pre-rework WoWS, CVs fought against each other using fighters. Wargaming didn't like that I guess.
  8. Pyrofiend

    It's hard to take CV feedback to the devs when...

    Telling WoWS players about Navyfield:
  9. Pyrofiend

    A 40 Knot Iowa?

    Montana had a cruising speed of 24 knots and a "speed boost" not too different from what planes have in WoWS, which topped out at 40 knots for Montana. And it had the regular 16" triples. Though to be fair there were a lot of silly setups. Like a Colorado with the South Dakota triple 16" guns. You could take off the rear turret on the Lion to put more deck armor on. And I won't deny the P2W factor. It became a non issue at high tiers because all the stats were capped at certain values, but low tier/level ships were certainly P2W.
  10. It's too dumbed down for my liking. There's no CV vs CV interaction. It's very repetitive. It's not very satisfying since there's not much counterplay.
  11. Take a look at this topic. Notice the date it was posted I would love for CVs to be more like NF. It would make them more interesting and fun to play. "Skill gap" is just some buzzword phrase people use to describe something they don't like. It doesn't mean anything as long as there is relevant counterplay. The Daring and Khaba have about as big of a skill gap as CVs do, but nobody complains about that. What I still want translated from NF to WoWS is the pilots system, fuel limit or flight timer, and manual AA of some form. Yes, it would be complex, but I think players would enjoy playing CVs and getting better at them. That's the entire point of having mechanics that have depth to them. On the other hand, with some form of manual AA, surface ships wouldn't feel helpless against CVs.
  12. I'm talking purely from a numbers point of view. He's using a CV that launches 11 planes max. In one drop he did 44k. Another drop he did 50k. Normal damage numbers on the NA server for 11 DBs would be 39-41k. I played dive bomber-only CVs for years, and I was involved in balancing the damage numbers on them. In the second video I pointed out that the targets were bots because bots don't have any soft defence, bulge, or belt armor. Putting 0.2" belt armor on ships reduced torp damage by 50%. Taking torps on the bow or stern further reduced torp damage by 25-50%. Bulge reduced torp damage to zero until it was broken through. Those training room bots die to a wet noodle. I practiced on them using 3" guns way back when I was trying to learn manual FCS.
  13. I think the Korean server had different damage numbers on their bombs. The numbers the guy put up in the first video definitely weren't possible on the North American servers. I know their planes had around twice the fuel of NA server ones, so it's possible the bombs also did more damage. The second video is literally just a guy bombing training room bots. That one doesn't prove anything.
  14. @ALROCHA You played Navyfield CVs?
×