Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About kingslapper

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. kingslapper

    BBs suddenly afraid of scratching their paint

    I'm not talking about the bearing lock. I'm talking about setting a ship's turrets to the default ie centerline position with the hull.
  2. kingslapper

    BBs suddenly afraid of scratching their paint

    To me it's hilarious that there's no travel-lock for gun turrets with battleships still. Even though you can just cheat it by waving the mouse back and forth along the ship's direction of travel. So the excuse i've heard that "it's for balance" is groundless.
  3. kingslapper

    CV rockets need a nerf

    1. Give all ships a fighters consumable. 2. Slash carrier HP values down. 3. Move most of the carriers in game down at least 1 tier. 4. Remove rocket bombers completely, there's no grounds for them either from a historic or gameplay perspective. 5. Feature a flight-deck knockout for carriers that auto-cancels all attacks they've sent out and prevents them from launching until repaired. 6. Give carriers control of their guns so they can do more than hide in a map corner.
  4. kingslapper

    CVs have basically disappeared?

    Are AI routines for the game really that hard to program? Why don't they just use a system for generating random encounters and then instruct AI drones with a basic challenge > response system? Heaps of why single player games rise and fall has nothing to do with TEH MEGAFLOPS but really because of the mechanics governing the game's abstractions and play. You can make interesting games that are also efficient games too, as those are not mutually exclusive concepts. This is why board games can work using cards and a pair of dice for instance. Star Wars Armada and Axis and Allies War at Sea were both essentially peers to World of Warships, but on a tabletop. Complete with damage modeling and crippling. Almost all of the DVG games have complete solitaire rulesets for a single player. I dare people to go look up Gato Leader and read the instruction manual to get a sense of how easy it is to program a game that responds back to player input using a 1-10 RNG roll. A single player World of Warships doesn't need to supplant the multiplayer game if what people want is Battleship TDM. I just think it's a shame that all the enormous work they've done in modeling, sound effects, visuals, etc is limited to a rather narrow gameplay system of multiplayer death matches. Branching out with the coop scenarios like harbor attacks and convoy interception was really promising stuff...but it's too exclusive to tiers and clans and the scenarios rely too much on scripting. The present scenarios are not very imaginative either, and it really wouldn't be hard to crack open a few books and see what's possible just by decoupling the game from its slavish devotion to multiplayer game modes. Asset wise the lack of land-based aircraft and airfields is a bit remiss but that's easily substituted with the current (large) selection of naval aircraft appearing from map edges if need be.
  5. kingslapper

    Should WG take action on border riding?

    50% chance you're considered "lost contact" and forfeit the match.
  6. kingslapper

    CVs have basically disappeared?

    I'm not convinced they're making money though, that's the joke. If they are making lots of money they wouldn't feel compelled to sabotage their own free-to-play mechanics all the time. However "free to play" is important to the marketing now so they can't retreat from it either. Hence you have the Premium Shop. The branching out into mobile and consoles is wise but also highlights that the basis of their business model is becoming increasingly untenable as they grow. They're too fixated on competing in the competitive multiplayer game market with a monetization model that is becoming increasingly saturated with competitors. IE: Lootboxes and cosmetics. Some of their competitors in the free-to-play world now are heavy weights like EA and Activision-Blizzard against whom it's suicidial to compete against directly. This all sits on top of their own ever rising business costs in payroll, rents, maintenance etc. I'm not sure what their plans are from here on out, but they should seriously consider developing and publishing a stand alone release of some kind. They've got 3D assets, they've got an engine, they've got all the tools they need to bang out a $60 usd game with a dynamic campaign or proper coop etc that presents them with a market opportunity outside of multiplayer gaming on console or PC or ideally both.
  7. kingslapper

    CVs have basically disappeared?

    When it happens it happens. Otherwise what I said about testing being insufficient and Wargaming's actions and damage control thereafter being bound and limited by its monetization goals is entirely accurate. You didn't really have much to say outside of that other than "na uh". Look im eager to be proven wrong here, but the idea that people would accuse me of falsehoods based on my belief that Wargaming is basing its decision on sensible business decisions is laughable. I kinda feel bad for them they've bound themselves to this really inflexible "free" to play model when they should just be making full games and charging appropriately for it. The idea that they're truly "free to play" is entirely marketing nonsense at this point but I guess they think it works so they're never going to make any decision that endangers the integrity of their income but it should never be claimed honestly that their first priority is making good games when it's clearly making money first.
  8. kingslapper

    CVs have basically disappeared?

    Yes and No. Complicated answer. The "No" of it is that you've just been having some bad draws in matchmaking lately that aren't producing the results you're expecting. They're still in the game, but fewer people are playing them leading to decreasing pools of them in cues as an example. The "Yes" of it is that about a year ago the CV "rework" happened which was actually a soft removal of Carriers from the game. Wargaming couldn't fully remove them because people had already spent money on them and they were treading on dangerous ground doing so, so they just removed half of them and pushed the remaining carriers up into tiers they're unsuitable to be playing in. The other mechanical changes to the class are further designed to make carriers unrewarding and unexciting to play by ensuring the remaining carriers are effectively the same exact ship with the same (groundless) gimmick of featuring enormous and completely unjustified HP values combined with outrageously over powered (but inexplicably short ranged) fighters that just make the prospect of carrier vs carrier fighting completely unappealing to both ships. Carrier controlled fighters were removed and replaced with "attack" aircraft as a sop for moving the remaining carriers into battle tiers they're unsuited for as a soft nerf to their bombers. The rest of the game's surface ships had their player controlled AA removed since it was too distracting to be fighting aircraft and positioning to fight other ships at the same time and it was instead made almost completely automated. This ensures that Carrier play ends up with one viable strategy ie: inflicting minor health debuffs on enemy ships and existing as one kind of reward for the enemy team as a big, easy XP Piggy Bank to crack open. Carriers always, always end up being chased down and killed by a surface ship since they are unable to defend themselves from the smallest enemies (DDs) and unable to evade the biggest enemies (BBs) and are completely unsuitable targets for the other team's carrier. My own theory as to "why" is that Wargaming would much prefer as many people as possible just stopped playing as them so that they show up less and less in matchmaking while still existing to rope money in from the Premium Shop. They were released into the game prematurely and with inadequate testing. I suspect that happened because the hype building up over their release was considerable and so was the potential for sales and new customers. Reality was they proved to be a toxic addition that threatened to completely upend the game's play and discourage long time customers from spending money. The game's monetization system was endangered but removing them also put Wargaming in danger of lawsuit (customers could claim Wargaming had misled them and scammed them by removing content). So it was decided to continue featuring "carriers" while overall reverting the game to the state it was in before they had existed. Wargaming's defense is that content wasn't removed, it was merely patched. It's highly dubious to accuse Wargaming of screwing customers on those grounds, and now carriers are "balanced" in that people are discouraged from playing them and thus showing up more frequently with them in lobbies. But you can still grab Graf Zeppelin in the Premium Store for a 10% discount! The tl:dr of it is that Wargaming wants to remove carriers but couldnt so they removed half of them and pushed what was left into tiers they're not suitable for play in, segregating them from the rest of the game and hopefully discouraging new players from pursuing them altogether.
  9. kingslapper

    BB vs Sub counter play

    For starters, subs starting at the start line with the rest of their fleet makes no sense. Zero navies practiced it (only the IJN made a serious effort) because submarines couldn't keep up with warships well, if anything they should be pre-positioned or placed randomly. How this would work in WoW i'm unsure but in reality...subs had dubious prospects against warships and by far they preferred to stalk merchants and auxiliaries far away from anything resembling a battle. If you thought it was a stretch to feature carriers in a battleship game, you're about to see some shockingly groundless abstractions behind featuring submarines in the middle of fleet battles. In order to make subs viable in a combat environment that would normally be extremely lethal and totally unappealing for them they're going to have make them super powered and we can already see just that. Guided torpedoes from max depth? That sounds appropriate for a Los Angeles Class submarine of the 1970s...not a U-Boat. I'm not totally against them, I always want to see more overall meta in the game, but I want to see it presented meaningfully. Carriers being reduced to nothing but XP Piggy Banks was the inevitable result of the atrociously bad reasoning behind the abstractions governing them. WG keeps trying to put gimmick-ships into the game that'd stand a chance of working if they weren't reliant on their gimmick. I am not in favor of removing carriers, but they clearly don't work. Submarines were many things, merchant raiders was well known, but also auxiliaries, coastal defenses and transports too. They were not warships however and pushing them into a game solely about warships won't work well. You watch. In before the Great Sub-Rework of 2021.
  10. kingslapper

    This Is Why The Lower Tiers SUCK

    If guys could call fighter cover in at the start of a match launching early would mean a much harder match ahead for the launching carrier since he'd have given himself away and achieved nothing for it. The idea for a carrier then would be to look for ships not running their fighters and get hits in when holes open in the network of CAP. Ideally CVs would use these gaps to target each other and concentrate on flight deck knock outs. Once the enemy carrier isn't a factor anymore they can support everyone else in the way the game works for every other class. Crucially giving carriers guns so they're flexible enough to participate in artillery fights would encourage them to participate in captures and not just skulk around at the back of a map. Carriers almost always had as many guns as a Destroyer and frequently more than that too. So there's no reason a 35,000 pt hull should be literally helpless against the smallest ship class in the game. In theory aircraft could still penetrate CAP and get hits, but having multiple ships running multiple CAPs should just about guarantee interception before strike. For a Carrier much of the match would be about careful map study and looking for those holes in the enemy's air defense to squeeze strikes in during cooldowns. Meanwhile loss of own-team's Carrier wouldn't doom your team because everyone on the team is capable of air defense. Air strikes would explicitly be a carrier's capability.
  11. kingslapper

    Come On WG.. CV are so OP

    Totally agree with this. Players basically don't control it, and the choices they have with it are inconsequential because there's only two choices of arc and they recharge fast. It doesn't matter at most tiers you can seriously ignore it, and at the tiers where it matters there's not much you can do anyway. So any kills you get with it feel really unearned. Ive been thinking up a system where AA is divided into quadrants instead of halfs and instead of "activating" an arc to time its Shoryuken at exactly the right time or something you'd use the O key in that arc to "set" the arc's flak burst range and then fire it manually. Inside of each quadrant would be a "far/medium/close" range setting for flak fuses, with a slight delay between switching the ranges in a quadrant. This mechanism could only work for ships with heavy AA though, but it would give players more influence and more stake in their own ship's air defense. Machine guns will always have to be automatic like secondaries I think, and really shouldn't be penalized with firing arcs either. Ultimately the best solution to airplanes is other airplanes, and really all ships should have a fighters consumable. I could see that if the ship is something like an Atlanta class and literally built for airplane killing. I totally agree though that AA needs to be way more granular in the game
  12. kingslapper

    This Is Why The Lower Tiers SUCK

    This is a game with airplanes in it. Any ship without an airplane consumable has no defense against air attack. AA was no solution to air attack, and up until the advent of central control was more like a morale placebo for the ship's crew. After central control it still only became a last resort for a ship's defense. So the abstractions you can use for it in game are limited and easily made excessive or impotent. There's no way you can abstract air defenses defeating air attacks by themselves credibly. It's knives defeating guns every time. It makes no sense.
  13. kingslapper

    Come On WG.. CV are so OP

    I agree like I don't really think it's fair to expect whole ships to be built. However, I think the issue with Carriers that's occurring to me is how indistinguishable they are from each other. They're really all the same ship, so there's no comparison or relative risk with using any of them. It's nowhere near as granular as Nassau vs South Carolina or Tenryu vs St. Louis. Carriers have all the same options of attack, all the same limitations, and all the same stakes. They're the most bland class in the game. Ranger never carried a squadron of torpedo bombers though, and light carriers usually only carried half as many airplanes as a fleet carrier, so they could be limited to only two deployable squadrons. This is also a handy way to give newcomers a taste of carrier ops before they commit mid game and realize they aren't really into the class. The time investment needed to reach the game's first carriers is long. I guarantee you players and thus potentially paying customers have been lost to this grind once they reach carriers and decide, whether they were working right or not, that the class just isn't for them and not how they prefer to play. That's really crushing, and part of the way the other ships mitigate that is by easing players into different classes early on to imply what's in store down that line. With carriers you get no warning. Once you're in on Langley or Hermes or Hosho you're in. I'm sure people have left over it.
  14. kingslapper

    Come On WG.. CV are so OP

    Because there's no spread over the tech tree in a sensible way. Every class of ship becomes available for play around T2-T3...except carriers and really this is because the selection of carriers in the game is too limited. There needs to be escort carriers, light carriers, seaplane tenders, etc to give carriers, which were far more than one single class of ship, a lot more context and freeing up room for balance. More types of carriers wouldn't necessarily endanger the other classes as much as it would endanger the Carrier-class itself. That however, would only be true if Carriers could seriously counter Carriers. They can't, so people attack the rest of the ship classes because they're easier kills and it helps your team more. Since these things require development resources, some considerably, im not prepared to advocate for them seriously. However the way carriers are implemented into the tech tree is really unsustainable. Key thing to remember about anti-aircraft is that it wasn't the solution to the airplane. The airplane was the solution to the airplane, anti-aircraft fire was the 2nd line of defense so ships missing anti-aircraft weaponry in the initial tiers would not be a serious limitation if they could call in their own air cover. Even if its crappy biplanes something is better than nothing. That's how it'd work the whole way up the tree. The thing carriers bring to the battle is bombers, but for the player in the carrier he has to think about his strikes or all he'd be doing is giving the other team easy points to farm.
  15. kingslapper

    Come On WG.. CV are so OP

    They're overpowered because they cannot hard counter themselves. Carriers can just ignore each other because their health pools are ridiculous and they can't disable flight decks. I can think of all kinds of solutions to the problems with CVs that would be fairly drastic, but the easiest solution requiring a minimum of development resources would simply be to give all ships a fighters-consumable that would stop carriers from crippling someone at the start of a game. Push early game carriers like Langley and Hosho down to T2-T3 and cut their stupid huge HP pools in half and let players steering the ships control their damn guns. Once the airplane showed up it became commonly accepted that ships could only operate safely in environments where they had air cover. If you want carriers in the game you need to standardize aircraft availability for all ships, or you end up in this circular and caustic balance battle that will never be resolved, will endlessly consume and waste development resources, and will discourage players from spending money on the game or remaining with it.