Jump to content

Aetius2

Members
  • Content Сount

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    7393

Community Reputation

19 Neutral

About Aetius2

  • Rank
    Seaman
  • Insignia
  1. The Lazo is the exception because it is the only ship (afaik) with a fast-cycling spotter plane. Examine the Surrey for a more realistic example. With Spotting Aircraft Mod 1, action time of the consumable is 130 seconds and the reload time is 240 seconds. With Eye in the Sky the numbers are 65/120, and with Consumables Specialist the times are 65/108. For the all ships with ridiculously long spotter plane cooldowns, this makes the spotter plane actually usable more than once or twice per game.
  2. The playstyle is very similar, but the Hakuryu requires longer lead times and is even more dependent on long, straight attack runs. Patience is key - set up the run, pre-drop if you need to, and then make your attack. Getting the commander skill that speeds up your aiming can help if you're having trouble. Also, unlike Shokaku, Hakuryu always faces heavy AA, many more ships that are capable of AA ambushes, and 7km flak. Don't waste your planes in the beginning pushing into AA clusters that you can't handle - spot for the team and wait for people to make mistakes. With rocket planes you either have to know or accurately predict the DD's location - they don't do well with attacks on the fly, though you can force it with heavy use of the speed boost to slow down. Hakuryu's torp bombers can savage people that push without support, but you have to wait for those opportunities. I find that dive bombers are generally useful on targets that are snuggled up to an island or reversing bow-in. Drop before your planes peak out on heavily armored targets to get vertical drops, and drop late on lightly armored targets to get enough angle so that your bombs don't overpen. There's a selection of ships that you just can't get citadels on (heavy deck armor, spaced armor, etc), so learn what those are and attack them with torps instead.
  3. Based on my experience on the PTS, lots of people. There are significant changes to how every class works in this commander skill rework, and I would _strongly_ recommend not accepting the skills as reassigned by the game. Some builds are no longer possible, some are going to be ... less efficient (*cough* secondaries), and others are going to be new.
  4. Aetius2

    PTS 0.10.0

    My original comments on the new fighter skills: Round 2 skill comments: Direction Center for Fighters (was Double Trouble): Thanks for fixing the name. Though ... this new/old name is still long and awkward. How about just "Extra CAP", "Heavy CAP", or "Veteran CAP"? Still not a useful skill because it only adds one fighter to your CAP, and that helps only if someone is foolish enough to attack with a full squadron and take the damage. I would consider this skill if it added a fighter to the Patrol Fighters / Interceptors - otherwise no. Then you could name it "Veteran Fighters" or something. Search and Destroy: Still irrelevant and unnoticeable. Patrol Group Leader: Now at 2 points, this is more attractive. Still not much impact for the expense though. Interceptor: It's still a self-nerf - the cost is entirely irrelevant. In fact, you should give extra commander points for taking this skill instead of it costing 3 points. I have yet to see the explanation for why a tiny increase in patrol area is worth losing spotting and the ability to shoot down enemy spotters. Enhanced Reactions: Now a 4 point skill. Still noticeable, but now we're burning twice as many skill points to make fighters work the way they should in the first place. Sigh. In my tests, I increased my fighter kill count per game from 7 to 9 - do you feel that is worth 4 commander points? From what I can see, these changes appear to be narrowly focused on one aspect of fighter usage: dropping a fighter in front of enemy planes in an attempt to shoot some of them down. This is ineffective in the current game because it takes too long for the fighters to pop and latch and it's easy to just fly out of the fighter patrol radius before that happens. Further, this requires predicting where the enemy planes are going so that you can get in front of them and drop the fighter, which is not easy and takes time that could otherwise be spent doing damage. The patch notes also included this: Which seems to be working in the opposite direction, making it harder to drop fighters and effectively engage enemy attack aircraft. Suggestion: how about instead of Interceptor, we have a skill called "Out of the Sun" that reduces fighter air detectability (and only air detectability) to 5km or less, allowing ambushing enemy attack aircraft with well-placed fighters? Perhaps more to the point, this is one very small aspect of the current gameplay. I agree that fighter skills and interactions should be better and more relevant to the game, but WG seems to be conflicted on this: willing to make fighters more effective (as with the speed changes and Enhanced Reactions) but unwilling to give them more impact on the enemy CV (making fighters more detectable and making patrol radius increase skills so minimal a player can't tell the difference). If fighters are only to be a deterrent, spending skill points on them doesn't make much sense. Fighters and fighter skills will only have a real gameplay impact if they cam actually be used to shoot down significant numbers of enemy aircraft.
  5. The fighters take several seconds to spawn, AND several seconds to "latch" onto incoming planes and then chase after them. You want to launch them well in advance of any attack. If the fighters get into range, they will kill as many enemy planes as there are fighters (assuming that many attackers are left - they do not target the exiting empty attackers). If the CV comes in fast with only a few planes and F's out immediately, the fighters often don't have time to latch. They are most useful later in the game, when the CV is looking for repeat attacks instead of one-and-done. Also note that the fighters will latch if the enemy attack planes get in range, regardless of whether or not your ship is being attacked - for example, if you're along the flight path of an attack on another ship, your fighters can latch and get some kills. They are primarily a deterrent and part of the resource battle vs. the carrier.
  6. First, a nitpick. In the tutorial pictures the game displays before battles, there is this one: This is not true - as long as the fighters are alive, they will kill their targets no matter how much you heal. For my PTS games I tried out the new CV fighter line. I kitted out my Lexington with Ovechkin and Squadron Consumables Mod 1, then selected all the available fighter skills: My evaluation: Double Trouble: This skill is entirely ineffective except against foolish players that attack a CV with a full squadron - and even then, it's unlikely the extra plane will get a kill before the enemy aircraft F-out. I will never take this skill in the live game and I can't imagine that many other people will either (I might consider it if I *know* I'm facing an FDR and every fighter counts). Also, what is being doubled? The name doesn't even make sense. I would consider this skill if it added a fighter to the Patrol Fighter consumable as well. Search and Destroy: This skill is ... well, unnoticeable at Tier 8. I literally cannot tell the difference in the fighter patrol area. I imagine this will be a little better at T10, but ... yeah. I will not take this skill. Here's a comparison - base T8 fighter patrol area is on the left, and skill-enhanced T8 fighter patrol area is on the right. You want me to spend one point for that? Enhanced Reactions: This skill is VERY noticeable. You can actually drop a fighter in the path of oncoming enemy planes and it will pop, latch, and shoot them down before they can escape the radius. Note that if the intent of the arrival time increase was to prevent this, it does not work - pop time is delayed by a couple of seconds, but the fighters more than make up for it by immediately latching. The action time reduction can be countered with Squadron Consumables Mod 1. More valuable on CVs with large numbers of fighters, like Enterprise. If I want my fighters to actually be effective, I would spend two points on this. (Though ... shouldn't this be the way ALL fighters work? Why do CV players have to burn two commander points to make one their tools actually effective in its intended role?) Patrol Group Leader: It's already pretty difficult to spend all nine fighter consumables, so this is marginally useful ... but the three point cost is WAY too much. I might spend one point on this, particularly if it buffed the hull CAP as well. Interceptor: Is ... is this a trick? Here's a visual comparison of what I would get - unbuffed T8 patrol area on the left, 10% buffed T8 patrol area in the middle, and 20% buffed T8 patrol area on the right: And Hakuryu fighter patrol areas at T10 for comparison: Can you provide any reasoning for why you believe this is worth four commander points, giving up fighter spotting, and giving up being able to shoot down enemy fighters? In its current form, I believe that taking this skill is a negative, not a positive - a self-nerf, if you will. Hard no.
  7. Aetius2

    Public Test 0.9.10

    My notes: Technical: - Game process would not terminate on exit, I had to manually end the task in Task Manager every time. - Playing as the Heracles (only), the audio would degrade over the course of 2-3 games until it was just broken noise. I believe this may be related to the issues with main gun sounds. - Heracles and Valkyrie main gun sounds sometimes didn't play for me. Gale torpedo launches never played for me and were always silent. Ship/module feedback: - Heracles wave guns are awkward to use. Since all guns are not selected/fired, the game often switches rapidly between guns, especially at extreme angles. This makes it difficult to fire accurately at short range. - Heracles wave guns are wildly variable in damage, and it's not always clear why. Sometimes they did good damage on broadsides, other times not. Overall, their DPM is extremely poor, and made worse by the random nature of the hits. - Heracles wave guns - if they are used defensively, you are left without any offensive punch. If you're fending off torpedoes, you're firing _behind_ the enemy ship, and thus not doing damage to the enemy ship. Given how fast the Gales can fire torpedoes, you will never be able to take an offensive shot at their ship. - Heracles heavy beam weapon is extremely difficult to use. - The charge delay is very long, making the shot a case of trying to predict where the enemy will be quite far in the future. - Making a small elevation error will cause the beam to hit the water instead of the target. - The targeting laser does not equal where the beam fires - for example, the beam can be blocked by terrain that the targeting laser goes over. - Heavy laser beams sometimes appear to go through enemies with no damage (latency?). - Heavy laser beams do ridiculously low damage to player ships even when they hit, on the order of 2k to 5k (versus 30k to 60k on monster targets). - Heavy laser DPM versus Gale torpedo DPM is a difference of several orders of magnitude. - Heavy laser beams can more-or-less randomly hit modules, and do very little damage (e.g. 3k damage and knock out a gun on a Lobster-Eyed, instead of 60k damage). Beams have very short range, and in this context enemy ships can close the distance in seconds. - Using the 180 turn consumable will cause all active heavy laser shots to miss and prevent you from shooting until the turrets get turned around. - Secondaries that increase laser damage do not appear to have any effect, and in any case can only be used at ranges where the heavy laser is practically unusable. - Valkyrie mortar weapons are almost entirely ineffective against all targets, and have lower DPM even than the heavy lasers. This doesn't appear to be a penetration issue, as the mortar shells register penetrations, they just don't do very much damage and only rarely start fires. - The Gale has substantially better ship boosts than the other ships, and as part of the design can make them even better. Gale with DPM cranked up versus all the other ship variations is absurdly imbalanced. Gameplay: I like the overall design, with the exception of the Octagon. The basic idea of fighting monsters for keys, and then fighting PvP to make it out the Portal is good. I don't understand the need for the Octagon - it seems to arbitrarily add time to the battle without any real point, as most ships will be around the portal fighting to stop the Key holders from getting out. In the Octagon battles I observed, several ended in mutual rammings because of the constrained space, so everyone loses - not a great outcome. I found the monsters to be far too easy to kill in the Gale and annoyingly difficult in some cases for the other ships due to inconsistent damage (Wave Heracles, Laser Heracles). I'd rather see more difficult monsters (like last year), or more monsters, versus the relatively sparse count in the current design. There's quite a bit of time where your only targets are other players. I find the grouping mechanic counter-productive, since only one ship can get and use the key - this seems to be designed to generate betrayals, which means you can't play with your friends and breeds dissent and anger amongst the players. As normal, the map and graphics are beautiful and interesting - the many small islands are the only thing keeping the Gales from dominating completely.
  8. Aetius2

    how great were the pre Rework CVs?

    Example gameplay from a past CV unicum: Casually nukes the enemy CV in less than five minutes because he wiped the enemy fighters. 135k damage in about six and half minutes. 215k damage total, primarily because he ran out of easy targets. Parks fighters on top of DDs for minutes at a time with no counterplay.
  9. Aetius2

    how great were the pre Rework CVs?

    *shrug* it was very common. An example thread complaining about it:
  10. Aetius2

    how great were the pre Rework CVs?

    They were "popular" with the player base because hardly anyone played them. In-game, they were universally hated. I have to laugh every time I hear someone complain about the current CV spotting, because the RTS CVs could just park a fighter above your ship and there was NOTHING you could do if you didn't have an AA ship. As a DD it was even worse, because the planes would also spot all your outgoing torpedoes making them almost entirely ineffective. And they would do it to multiple ships at once, all over the map. Another thing people won't tell you is that the interface was terrible. Squadrons would fail to respond to commands if you issued them too quickly. Waypoints too close to other waypoints simply didn't work, or behaved in bizarre fashions. There were a number of pseudo-exploits that allowed you to do things like fly your squadrons outside the map borders - a favorite tactic of the unicum players was to fly their whole strike around the outside of the map and wipe out their unsuspecting CV opponent. The CV played the game on the map screen, so you were flying little triangles and targeting other little triangles with little triangles - you couldn't even see your own aircraft unless you zoomed way in. AA was essentially random rolls to hit. The ships that were extremely powerful had high chances to hit, so when they turned on DFAA it would just kill every plane in range. At one point in my Cleveland I wiped four full squadrons in less than twenty seconds. This is why people complain that the current AA is ineffective - their expectation is that their AA will make them invulnerable to CV attacks by killing any planes that get close. AA could reach out to 8 km or more, creating huge invisible no-fly zones. Combined with strafing attacks that could quickly wipe multiple squadrons, it was easy for a CV to lose all their planes in a few minutes and then have nothing to do for the rest of the match. I had this happen a couple of times and it was really disheartening. The documentation was crap. There was near-zero explanation anywhere of how any of the CV gameplay worked until how-to videos started to show up on Youtube (especially farazelleth). The in-game interface did not give any indication that manual drops or fighter strafes were even possible (and eventually WG removed manual attacks altogether at T4 and T5 because they were so ridiculously overpowered). It was common for even relatively experienced CV players to not know about those attacks, which put them at a HUGE disadvantage. At one point you could strafe your own planes, which was something you had to discover through sad experience. The torpedo arming distances were not shown, so you'd hit ships with unarmed torpedoes all the time until you got used to estimating the distance - this made manual attacks even more difficult. The players who liked RTS CV enjoyed the complexity and the power, but the learning curve was so ridiculous and punishing that few people put in the effort. It was a set of game mechanics that didn't fit with the rest of the game and were messily buggy and inconsistent. In short, it was a shitshow.
  11. This is pretty much exactly the way it works now. Done!
  12. Aetius2

    ST, Unique Upgrades in 0.9.5

    Hapa, This tells me that Wargaming doesn't really grok why people hate the Shima legendary upgrade. What it does is make your torpedo tubes borderline unusable, because the game interface isn't fast enough to actually launch the torps while the tubes are turning past the aiming reticle. If the ship is turning, even a little bit, you click to fire and nothing happens. It's actually possible to lose the 10% saved reload time just trying to get the damn things to launch. This isn't an issue with how weak the module is, it's a major quality of life problem. That's what needs to be fixed in order for people to even consider this module.
  13. Aetius2

    My CV planes die fast - how can I change that?

    My recommendations: 1) Plane health doesn't matter a whole lot. There are some marginal situations where having more plane health helps, and when you're starting off it can help a bit when you make mistakes, but overall it's in inefficient choice for modules and captain skills and scales poorly. If you push an attack through a flak burst or make an attack that transitions across multiple enemy ships, all of your planes are going to die no matter how much health they have. In heavy AA, fully buffed planes will buy you only a couple of seconds. 2) Because of #1, the factor that matters the most for plane survival is how much time your squadron spends in the AA bubble. Do everything you can to get your planes in and out as fast as possible. Hit F immediately after any attack into significant AA. Get speed buffs for your planes, save enough boost to make full speed attacks, and make bomb and rocket attacks from in front of the ship so that your closing speed is higher. Yes, this makes your attacks more difficult, but it saves your planes. 3) If you are attacking into heavy AA, only enter the AA bubble with enough planes to ensure that you get one full strength attack off. This is why you see CV players dumping bombs, rockets, and torps into empty water - they are reducing the squadron size to reduce losses. (Astute readers will also note that this tactic further reduces the effectiveness of plane health buffs.) 4) Use line of sight and islands to hide your planes so you can get as close as possible without taking AA damage. This can be difficult, and will make your attacks even more difficult as the reticle moves in weird ways as you pass over islands. Once you get used to it, though, you can do crazy things like make rocket attacks at 5km and only spend 1-2 seconds in the AA bubble. 5) One of the biggest mistakes new CV players make is trying to make a second pass in moderate AA. It's pretty much a perfect storm of badness. Your squadron isn't actually making an attack run, so you don't get the attack run damage reduction. You've likely expended your boost during the attack, so your planes are moving slowly. You're trying to turn around, which means your flight path is predictable and thus you're going to fly right into flak bursts .. which you probably can't avoid because your boost is down. If you change your turn rate to avoid flak, you end up spending even more time in the AA bubble finishing the turn. And, at the end of it, you're probably making a sub-standard attack because your turn was either too tight or messed up, and you'll get very little damage even if some planes survived. You're also wasting time getting planes shot down when they could already be heading home and the next squadron flying towards a target.
  14. Aetius2

    Help with AP Bombers

    My experience has been that if the reticle is entirely covered by the ship, the bombs will all hit. If even a little bit of the reticle is off the ship, the RNG will guide one or more of the bombs to the gap, however small. The more of the reticle over empty water, the more bombs will miss. A side attack, for example, will usually result in 0-1 hits. What the bombs *do* when they hit is different. For battleships, you should start your run with the reticle well in front of the ship. Time your attack so that the reticle shrinks quickly, you can drop relatively high, and aim for roughly the first turret. This will cause the bombs to drop straight and into the center of the ship, where you have the best chance of a citadel. For cruisers, get as much of the reticle as you can on the ship and drop low, so that the bombs have less of a chance of overpenning. Your aim point depends on speed - for fast ships you you end up aiming at the bow, or even off the ship depending on how high you drop.
  15. The Sinop is a special case, along with a few others. It's advantage against the Italians is that it has virtually no superstructure, so any SAP that doesn't hit the deck at a good angle or one of the tiny strips of 25mm bow or stern plating will shatter or bounce. You either need to get closer and target the upper bow/stern (dicey) or get further away so that the SAP hits at a reasonable downward angle. The Sinop is actually more vulnerable at long range due to the extensive deck area. Everyone focuses on the penetration of SAP, but I think the real advantage is that SAP doesn't overpen. You can pull off vicious 8-10k salvos on bows or sterns sticking out from behind islands, and you can reliably get 3-5k salvos on even saturated superstructure. The absence of overpens is also why SAP is so effective on destroyers.
×