Jump to content

SteveStevenson

Members
  • Content Сount

    235
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    11137
  • Clan

    [XBRTC]

Community Reputation

75 Good

4 Followers

About SteveStevenson

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Birthday 03/17/1982
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,939 profile views
  1. SteveStevenson

    HMCS Huron's Initial Performance

    French DDs lacking smoke was I believe what he's alluding to.
  2. Hi Mouse,

    I can't read through 79 pages of arguments and the forum search function has always sucked, but has anyone ever brought up fuel capacity as a limiting factor for carrier planes? I'm sure it has been suggested at least once, but similar to smoke a squadron has a limited "Time of Flight" counter which boost/brake can accelerate/decelerate which limits the CV player's ability to harass DDs trying to be stealthy, allows AA damage to negatively affect it (simulating fuel leaks), and allows for equipment/commander skills to increase like Drop Tanks?

    Forgive me if this isn't in the vein of what your posts are going for, but it just came to mind reading the latest thread.

    1. Show previous comments  4 more
    2. LittleWhiteMouse

      LittleWhiteMouse

      There's different ways to handle broken rangefinders.  The reason I want them included was that it was a very (very!) common critical hit in historical battles and it caused issues -- though I admit I'm lumping optical rangefinders with search radar as well.

      So different effects could include:

      • Reducing maximum range by X km until repaired.
      • Increasing gunnery dispersion by Y % until repaired (maybe make it like the ship isn't locked on).
      • Improving the surface detection concealment of enemy ships by Z km until repaired.  Note, this only affects ships that only this ship can spot.

      The one that makes the most sense would be increasing gunnery dispersion.  The only issue here is that a ships Damage Control Party is already heavily overtaxed, especially on battleships, so it's hard to justify adding more of a burden onto it, especially with submarines having been added.

    3. SteveStevenson

      SteveStevenson

      Speaking to that, maybe it can be more of a degradation over time the more rangefinding (optical or electrical) equipment is KOed over the course of the battle, similar to AA mounts so it isn't a DCP issue. The main rangefinders on most ships seem to always be redundant fore and aft, with the more advanced American and Brit ships having dual radar sets as well. I dunno, maybe I'm getting too far down a rabbit hole on it.

    4. Lucid_Nonsense_1

      Lucid_Nonsense_1

      At the very least, damage con needs to be split into "fire fighting," "hull demagnetisation" (aka sub ping remover) and "module repair." I would suggest being able to have only two active at once and different cool down times. Added bonus it lets ships / tech tress be differentiated - eg. US can have excellent fire fighting, UK hull demag - ships / commanders that have historically distinguished themselves can get bonuses etc. 

       

      PS and the Soviet navy will be able to use all 3 with reduced cool downs

      /s 

  3. SteveStevenson

    Black nerf

    Nerfing her means she's not THE ship anyway. Cloning her as Black - C for coal or whatever with the desired reduced statistics for mass-use is the exact same thing, but preserves the promise of not touching the older ships. Then you shouldn't nerf her, you should release her as is, and that's that. You're going to break your word with the nerf and that's not a matter of opinion, but an objective reality.
  4. SteveStevenson

    Black nerf

    I'm not sure it came across that way; linking to an older post generally gives the impression that you're saying "this discussion has been had already and you're wasting your breath." The major issue here to me is that ships were earned / sold with the understanding they were going to be untouchable by the nerf bat beyond global changes to the mechanics prior to a certain point. Ships from before the overperformance disclaimer really should be sacrosanct, especially when you have the ability to clone ships at will and issue them with a modifier to the name using the updated statistics rather than doing this.
  5. SteveStevenson

    Black nerf

    It'd be really awesome if the people in charge of public relations on the forum for a company with a massive public relations problem on the forum didn't com across as smug and out of touch when communicating with the player base on things that are obviously going to be unpopular. So we forfeited our right to be angry about it now? The responses in the post you linked to were not positive either, so I fail to see how your statement is relevant in any way, shape, or form. You guys really need to get it together.
  6. SteveStevenson

    Anniversary stream announcements, guess the ship

    Turkish ships in Pan EU? Dude at this rate they're going to implement an Ottoman Navy as a separate nation..
  7. SteveStevenson

    Anniversary stream announcements, guess the ship

    Spain is exactly the kind of naval non-entity that deserves to be part of the Pan-European tree, and the stunt with the Netherlands splitting off only confirms all of this. Whatever, you people don't listen and don't care. Gonna be wild to see what kind of T10 Spanish battleship you create from figments of various imaginations, yet making a Jutland operation/scenario or doing any more pre-dreadnought battleships won't ever be a thing.
  8. SteveStevenson

    ST 0.10.9, NEW SHIPS

    That arguably still makes the new BB better as HE and AP give a more versatile ship. I dunno if SAP is enough.
  9. SteveStevenson

    ST 0.10.9, NEW SHIPS

    What in the world is the point of Marco Polo then with this new T9 Italian BB having smoke and a 6 second faster reload???? The data appears to be the exact same for gun accuracy, range, etc.
  10. SteveStevenson

    ST 0.10.7, New Test Ships

    The tier 9 and 10 ships of this new line can damn near open water stealth fire their secondaries and stealth torp with 30+kt speed, doubt that survives testing, but what a ride if it does.
  11. SteveStevenson

    Secondary Dispersion List

    the data I'm looking at now shows PEF to have identical dispersion to Bayern, I retract my previous hypothesis.
  12. SteveStevenson

    Secondary Dispersion List

    Hypothesis on differences in accuracy given identical stats: Height of gun mount from water. Given a universal center of mass, waterline of the enemy ship aim point, the cone of dispersion from each gun would land more shots into the water the closer the mount is to the waterline, which would otherwise be hits if the mount was at a higher spot on the ship. Prinz Eitel Friedrich mounts a lot of casemate guns low on the ship, this may account for why it has such a lower percentage in comparison. I don't have the tools available to objectively measure Tirpitz and Gneisenau mount heights, but visually it appears to me the Bismarck class mounts are higher from the water than the Scharnhorst class mounts.
  13. SteveStevenson

    ST 0.10.3, new ships

    I'm super dismayed by these facts, particularly because we end up ignoring the pre-dreadnought and early dreadnought history. I wonder if making low tier operations based on those great historical battles premium content would change WGs mind on things. Low tier operations would also remove the problems with aircraft and AA the game is currently having by virtue of them not existing at the time or not existing enough to influence anything meaningfully at the time. I'd pay good money to have Jutland, Heligoland Bight, the destruction of the German Eastern squadron in the Falklands, a Dardanelles scenario, and some Russo-Japanese war operations, along with the premium ships that go with them. Lots of ways to encourage and monetize low tier gameplay, I believe, that aren't being investigated seriously enough.
  14. SteveStevenson

    Which Tier 9 Would You Buy? And Why?

    Did I miss something? What ship this be???
  15. SteveStevenson

    Atago torpedoes are useless

    Hey man, I'd like to introduce you to @LittleWhiteMouse, reviewer of premium ships. She takes the time to review just about every premium ship in the game in time for you to make a decision before any purchase. You can also check youtube for results of other's playtest reviews. As to Atago, she can be a very powerful cruiser if you rig her for stealth (concealment can get down to 9.1KM which gives you a very small stealth torpedo window), and focus on landing your damage in bursts at range with her HE shells. If you fire, then make some turns away to avoid return fire, your stealth bloom will go down again in 20 seconds, by which time your guns will be loaded again and you can pick on someone and stack some fires on them. This type of thing tends to frustrate battleships and other cruisers, who will then chase you. If you can bait them into a chase, you will gain a touch more distance to use your torpedoes with since they'll be entering the range rather than running, in which case even a single hit can be enough to do them in if you've been setting them on fire and landing decent damage with the HE shells. What she isn't set up to do, based on armor profile, gun handling, or steering responsiveness, is get in close and fight with anyone. If that's your thing, I'd say check out Prinz Eugen, since she has a bit better armor for close in fighting, better torpedoes for a brawl, sonar of better quality to deal with destroyers, and a little bit better gun handling to get those turrets around in a hurry. Just don't expect any cruiser in this game to last long against a battleship in a brawl, since hit points won't last long against a few citadels getting landed. Good luck with the rest of the game.
×