Jump to content

Fr05ty

Members
  • Content Сount

    228
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4047
  • Clan

    [GETH]

Community Reputation

106 Valued poster

6 Followers

About Fr05ty

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Birthday September 14
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Latin America (Originally from Buenos Aires)

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Fr05ty

    AA / CV Balance Changes Inbound for 8.7

    Wouldn't it be better if we combined both the old AA work with the new mechanics? Such as: * Continuous damage and range (both minimum and maximum) are determined by each individual weapon (as it used to be prior to 0.8.0) * Flak bursts are also determined by each weapon individually. So the amount of flak bursts would be determined by the amount of guns, with those flak bursts having a set value. Could be that Bofors flak bursts would deal 750 damage and each single Bofors contributes 0.1 flak bursts, so if there are 26 single Bofors, then 3 flak bursts would be created (due to rounding up). * Different kinds of Flak bursts can therefore happen. Large caliber weapons will make larger flak bursts which deal more damage, while smaller caliber weapons are smaller bursts with smaller damage. An example of how this would look with the Algerie: 6x2 25mm/60 doing X continuous damage between 2.5km and 0.5km 4x2 37mm/70 doing Y continuous damage and putting out 2 small flak bursts dealing D damage between 3.5km and 1km 6x2 100mm/45 doing Z continuous damage and putting out 3 medium flak bursts dealing K damage between 5km and 1.5km With the minimum range and all being determined by the mount's elevation characteristics and such. Would look amazing as well to see different flak burst sizes along with all the little pew-pews. That way we get the best of both worlds and it becomes kinda understandable how each weapon adds damage to the aura, etc.
  2. Fr05ty

    PT, AA changes

    Wouldn't it be better if we combined both the old AA work with the new mechanics? Such as: * Continuous damage and range (both minimum and maximum) are determined by each individual weapon (as it used to be prior to 0.8.0) * Flak bursts are also determined by each weapon individually. So the amount of flak bursts would be determined by the amount of guns, with those flak bursts having a set value. Could be that Bofors flak bursts would deal 750 damage and each single Bofors contributes 0.1 flak bursts, so if there are 26 single Bofors, then 3 flak bursts would be created (due to rounding up). * Different kinds of Flak bursts can therefore happen. Large caliber weapons will make larger flak bursts which deal more damage, while smaller caliber weapons are smaller bursts with smaller damage. An example of how this would look with the Algerie: 6x2 25mm/60 doing X continuous damage between 2.5km and 0.5km 4x2 37mm/70 doing Y continuous damage and putting out 2 small flak bursts dealing D damage between 3.5km and 1km 6x2 100mm/45 doing Z continuous damage and putting out 3 medium flak bursts dealing K damage between 5km and 1.5km With the minimum range and all being determined by the mount's elevation characteristics and such. Would look amazing as well to see different flak burst sizes along with all the little pew-pews. That way we get the best of both worlds and it becomes kinda understandable how each weapon adds damage to the aura, etc.
  3. Funny enough, the data in gamemodels3d shows that the T8 has a displacement of 17635t and the T9 has a displacement of 15406t. Either it is bugged and should be the other way around, or someone grabbed XII-152's displacement and forgot to add the weight of the triple 203 turrets... and a few more things as well.
  4. Fr05ty

    Italian tier X cruiser

    I'm aggrieved as hell. I did proper research to propose a tech-tree that used as little fake as possible, using built or at least designed ships at all steps and instead of something semi-historical, we get that atrocity at Tier X... I can only guess that the Ansaldo for Russia design will be done as a Tier VIII CB for either Italy or Russia; which sucks, because it would've been a lovely Tier X to cap a line all about having powerful alpha guns with solid balistics, great armour and speed with the drawback of poor RoF and fire chance. Hell, I still think that SAP should've worked as a kind of AP with lower penetration and damage but a low chance to cause a fire if it penetrates (so you could aim at the superstructure of angled ships to deal damage and cause at least a fire or two). Kind of an in between shell for AP and HE
  5. Wholeheartedly agree with Lert. WG seems intent on releasing either bland ships with no fun or have a ship with 4 different gimmicks that kinda ruin balance. Would be much better if we got ships which were balanced and fun with a few quirks rather than go to extremes.
  6. Fr05ty

    Premium Ship Review - IJN Ishizuchi

    Alright, I bought the Ishizuchi after the buffs and I find her to be set for extremes. She either does very well or very badly. I think she could be fixed to the point where she's competitive in a few ways: 1. Buff her AA and secondaries to include the 10 ranging guns on top of the turrets (I do know that ranging guns were only supposed to be used when the main batteries weren't in use, but oh well). If they're the same type of guns, this'll mean that she'd have 16 secondary 76mm guns instead of 6 and her AA DPS would be buffed from 10dps@3km to 27dps@3km. Not much of a change, but you might shoot down something with it and the increased secondaries might help against DDs. (I also think that having all those guns firing at the same time would look awesome, but that's beside the point) 2. Improve her ammo, heard she was using the APC Mark 6 shells from the British 12", same as those used by Dreadnought and they were then replaced by the Mark 7 Greenboy shells which had both better range and penetration characteristics despite being very slightly heavier. Still wouldn't make her great at hitting citadels of other BBs, but just a tiny bit better at having shells not splinter and bounce. 3. This can go hand in hand with the above: Buff her range to ~14.5km or give her the option to mount more modules so she can use the +16% gun range module. 4. Do a combination of the above? I'm sure that combining 1 and 2 wouldn't improve her too much so as to make her OP. Or make 1 and 3? Or 2 and 3? Or all of the above? I'm loosing it Anyways, think that might fix Ishizuchi to the point where she might be able to contend against the BBs. She's meant to be a BC so she should be able to at least have BB-grade guns, able to dish it but not take it right? That's my take at least. She's fun and all, but the moment you get kited by a T5 cruiser that just spams you from outside your range or you're within 5km of a BB that's showing you their broadside and you can see your shells bouncing... You hate it. Love and hate in a single ship!!!
  7. Fr05ty

    Premium Ship Review: Ishizuchi (2.0)

    Nothing I've said would suggest changing her Battlecruiser status, she wouldn't be able to compete with a BB 1v1, I'm just proposing buffing her just a bit to be competitive. Battlecruisers are meant to be Battleship sized vessels with Battleship weapons but with armour and speed more comparable to a cruiser, able to dish the pain but not take it. None of my 3 points would go against such an ideal. I'll explain my proposals again: My first proposal was to buff its AA and secondaries a bit. Buffing the AA to the point I proposed (27dps@3km) would still make her AA worse than the Myogi's (8@1.2km, 31@2km, 15@4.5km = 54dps total) and Wyoming's (22@3.5km, 40@3.1km, 50@1.2km = 112dps total), though you might shoot something down every few games (respective AA values are in the table below). Improving the secondaries would not make much of a difference, they're 76mm guns which will not be dealing massive damage to anything and if something's close enough for your secondaries to open fire, chances are you're going to die very soon anyways. Might hit a DD with them before you die... Ship AA @<2km @2km @3km @>3km Wyoming 50 - 40 22 Myogi 8 31 - 15 Ishizuchi - - 27 - Nikolai 6 - 2 - My second proposal was to buff its AP rounds to use the improved shells (Mark7a greenboy) instead of the current Mark6 shells which are notoriously crap. Yet again, this doesn't go against the point of Ishizuchi being a BC, rather it updates its shell weaponry to what british BB's used in 1918. Nothing broken as it still won't be great at penning BBs, but just a bit better which might land you some citadels from close range for a change. My third proposal was buffing its range or give it more upgrade slots. More range would not be game breaking, it'd just bring the Ishizuchi to parity with what's fighting at her tier in terms of range. More upgrade slots could have the same effect, you could place the range module to improve range to a respectable level. How do any of those ideas significantly change the feeling of the Ishizuchi or its role as a BC? I am only proposing to buff some of its weaknesses for them to be bad instead of terrible and it will not change the flavour of the ship. It will (still) be: Great at HE Poor at AP (Bit better than before) Poor AA (Bit better than before) Good secondaries (Bit better than before) Quick, but slow to turn Easy to spot Short ranged (Bit better than before) Lightly armoured Please, do explain how my proposals ruin her playstyle and design. (I'm not being sarcastic here, I really do want to know your perspective on it beyond those 2 lines and why they mean she'd be able to take on a BB 1v1 )
  8. Fr05ty

    Premium Ship Review: Ishizuchi (2.0)

    Alright, I bought the Ishizuchi after the buffs and I find her to be set for extremes. She either does very well or very badly. I think she could be fixed to the point where she's competitive in a few ways: 1. Buff her AA and secondaries to include the 10 ranging guns on top of the turrets (I do know that ranging guns were only supposed to be used when the main batteries weren't in use, but oh well). If they're the same type of guns, this'll mean that she'd have 16 secondary 76mm guns instead of 6 and her AA DPS would be buffed from 10dps@3km to 27dps@3km. Not much of a change, but you might shoot down something with it and the increased secondaries might help against DDs. (I also think that having all those guns firing at the same time would look awesome, but that's beside the point) 2. Improve her ammo, heard she was using the APC Mark 6 shells from the British 12", same as those used by Dreadnought and they were then replaced by the Mark 7 Greenboy shells which had both better range and penetration characteristics despite being very slightly heavier. Still wouldn't make her great at hitting citadels of other BBs, but just a tiny bit better at having shells not splinter and bounce. 3. This can go hand in hand with the above: Buff her range to ~14.5km or give her the option to mount more modules so she can use the +16% gun range module. 4. Do a combination of the above? I'm sure that combining 1 and 2 wouldn't improve her too much so as to make her OP. Or make 1 and 3? Or 2 and 3? Or all of the above? I'm loosing it Anyways, think that might fix Ishizuchi to the point where she might be able to contend against the BBs. She's meant to be a BC so she should be able to at least have BB-grade guns, able to dish it but not take it right? That's my take at least. She's fun and all, but the moment you get kited by a T5 cruiser that just spams you from outside your range or you're within 5km of a BB that's showing you their broadside and you can see your shells bouncing... You hate it. Love and hate in a single ship!!!
×