Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

568 Excellent


About Aetreus

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Aetreus

    PSA if you use a ATI card

    I find the sort of active scanning of your system that BattlEye does in order to detect cheat programs very intrusive and would generally support developers in adopting a less aggressive anti-cheat approach.
  2. Aetreus

    PSA if you use a ATI card

    The problem is WG can't really fix the problem. They can't let random programs hook into their client because even as minimally trusted the client is by the server, it would still let cheating occur(stuff like rendering a aim assist). They can't know that the program hooking into them is actually CCC. Well maybe they could try, but that would require all sorts of intrusive monitoring that I would prefer they don't do and I don't like when other anti-cheat does so.
  3. Aetreus

    PSA if you use a ATI card

    I doubt that there is any whitelist. The difference is probably that the newer AMD suite actually works at the driver level while the old one is an application-level system. The old suite seems to be so old in its origination it probably predates the capability to do that at a driver level and is forcing an application flag to do so.
  4. Aetreus

    PSA if you use a ATI card

    AMD CCC is hooking WoWS in some manner(inserting its own .dll into the game, or interfering with the render pipeline, whatever) when you do application specific settings. WoWS doesn't like being hooked by external programs. Don't use application specific settings with WoWS.
  5. The game's drag model does a reasonable job of approximating reality. If you look at the ingame ranges at various elevations they match fairly closely to historical numbers, and USN shells need higher drag coefficients to make that happen. It's not talked about in naval gunnery because that discussion is usually about accuracy and fire control not the underlying ballistics of the guns. The 5"/54 was a very new weapon, and notably it entered service after the USN was exposed to modern French shell design which emphasized drag reduction. Hence its ballistics are much better than other USN shells.
  6. I usually split fighters for covering the fleet or a flank, and I split DB off if I'm deliberately scouting something with them. Probably part of why I end up exceeding how much micro load I can execute sometimes. WR can go up even with mirrored MM for CV(and 1-gap for other classes) because if DD's are better at combating CV's in match, having that extra DD or a more powerful DD element of equal numbers(MM tries to match tiers, but it isn't strict) will make your team ever so slightly favored to win.
  7. The existance and commonality of other powerful spotting methods reduces both the absolute(you can't be spotted twice) and relative(if a DD is already under threat a lot of the time, the extra bit matters less). Also, remember that each CV in match has stolen a MM slot from some other ship. Spotting is pretty popular right now in the meta. DB's are usually split, as are fighters. TB's generally don't contribute to the spotting except when they're committed to an attack. Usually when I'm spotting as a CV right now I can get at least 4 groups out at a time. I would bet that DD damage and WR will go up for two reasons. First, DD and CV ATM compete for the same targets- isolated ships, especially inattentive ones. CV being weaker at damage will let DD get more of that pie. Secondly, DD are the class best positioned to kill CV, especially as everyone is going to be inexperienced and foolish to start with. CV are the big loser in the changes to CE, and destroyers are going to do their best to light the CV's up and gun or torp them down, which once it happens the CV and his team can do little about.
  8. Conq 457 has problems because it's the weakest of the guns above 420mm caliber and because the 419mm gun is the strongest gun at or below 420mm. It's hard to buy into the 457mm when it only has around 1km(or less at longer ranges) of effective range over the 419mm. Meanwhile the USN 18"/48 is one of the strongest guns likely to ever appear in the game due to generally good USN shell performance and the crazy kinetics involved. Only downside is that this is likely not 100% true. The 18"/48 boasts incredible kinetics, but USN shells typically have awful drag profiles despite their long crh heads. The issue is that secant ogives are actually just sort of awful ogive profiles, and that USN shells are both heavier(which means a longer skin drag surface) and worse are not boat-tailed. That last one is a killer and probably in big part responsible for the worse drag profile on USN guns relative to stuff like Yamato and the guns of most of the continental powers.
  9. Most games contain radar cruisers, which deliver very powerful spotting and are much more able to kill a DD outright with it, as they give much less warning to the destroyer(CV planes give 5-7km of warning, CA/CL radar typically only 1-2km). They also frequently contain fast low-spot DD's like Grozovoi or Shimakaze which can easily spot you, potentially while remaining unspotted themselves and being impossible to break away from. Both of these forms of spotting are a lot more lethal than CV will be post rework, because they come with nearby gunships and are less anticipated. Even if you look at it as a 900% increase, at the same time a CV in match can only provide around 1/4th to 1/5th of the spotting they previously could. So really it's at most a 150% increase. If the CV wants to do damage as well as spot, it will probably drop down to a 25% increase, because about half his time will be spent on sending out his next attack wing and reacquiring the spot.
  10. Alternately, just angling the ship rather than being straight in should eliminate it. A 20-30 degree angle is still safe while it makes the center of the bow flare a much less likely hit location.
  11. This is such a tiny target zone it's possible but not really a balancing consideration. You have to hit at range to generate enough angle of fall to go from the upper less angled nose to the citadel of the ship. The flare of the bow is wide enough that shells hitting near the top of the bow will not ricochet.
  12. Aetreus

    How is Flooding Balanced?

    The point of flooding is to increase the threat potential of destroyers and force battleships to respect them a bit more(CA and DD both have fast DCP and don't worry about it as much). It means that the simple presence of a destroyer is enough to restrict the usage of a battleship's DCP and make them take fire damage and suffer the full duration of incapacitations.
  13. You kept swinging and swinging over that point- you were arguing in your last post that you were "just off on the math" and your basic concept was correct despite it being totally wrong. You tried to back down to a different but still point and whined about how I called you out for engaging in exactly what you often do- throwing out junk FUD about Russian ships and then claiming that you were just "joking" while still defending how right you were. No, I'm fed up with the tendency of various posters to put out all sorts of misguided FUD in relation to the VMF. I don't like it in regards to the IJN(armor effectiveness, oxygen torpedoes), RM(bad AA guns, Pugliese system, composite belts) either.
  14. You thought that the damage value on torps was for the whole salvo not 6 months ago as part of the Irian chicken little parade, so "over a year" is false. And continuing to meme is only going to keep me thinking that you're trying to spread FUD as part of an agenda.
  15. For fast ships like an Iowa, the ship is riding up its bow wake at top speed. Hence those 7000 tons of armor are 7000 tons the engines don't have to push up the wake. Most warships have slightly different speeds at full and normal loads due to this.