Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

753 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. I very strongly doubt this is real. SHA-1 isn't the best hash but it is proof against second image attacks still, and the chunk process means that each chunk would have to be a second image with files that were also second images which is just all sorts of impossible. Likely the attack involved a compromised manager(and if the WGC gets compromised there is nothing to say WoWS couldn't be as well at the same time), or the protocol being used to do something nasty to a third party. You pay lots of money for upload bandwith that in all likelihood you don't use. The exploited party is the ISP, and frankly screw them. ISP's suck. Torrents don't cost you anything unless your ISP throttles your uploads, in which case you can set the manager not to upload. And your ISP is [edited] if they do that. I mean... if you're happy using FTP you have nothing to fear from torrents by comparison. FTP implements no security checks, files are transmitted without encryption, integrity checks, username/passwords are sent as plain text. Vast majority of FTP server implementations have awful security, so a WG FTP server could be easily compromised and made to serve malware.
  2. I am pretty certain that is impossible- torrent protocols use checksums(typically SHA-1 hash) to confirm chunk and file integrity, and those are centrally distributed. Torrent protocol can be used to do some squirrely DDOS things to unrelated third parties, but so can many protocols. The danger is in downloading an evil torrent file that torrents malware, but that's the same risk as downloading a file normally that contains malware. If you think WG is going to download malware onto your system deliberately, you should probably not trust old manager or even WG publishing the game files via HTTP download.
  3. What's with the huge hatred of torrents? Does your ISP throttle them?
  4. Aetreus

    T4 CV Fighters

    T4 CV is mollycoddled in a lot of ways, this being one of them. They also have super fast plane regen at a tier where AA is very weak. The intent from WG is AFAICT to make T4 and to a lesser extent T6 CV easier to let people learn the class. I don't think this is a very good idea as it makes low-tier CV pretty opressive unless they have awful damage, which also isn't any fun.
  5. Aetreus

    What Cruiser line is closest to the Italians?

    RN CL don't really have many of the same traits? Their AP works similarly mechanically to SAP, but the ships are very different. They have good turning response, but aren't that fast and definitely don't possess good ballistics. Henri has the BB throttle shift but as long as you leave throttle at max it doesn't matter.
  6. Aetreus

    What Cruiser line is closest to the Italians?

    It's pretty much the French if you're looking for high mobility and long-range capability on a cruiser line. I'd get to Algerie before deciding you don't like the line. After that maybe the Germans for high-pen HE? They're not that similar though.
  7. Aetreus

    BB's and CV Divisions has to stop

    I've been suggesting CV mechanics work like this since basically forever, no dice. I mostly gave up when they buffed AA mount HP during rework testing rather than doing something more interesting to solve the issue of rockets cleaning AA off of ships. Like, it would be interesting if the AA balance was Intact AA: shreds planes Critted AA: Useless, would give surface ships more time to react to air attack(need to strike with rocket/HE bomb for less damage, then follow up with AP bomb or torpedo) and provide some target selection impetus for carriers. Nope. Just buff AA HP so the problem doesn't occur until late-game. Action CV innately made designing a system like this harder as it means CV can only re-attack once every minute or two. So the timeframe to disable a ship's AA and then attack it again before its DCP/Repair came off cooldown(however it would work) would be fairly narrow. Fixing that would probably require making it so that AA DPS depended on what percent of its HP a mount had, regenerating over time(this actually happens already) and as a result of DCP usage(this also happens). Probably nonlinearly, less than 50% HP mounts giving very low AA. In practical terms, the balance changes would look like this. AA DPS baseline is increased by around 1.5-2.5 times. Making even "weak" AA ships have enough AA to kill most of a squad and take only a single drop. Strong AA ships could kill a squad before drop. Attack aircraft get considerable buffs to HP and speed, giving them the capability to dash through AA and take roughly similar plane losses as they do now. Rockets deal less direct damage, but have much larger splash radius making them capable of damaging most of the AA on a ship in 1-2 passes if they aim for the AA clusters. Same probably applies to HEDB, though they would take a lot of losses doing it with their slower speeds. APDB and torpedo bombers deal more damage, but with changes they can only exploit that on targets where the AA is damaged and not outputting full DPS. On a lone ship the cycle is Attack/HEDB to crit out the AA, potentially repeat if the enemy uses DCP to keep it suppressed, followed by a kill strike with torpedoes, APDB, or HEDB again. That has a similar outcome but is more forgiving if the target is able to take cover near allies, whose intact AA can kill the enemy planes effectively, or gets the allied CV to drop CAP over them. The answer to groups with these sort of mechanics is "don't" or more relevantly "wait until their AA is suppressed by HE." HE spam suppresses AA very well already. One UI change to go along with visibility to the ship of their AA status(which we kind of have already, but more mechanics to it means more UI needed) would be visibility to the carrier of the status of hostile AA power. I'd probably adopt a colored overlay on the water, with shading from green to red as AA densitiy over a location increases relative to your plane HP. Something like green kills a plane every 10-20 seconds, yellow every 5-8 seconds, red in less than 5 seconds. Probably to keep things from being too awful for nooby CV, I'd make it so that planes get aborted before being killed- i.e. they break off their attack at some level of HP and try to return to CV. That way you don't just lose your whole strike wing for making a mistake, but still lose some of it. Changes to regen rate might also be necessary as part of that, but I don't have a fully formed idea on how to keep things in line.
  8. Colorado packs around 40% of its AA in the 2.0km range zone which is well under spotting range and easy to circle around outside of. At any rate, the point is that the PEU DD have just as much AA as a T10 cruiser, they don't have weak AA and taking a cruiser instead of them is as a result of the better durability and firepower of the cruiser. In terms of how much damage they take from CV ordnance I haven't run up against any yet the couple of times I've played CV since their introduction. IDK about that. Shooting down 5 planes in a lone destroyer is actually a pretty good result, if they hadn't eaten a bunch of damage. Most DD could only hope for that as a result of misplay and driving through flak, and even that would be unlikely to result in 5 planes. Enterprise is also unique in having 12-plane attack groups, Hak/Midway would suffer more as a result of having 9-plane attack groups. Stalin has a 3.1km short range zone which I tend to count as part of its mid range AA. Flak walls even if they don't kill planes do force maneuvering which slows the attack cycle.
  9. You are underestimating how totally nutbars PEU AA is. Halland and Smaland have AA superior to all of the standard cruisers except Worcester and Minotaur, possibly adding Venezia if you value DPS highly over range. Stalingrad and Puerto Rico have roughly similar combined long/mid-range DPS, Stalin is probably better with its 8 flak bursts and longer long range, PR has the benefit of a 2.0km range band.
  10. Ehh, some do some don't. I wouldn't dare rush a Hakuryu or a Midway, but Audacious doesn't have particularly strong secondaries. Tier 8 has GZ with really strong secondaries, but Lexington/Shokaku/Implacable are mediocre(Implacable is probably best) and Saipan is completely helpless and also has less HP. The main thing about higher tier CV is that their speed and HP pool give them lots of time to attack you with planes if you start shooting.
  11. You can still have monster games in DD but those games can't start with you augering in your destroyer to A right of the bat. Wait and see things develop, yes. Plenty of cruisers and battleships have to do the same thing(21 kt standards can't even get to the fight). The 6km flak range works just fine for dissuading a CV attack and the flak bursts are probably better than DPS if they're right over your ship during the attack run. DPS can't prevent an attack, but flak over your ship can. It's not consistent but it can deny an attack completely and is likely to make a CV avoid hanging around to try and get a good shot at you. The point is to cap a point in force, not as a single ship. Use your guns and torpedoes to kill the enemy to let your cruiser move up. In terms of what you're waiting for, you're waiting for CV to lose planes, yes, which they will. That will result in more cautious play. They will also get target fixation and need to support their own surface ships- at which point you know where their planes are and can make riskier plays. Your own location starts out pretty fixed by spawns, but once a minute or two are past the CV has a much harder time figuring out where you could be(caps are ofc still risky). Allied ships spread out which gives your team much more controlled space, making it harder for CV to maneuver around to find you or relocate. CV can't really move through AA zones, they have to attack the first ships providing it so having AA zones over more of the map makes you safer. Some destroyers are sneaky, fast, or have decent enough AA that they can take wide flanks without AA cover, that just takes some time to get in position. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in complaining about zero risk(which isn't zero, but is low) gameplay when for many of the DD hardliners on the forums, their ideal situation without radar capable of even zoning destroyers out, let alone surprising them, DD is zero risk except against itself. Obviously we have radar to keep things from degenerating to that, and class MM means that a destroyer always faces other DD's that can threaten it(though CV has the same counter, CV can actually threaten their opposite via repeated partial attacks to exhaust fighters).
  12. Just... don't advance to start with. CV will not throw his planes into AA zones without a target, so if you're in/near AA you are unlikely to be scouted. And if you are, somehow, it will be a surprise to the CV so they will need to loop around for another pass, which will take signficant AA losses from almost any mid tier and up ship. You're basically acting like being DD gives you the right to cap alone- it doesn't. If your cruisers and battleships can't advance to provide AA cover, wait it out. Or try and cap with smoke, which is risky against torpedo planes but destroyer torpedoes already made that a risky play. Sometimes, the enemy is better than you. If their CV and DD's(and probably CA, at range) team up to take you on and your team doesn't... you lose. Like if their DD and CA teamed up before and yours didn't you were probably already sunk. Smoke+DM combo can get destroyers pretty well. So can a DD scouting for competent surface ships. Say a low-detectability IJN destroyer who is lighting you for Russian cruisers? Or battleships. You note that I call out other DD and radar as the only real forms of risk that(torpedo) destroyers face. A BB or non-radar CA(or a radar CA that is advancing) poses 0 threat to a destroyer who plays competently. None. They can do precisely nothing to stop the destroyer from torpedoing them to death, eventually. This is the most one-sided interaction in the game. DD range is a fuzzy thing that is heavily dependent on positioning, on paper 8km or 10km typical DD torpedo ranges are longer against a target advancing towards the DD. DD ranges are short but not by a large amount relative to cruisers.
  13. Fair. Though I would say the stereotypical DD mafia is not very sympathetic to pure gunboat destroyers.
  14. To be fair, no-risk gameplay also applies to DD in the absence of other DD, except when radar is involved. And we all know how much the DD mafia loves radar.
  15. Aetreus

    BB's and CV Divisions has to stop

    In terms of how to prevent this if it becomes/is a serious issue, probably change how CV CAP works. Give it more fighters(enough to down a squadron alone, so probably 12 at T10 and 9 at T8) and long range, probably something like 6/8/10/12km range, but with longer time to start attack. Like 40 seconds. That should make sitting in a CV's air detection eventually result in your squadron getting killed by the CAP.