Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

818 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. Because they want IJN torpedoes to be nerfed. Skyfaller has been posting this idea to "buff" IJN torpedoes like this for years and it's pretty obvious bad faith.
  2. Aetreus

    ST 0.10.1, changes to test ships.

    Seriously WG, just nerf SAP again. It's obviously distorting the design of these ships way too much with the current stats, so go to the source instead of mucking around with everything else about the ships.
  3. Um, no. Increased accuracy on secondaries is not a common feature of larger caliber secondary guns, rather its a feature of the Japanese 140mm gun in specific along with certain ships.
  4. Aetreus

    Examples of Battleship Dispersion at Close Ranges

    My understanding is that vertical dispserion is constructed in a vertical plane and then projected according to angle of fall, with the fraction of horizontal dispersion used for the creation of the ellipse being lower at short ranges, so that even if the angle of fall is much lower the actual amount above/below(rather than short/long) your shells can drift from the center is so much smaller that it outweighs the smaller angle of fall. The controlling parameters are AFAIK radiusOnZero, raidusOnDelim, radiusOnMax, and delim. When WG says in patch notes that they fiddled with a ship's vertical dispersion(as they did for say Slava), or that a line has poorer vertical dispersion(IJN BB), it's these numbers that are changed.
  5. Yep. It also has real life armor models... which are undermined by it being played on blue grass that shells can just fly through, making it way too easy to get sub-waterline hits.
  6. REEEEE kids and short attention spans ruin everything sims are the one true way. This is a stupid notion. I find it super funny that the sim crowd always seems to blame "kids" like the average age of a video gamer isn't 34. I'm glad you've figured out a way to feel smugly superior, but the vast, vast majority of people don't enjoy sims. I find them at best mildly interesting, but normal game design is in general much more fun. When we are talking video games... sims are bad video games. Most people don't enjoy them. That matches take forever and involve relatively small amounts of actual gameplay is one of the reasons. I guess we can go full subjective and talk about niches and what individual people enjoy, which is fair- I won't claim that people can't enjoy sims. But at that point we can't talk "good" or "bad" anything. Like this is just zero perspective. Match lengths are a huge issue in multiplayer games like this which is designed around people not leaving a match. And match lengths also drive queue times to a huge extent(the more people in match, the fewer in queue) and people hate waiting. This is how games like this die- they don't have enough people to make matches quickly, people stop playing because they don't want to wait, it's the classic multiplayer game death spiral. You come from a niche community that is willing to put up with these things... most people aren't. I've played bigger ships and what I've experienced and seen is overwhelmingly death via crew loss, not via fire/flood. Or ammo explosion, which OFC because of the lousy ballistics modeling in the other game happens way, way too often. Ammo detonations were rare in real life, for all your talk about the other game being "realistic". WG and the other game model aiming the same way, it's just that the other game does a worse job of it. In both games you manually aim the guns with the mouse, just WG compensates for your own movement which is more intuitive, and makes tracers more visible(and not fly off the top of your view, one of those clever features that shows WG designs for player experience while the other game... doesn't). This "new game mode" is actually something a couple players made, its not official and likely never will be. The other game developers don't invest any real effort in design, just in adding more and more high tier stuff to milk money out of their playerbase.
  7. Realism doesn't make a good video game. And many of these things aren't realistic. The other game doesn't represent shell trajectory changes or arming on water impact(in general WoWS has a much more realistic ballistic system at all stages). IRL aiming was done via computer for most of the ships involved, or at least with mechanical aid on a plot for some of the oldest. You wouldn't manually give lead and range estimation, the RF would take range and bearing cuts and calculate a solution. Almost always ships were killed not via loss of crew, but via irreparable damage to critical systems that made them unfightable or via catastrophic fire or flooding(frequently associated with the former, loss of electrical and hydraulic power). WG designs stuff to make matches go faster because it makes the game more fun. Matches can only be so long before it gets problematic, so WG sped ships up a great deal in order to have big matches and therefore long-range lowered lethality This is absolutely a compromise of realism, but it's in the interest of a better game. I'm pretty certain the other game also reduces dispersion anyways, so it doesn't matter that much, but in WoWS this is another feature done in order to time-compress the game(increasing hit rates). Torpedoes are greatly sped up in order to make a single DD a semi-viable threat to a larger ship, along with the various other gamey advantages smaller ships get(proportionally better HP, vision mechanics, better accuracy). This does away with the small vs big ship problem the other game has. Which is why naval is soooo popular in their playerbase. Oh wait. No it isn't. EDIT: Oh, I missed this, but this mode is actually a player-made thing, its not official. So much for "the competition".
  8. They don't like it because it's bad. There, I've said it, we can go home now. There's tons of deeply unbalanced crap in [edited] naval. Aiming in [edited] naval is this horrible mix of range estimation in RB along with lead, but unlike in WoWS you also have to compensate for your own ship's maneuver which is counterintuitive. Also visually tracking your shells and tracers is a huge pain for basically no reason. Just make them easier to see. Smaller ships have no real recourse against bigger ones, and the BR setup means that you either stomp hard or get stomped. Everything is slow and so it takes forever to get anywhere, but ranges are short so at the same time ships, especially once they get bigger guns, are stupidly lethal. The whole crew system [edited] naval has is like HP bars, but opaque and also lacking in the better stuff like damage saturation.
  9. Call me when that other game actually makes mechanical changes to improve how awful big ships are to play in practice or how terribly their game is balanced. Game modes are just putting lipstick on a pig.
  10. Not surprising, the huge SAP alpha and DPM was an issue on both the high and low tier ones. Even the VIII and VII suffer from it and from getting SAP-overmatch on BB which is pretty powerful.
  11. Aetreus

    ST 0.9.11, changes to test ships

    The SAP damage potential was always crazy high and needed to go down, and frankly I don't think it's enough even now. Everybody rails about Conqueror and Thunderer, realize that Cristoforo Colombo deals way more DPM via SAP than either of these ships with HE. Almost twice as much. Also the low-tier ones are even more ridiculous for their tier.
  12. I think this greatly underestimates the potential value of an aim assist, it would take any imprecision out of aiming at targets at all aspects, and experience adding adjustments for a target that is or is likely to turn would be much more powerful on precise knowledge of where the ship would be going if it were travelling in a straight line. Also by the time you've built an aim assist, it isn't actually hard to make it predict a target that is currently turning, or to provide a solution with some basic presumptions(target immediately begins turning left/right, target continues current turn, target stops turning). Combining those with some game sense would make you extremely accurate and take much less effort than aiming normally.
  13. Aetreus

    So let me get this straight

    Slava and Colbert are both sort of questionable, but Ohio is a pretty brutally powerful ship with strong secondaries, good gun handling, accuracy, overmatch, and a fast repair party. I think the issue is more that if you're not into what Ohio does or the very specialized Slava and Colbert, there just aren't more ships available while steel and coal have more variety of ships, plenty of which offer a similar level of strength as Ohio.
  14. Also you had arcade machines, where the entire design was about making you lose fairly fast so that you would feed the machine more quarters. The explosion of the video game market and need to effectively compete with previous titles has meant that the real price of video games has cratered over the past decades and I think ultimately the microtransaction model arose because it's becoming impossible to reliably make money off the sticker price. The expectation that a new game would have the same sticker price and outmatch previous games was in the past sustainable because the new game could expect to sell many more copies than previous ones, supporting its higher upfront development costs. But that's become less and less true as the market for video games has expanded to include basically the entire public(video games are the world's larges entertainment sector), so the only way to deliver products that people will buy(instead of just buying old games at discount prices) is to figure out how to keep the sticker price down and monetize the game in other ways.