Jump to content

Skpstr

Members
  • Content Сount

    25,471
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6336
  • Clan

    [WOLFG]

Community Reputation

4,438 Superb

About Skpstr

  • Rank
    Admiral of the Navy
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3,328 profile views
  1. Skpstr

    Dont buy "special" ships

    Colbert has a 6% chance of fire with IFHE now, not 7%. (7% is base) With DE, that goes to 8%. After the change, Colbert will have a 3.5% chance of fire. With DE, that goes to 5.5% So doing the math, now: (.5005)x(1-0.05)x(1-0.10)x(0.080) = 3.42% after: (.5005)x(1-0.05)x(1-0.10)x(0.055) = 2.35% You're losing just over 1% of your practical fire chance.
  2. I submit that the biggest problem is that portions of the mechanics are exploitable, namely predictable flak and immunity periods. Get rid of those, and then you can find a middle ground to balance AA. Yes, good players will still overperform, (but not as much) and bad players will have a bit rougher go of it, but there's no reason the interaction can't be acceptable both ways to the majority of players. It would certainly be simpler to remove CVs, but with the resources put into them, well.....I see no reason why WG would be immune to sunk costs fallacy.
  3. No, but do you really think that they'd remove them without trying to address concerns, especially when they've gone back on "no subs" because they need content? Problem is, a popular opinion is that WG is incompetent. I'd rather take my chances with street corner medicine than back-alley surgery lol.
  4. Skpstr

    High Tier Full Broadsidepalooza!

    Lol that's totally not what I was talking about. Those guys actually knew you were there and still played shooting gallery!
  5. From my CV experience, that's what I would say too. Reduction in rocket damage, however it's done, would be the logical first step. TBH, the lack of counterplay itself is probably unable to be addressed, best we could likely do is to lessen the effects.
  6. To be fair, I'd say unable. If you can't apply or are unaware of counterplay, it's pretty much irrelevant to your opinion. The divide also gets muddied because of who's complaining about counterplay. Whenever good players have a particular complaint, the spectre of perceived "elitism" and "first world problems" always raises its ugly head.
  7. Remove the exploits, lower the skill ceiling, and make a middle ground the average you balance on, where AA matters by degrees, then work from there. Balance is pretty much impossible, as long as a couple "tricks" separate the competent from the incompetent.
  8. I agree, and the issue there is that there's pretty much no grey area between the two, like there is with the other ships. If CVs can be balanced based on a grey area, instead of on one end or the other of the spectrum, it would improve things.
  9. I disagree. If you remove rockets, then DDs become virtually immune to aircraft. (especially IJN) And I don't think any DD drivers want a return to the early days, when DBs could pretty easily hit DDs. I say, adjust the damage on the rockets so that a salvo does a reasonable amount of damage to a DD, and that amount becomes relatively insignificant to CAs and BBs, except for the fire. And then tune DDs' DCP so that CVs aren't able to keep them constantly burning. I mean, just making it so that the absolute best a CV could do with a full 3 attack runs was take 25% of a DDs HP would improve the lot of DD players.
  10. I agree, although I don't see the inability of CVs to deal with each other as a big issue, other than fighter consumables ought to be more useful. Make them less "stupid", and allow them to be tethered to friendly ships, without actually having to fly there.
  11. And having actually played a few T8 CV games, I kind of agree. I say "kind of", because I think that while it's too easy to do catastrophic damage to a DD, It's not too far off where I'd like to see it merely to get to them and hit them. I think another major problem is AA. The reason IMO you get the disconnect between the experience of good and mediocre CV players is that there's basically a threshold, you can either "exploit" the mechanics or you can't. That threshold is probably the single biggest arbiter of your CV experience. What I think we need is to get rid of the "exploitable" mechanics like immunity zones and predictable flak, so that the experience is more consistent between mediocre and good players. Then things can actually be reasonably balanced.
  12. What isn't true? I asked a question lol. But look at what you said. A full Shima spread does over 200k, and needs to put more risk into delivering a strike. I don't really think it's much different whether it's a full spread or one torp, risk is the same. What's a single Shima torp, 20k? Ok, so for the amount of risk involved, you get to do an amount of damage. The effect of that damage is inversely proportional to the ease of hitting the target. You'd obliterate pretty much any DD with one torp, but they're the hardest to hit. That one torp will only take about 33% of the HP from a cruiser, but they're easier to hit with that torp than a DD. A BB, throw in TDS, and you're taking maybe 15% HP. With a CV, as far as torps and bombs go, you get the same kind of relationship. It's really only the rockets that are a problem, because while the damage scales in the same fashion as torps and bombs, the ease of hitting really doesn't scale. To address this, you can make cruisers and DDs increasingly harder to hit, to make damage and ease of hitting scale like the other ordnance. Or, you can remove scaling from the damage as well. We can adjust damage so that, if a rocket salvo removes say, roughly 5% of a BB's HP, it removes 5% of a cruiser's HP, and 5% of a DD's. (give or take) Or, we can assume that rocket fighters are the weapon of choice only against DDs, and that TB/DBs are preferable against CA/BBs when available. In that case, we can balance rocket damage solely vs. DDs, with a reasonable fire chance. (so they have some utility against larger ships) I don't play a ton of DD, but it seems to me that fire isn't the issue that it is for other ships. If I'm wrong, and fire IS a concern, then DD DCP action time/cooldowns could be adjusted so that it can't be overwhelmed by a single squadron. (unless he waits around awhile) I mean, if you just plain don't like CVs, there's really nothing to discuss. But specific concerns can always be addressed, and that's a far more likely occurrence than outright removal. I like playing CVs. I also like the idea of CVs being a threat that needs to be dealt with. But I don't really want to ruin other peoples' games with them, at least no more than I do in any other ship lol.
  13. Who's saying we want them left as they are? You're not looking to have them changed, but removed.
  14. He is intimate with what it's like to troll players who feel helpless though, I'll give him that.....
  15. Especially if in most of your DD games, the BBs can barely do 20 knots, and 3 CV per side is a regular occurrence. Have you ever stopped to consider the effects of your 2k Kami/Fujin games on new players? You directly had a hand in the nerfing of your most played ship, so I'm gonna say no. When it comes to complaining about a class's effect on gameplay, you're on some pretty shaky moral high ground.
×