Jump to content

BillT

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    185
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    10639
  • Clan

    [TYPH]

Community Reputation

216 Valued poster

About BillT

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. BillT

    Who have you seen in game

    WCM said hi to me in the game and that he'd seen me in the forums. Knowing how well some of my forum posts are received, my first thought was, "Thank God they got rid of team damage." :-)
  2. BillT

    400 bxp base level for naval battle star?

    That mirrors my sentiments. I didn't even turn on Naval Battles that week. I can tell when WG is giving us the finger.
  3. BillT

    Proposed changes to co-op economy are awesome.

    Yes, you'll earn less, but we don't know how much less. I'd guess it wouldn't even be noticeable if you didn't hear about it here. To be more specific about what is changing. The threshold for earning more credits on the low end has been increased. Also, the point of reaching diminishing returns kicks in a little sooner. As an example, and these numbers are just meant as an example and aren't likely the thresholds used in the game. You earn more credits up to the point where you've earned say 40k credits. At the 40k point you start to earn additional credits at the "normal" rate. You'll earn credits at the normal rate until reach the next threshold where you'll earn credits at a reduced rate. For the sake of the example let's say that point is for credits beyond 80k. 80k+ you'll earn less credits. Thanks for the explanation. I think these changes would be good for low-tier play, where they'd be a boon to inexperienced players. But for high tier it just feels like they're tightening the screws another turn on Co-op players. Yet again. It's like they *want* me to quit.
  4. BillT

    Back from a WeeGee sabbatical, ship question...

    I'll second the general advice (fast, high ROF, torps), and I agree the Weimar is definitely a great ship for Co-op and Operations. The Atlanta is also excellent, albeit more fragile and with less torpedo potential. The Atlanta makes up for it with fast turret rotation, so you can switch targets almost instantly and never miss a chance to shoot. The high arcs also let you engage targets behind some of the islands; these shots are a lot of fun when you connect and it expands the number of targets you can hit. I'm very fond of the Bayard, which features a speed boost and a reload boost, and Carnot has a speed boost. Alaska's shells seem to magically seek out citadel hits. And there's nothing new about Atago, but if you don't already have her, she's an excellent ship, very pleasant to shoot with excellent dispersion. BBs are highly disfavored in the current Co-op meta. I think the only real exceptions are the Jean Bart and Georgia, with the speed boosts that let you have great games consistently. But any BB with good secondaries and a high speed can net you a good game; Scharnhorst,Tirpitz and Pommern can do well, esp. since they also pack torpedoes. Probably some of the French high-tier BBs are good, I have no experience with them. DDs... I have no advice there.
  5. BillT

    The Current CO-OP Sucks

    Yeah, you're right. WG is going to keep the average BXP the same, no matter what.
  6. BillT

    Coop population

    Just about every wargame, from miniatures to boardgames, use dice to add randomness. This increases the skill level required, because you have to deal with uncertainty. It also adds realism because in actual combat you're constantly being presented with things you couldn't have planned for or that didn't work as well as expected. Imagine if in chess, every time one piece tried to take another you had to consult a table and roll dice. "Pawn takes queen? Roll a 9 or better on 2d6, or your attack fails, and on a 5 or less your pawn dies." That's not going to make chess easier or less skill=intensive. It changes the required skill from "How many moves can you plan ahead?" to "How do you build a robust plan that can overcome some bad luck?" And that's the kind of skill WOWS and other RNG games require. it's the kind of skill generals and admirals need, too. Example: Right now I'm playing Warhammer 40K Daemonhunters, which is based on the XCOM 2 engine. In XCOM 2, every time you shoot there's RNG, so your shots are unreliable. In Daemonhunters they took that out; you know exactly how much damage your shot will do before you commit to it. This makes Daemonhunters much easier to play (and IMO, more boring). The real benefit of non-random games like chess is that nobody can every say they lost because of bad luck. At the end of the game there's no question who the better player really was. Perversely, that's also a benefit for RNG games; if you lose, you can always tell yourself "I just got unlucky". :-)
  7. BillT

    Proposed changes to co-op economy are awesome.

    Are you saying that if I have a good game and earn lots of credits, this change will reduce my earnings from what they currently are? Regardless of the answer, I'm very grateful just to know WG is thinking about Co-op and wants to make it better. Thanks for advocating for us, @Ahskance !
  8. BillT

    Proposed changes to co-op economy are awesome.

    That's not incorrect. But really, I put secondary builds on all my BBs for Co--op simply because there's practically no point in taking defensive talents, so you might as well buff your secondaries. In a BB you'll rarely take enough damage to sink. So spending 4 points on Fire Protection, Concealment Expert, or Emergency Repair Expert is almost never going to provide any benefit. Furious (improved main batteries if you're on fire) only works when the enemy actually shoots at you, so the only important 4-pt skills are IMO Close Quarters Combat and Manual Secondary Aiming. These benefit you almost all the time. The only defensive skills I take at *any* level are Vigilance (increased torp spotting distance) and Preventive Maintenance (because it's cheap and protects guns and torps from damage). And Vigilance is about the last thing I add. This would be yet another benefit to making Co-op more challenging: players would need to start using defensive skills again instead of building "glass cannon" captains.
  9. BillT

    The Current CO-OP Sucks

    I got that, too, and it was a pretty good survey. Plenty of opportunity to write comments explaining the current problems. They also asked how I'd feel about asymmetric Co-op battles (where the bot team is more powerful than the humans), and that sounds very exciting to me. I think asymmetry is exactly what Co-op needs, since they can't make bots play smart enough to challenge humans. The bots need a numerical advantage and/or a tier advantage to make it an interesting match, and this should boost XP and credit earnings, too. So yeah, if you get a survey, respond to it!
  10. That's worth a try! I still think the easiest solution is to always place bots on the player team instead of filling all nine spots with humans. Three bots, at least; maybe for or even five. The advantages here are that the teams are still 9v9 and we already know that having 3-5 bots on your team doesn't make the game unplayable. I've heard it argued that this would increase the load on WG's servers, but I don't buy it. We know that only a tiny fraction of the games hosted by the server are Co-op: that's why WG doesn't invest any effort in making Co-op play better, or even testing to make sure they don't break it. I'm not even convinced that the AI to control bots is even that much of a resource drain, compared to the difficulty of collecting data from 30 human players, merging it, resolving 30 ships shooting at each other and moving, and then transmitting the results back out to 30 players. There's certainly nothing in the current bot behavior that indicates a complicated AI algorithm is controlling them.
  11. That's an intriguing idea, and kudos for coming up with it! But if I move the Aggro slider to maximum, that means I have to play less aggressively or I'll get killed and not finish in the Top 3. And if I play less aggressively, the players who set the Aggro slider at minimum will be able to charge in safely and torpedo all the enemy ships (which will be focusing on me), and I still won't finish in the Top 3. Unless there's a guaranteed bonus (instead of only getting the bonus if you finish high on the team), I think it's just a sucker bet. Or else the whole team has to use the same aggro setting, and that's not fair to poor players. And while choosing High Aggro while playing a destroyer would make your game much harder, choosing it in a slow battleship won't have much effect on your game difficulty. In these short Co-op matches battleships spend most of the game at medium-long range with their bows toward the enemy, so they aren't at much risk from gunfire until the final minute of the game. (A typical Co-op game these days lasts 4:30 or less.) In the last Dockyard campaign the most difficult mission for Co-op players was earning Potential Damage in a battleship, because the bots just don't shoot at battleships until very late in the game. It's not hard to rack up a million potential damage in a cruiser (and still be alive thanks to poor bot accuracy), but it's very hard in a BB.
  12. I want a challenge, but I also want a game that resembles actual naval combat. Camping behind islands just doesn't cut it for me. If Random were the only mode this game offered I wouldn't play at all.
  13. Update 0.11.4.0 has exacerbated an existing problem with the in-game voice chat. Previously, whenever you switched from port to the game queue, or from the game queue to the game, or from the game back to port, the software returned the focus to the Division text chat box. So you could be pressing the PTT key (v), and suddenly it would redirect that key to text chat, leaving a string of Vs in the text box and losing your voice. Now it does this whenever you click anything. Click a ship in port does it. Entering queue does it. Getting put into a match (but still being on the queue screen) does it. Actually entering the match does it, as does leaving the match. It's annoying AF. Voice chat is a very handy feature for those of us who don't like Discord. Please fix this so it stops returning focus to that text box. It never needs to do that when voice chat is enabled.
  14. BillT

    The Current CO-OP Sucks

    We were talking about Coop, remember? Yeah, BBs, work fine in Narai. Platoon with me some time and show me how well you play the Colorado in coop.
  15. BillT

    The Current CO-OP Sucks

    I assure you that you're mistaken. I think you're looking at *total* XP, not BXP. Your Coop stats show around 700 XP average excluding CVs and SSs (mine are slightly less), but again, that's not BXP. I play for 2-3 hours a night. Beating 700 BXP is maybe a twice-a-week occurrence for me, and usually only happens when my team has 3+ bots. And I see about one 700+ game by other players on my team per night. Depending on tier, I'd say Coop battles average 300-350 BXP for the typical player. Maybe 400 at Tier X.
×