Jump to content


Beta Testers
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

61 Good

About axyarthur

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Physics, Math, Music, History

Recent Profile Visitors

432 profile views
  1. Tier X meta is very disappointing

    The fundamental issue is that as ships gets higher tier, their offensive capability grows far more than their defensive capability. In lower tiers, being overextended or caught in bad position is not a death sentence, but at T10, with ships wielding so much firepower, any mistake is punished much more harshly. Even when you're not doing anything wrong, simply bad (or good, depending on perspective) RNG in a salvo can basically end your game. So if we want to change the camping meta at T10, the offensive capability of all ships need to be toned down. But who really wants that? the point of playing T10 for most people is so they enjoy landing massive devastating strike salvos, whether guns or torps or airstrikes. Ships are "fun" because they can do a lot of damage, more fun if done quickly. Ironically, this "fun" factor also makes people super cautious because they do not want to be on the receiving end of someone else's "fun" package, and if everyone is cautious, there is the camping meta. So I don't know how to change the camping meta without some fundamental changes to basic game mechanics. That ship has long sailed. All we can do is brave it best we can.
  2. Dev Diary and BB protection

    too many dds is not just annoying for BBs, it is also annoying for some DDs, especially if you're bottom tier DD or IJN Torp DD. Also, this only applies to first 3 mins of MM time, so you will still have rare games with more dds if there are a lot of them in the MM queue the torpedo warning changes just makes it less annoying for captains overall. If you're DD, it makes no sense to get warning for deep water torps when they can't harm you. If you're not careful, warning or not, you will still get hit
  3. Ultimate kill steal

    you know what would be an actual achievement? doing 1 hp damage kills 5 times in a game and get kraken with 5 damage total. Would love to see something like that!
  4. I had 9 in Tenyu, a long time ago. I just hit a lot of random torps.
  5. You still don't get my point. My point is that even if you did not take SE, and take other skills such as BoS, you will in the course of the battle, save more than 3500 hp such that the same shell that would have killed you if you had not taken SE, will not kill you, because you would have more than 3500 hp left when that shell hit. Then what you described that happens, getting an heal and doing more damage, will still occur, without having the need to take SE at all. Please reread my last post and try to understand what I am trying to say. I'm not saying that SE will not save you from that last shell, I'm saying that other skills will save you hp before that last shell, possibly more than the 3500 that you will gain from SE, such that the last shell still would not kill you. Yes, no skill will be effective 100% of the time, but looking at what is most likely to happen in the course of a battle, getting protection from fire, or torpedoes, or aircraft, is more useful than have that extra 3500 hp, when most damaging hits you will received is more than that number.
  6. Easily. Ok, so you took SE, and it saved your from that last shell that hit you. Have you considered what happened in that battle before that last shell hit? That is the trap that most people who think SE is useful falls into. They placed too much emphasis on that last 3500 hp and failed to look at what happened before that last shell. Keep in mind, the question here is not whether SE is useful over not taking any T3 skill, because taking SE prevents you from taking other T3 skills, so we are comparing case when you took SE to when you took another T3 skill such as BoS, VI, etc... If you had taken another T3 skill instead of SE, chances are, you already saved more than 3500 hp prior to that last shell hitting you, and you would've survived anyway. For example, if you had taken BoS, and had been set on fire twice and had to burn for those full duration, you would have taken 6660 less fire damage. (based on math in my previous post) So instead of having 3500 extra health when that last shell lands, you would've had 6660 extra health, and would not have died. Similarly, if you had taken vigilance and had taken 1 less torpedo than you would have otherwise, and suppose that torp does 10,000 damage (all T8 - T10 dd torps do more damage than this) and you have 50% torp belt protection (most T10 BBs don't have this high torp belt reduction), that is still 5000 hp that you saved when that last shell hits. Again, you would have had 5000 health instead of 3500, and not died to that last shell. The point is, the benefit you get from SE is only good for that last shell hit. From the moment you start taking hits to right before that last shell, SE is completely useless. But taking skills such as BoS or Vig. have benefits throughout the battle, letting you mitigate damage so that the actual amount of health saved throughout the match will generally greatly exceed 3500. SI is somewhat different. Like SE, SI is only useful if you get that last heal off. But the benefit of having that extra heal is so much greater than the extra 3500 hp that SI is still superior to SE. Not to mention if you have RN super heal, or if you need extra charge on consumables such as hydro or speed boost on German or French BBs. I hope this explanation helps you understand why the extra 3500 hp is really not worth it for the loss of having other skills that enhances your survivability. Again, I think the problem is that people placed too much emphasis on that last 3500 hp. Your first 3500 hp is worth exactly the same as your last 3500 hp. Instead of wasting points on having extra 3500 hp, use those points to enhance your survivability so that you take more than 3500 hp less damage through the course of the battle, and you end up with more hp left to survive that last shell that kills you for 3500 hp.
  7. Montana

    each BB has its own role. I don't think any one is actually bad, but if you like the montana over the rest of the pack, that is certainly fine. I haven't played her yet, but when I'm in cruiser or dd, monty is the T10 BB I fear the most, especially in the hands of a player with good aim.
  8. People that argues that SE is viable on a BB misses the point, and/or is bad at math. Objectively, SE provides less benefit and save less health than any of the other 3 point skills (non-torpedo or aircraft related) available to a BB. So let me do some math for people who still thinks SE is a good option on a BB: assume T10 battle ship has 100,000 health. I know it's not the actual health of any T10 BB, but pretend it is just to make calculations easier. taking SE increases that by 3500, so you have 103,500 health. That is an increase of 3500 / 100000 * 100 = 3.5% Activating a heal heals 0.5% of HP for 28s, so 1 heal heals 14% of ship's health. supposed you used 3 heals in a battle, that is 42% of max recoverable health. without SE, the max health recoverable on our T10 BB is 100,000 * 0.42 = 42,000 with SE, the max health recoverable is 103,500 * 0.42 = 43,470, that is an increase of 1,470, or 1.47% of total health. Basically, you only healed 1.47% more health over 3 heals than you would have if you did not take SE. suppose you take Superintendent instead, so now you have 4 heals. That increases your total recoverable health to 56% of max HP = 100,000 * 0.56 = 56,000, which is over 14,000 better than base case and 12,530 better than taking SE. Taking SI gives you better than 12% more recoverable health than you would if you had taken SE. That is far more beneficial than the 3.5% increase in total health or 1.47% increase in recoverable health you get by taking SE. Now, suppose you take basics of survivability instead. And assume you get set on fire 1 time in the course of a game. fire ticks for 60s, and burns 0.3% of HP/s, so you take 18% HP damage. if you don't take SE, you lose 18,000 HP to that one fire, but if you take SE, you lose 18630 HP to that fire. That is an increase of 630 HP. Now, your increase in recoverable health for 1 heal is 1470 / 3 = 490. That means that your 1 heal will now heal less percentage of health loss to a fire than before. So you are actually worse off taking SE than not! Taking it further, suppose you get burn 3 times for full duration, that means you lose 630 * 3 = 1890 more health if you take SE, but you only heal 1470 more, that is 420 health loss for taking SE compare to base case. Imagine if you had been set on fire multiple times and with multiple fires. If you take BoS, fire duration is now at 51s, so for 1 fire, you burn 15.3% of HP. So you will lose 15300 HP to that fire, that is 3330 HP less than taking SE. already in 1 fire you basically lose all the benefit you get by taking SE. If you get set on fire multiple times, which is likely, BoS will save you much more HP than SE. The other two skills, Basic fire training and vigilance is harder to quantify. But imagine you spot a torp salvo earlier due to having vigilance and take only 1 instead of 2 or 3 torps. That alone will save you more than 3500 health. Also imagine in a CV game you take BFT, and over course of a game you shoot down 1 more torp or dive bomber before they are able to drop their weapons. Again, that would probably save you more than 3500 health. so in conclusion, if you actually look at the math involved, taking SE in a BB is a very wasteful use of 3 points, and in some cases you are actually worse off, so you might as well take CV skill or torp reload. hope this helps people realize why taking SE is a bad idea. it's not about different builds or trying something new, it is mathematically demonstratively worse than skills like BoS, BFT, SI and Vigilance.
  9. New Bote: USS Wichita

    This will be interesting if they give her worse reload than baltimore, but let her have a heal, sort of like hipper / prinz eugen. Right now, I would rather play the baltimore than this, simply because of the rpm. Or, take away the radar, give her option to mount main battery reload.
  10. Republique consumable bug?

    are you resupplying with gold or credits? make sure you are not low in the one you are buying the consumables with. Also, in the after-battle screen, check if credits are spent resupplying consumables.
  11. they *might refund XP and credits used on CVs, in addition to premiums. Nothing is certain, of course, so don't count on that. The logic of grinding tech tree CVs to get XP so you can get said XP refunded seems ill-advised. Assuming they refund 100% of XP on CVs, it's likely they will transfer them to T1 tech tree ship. I really don't think they will refund them as free XP. So if they're going to just give you XP on T1 ships, why don't you just play the ships you actually need XP for and get XP on them now, instead of wasting time play CVs?
  12. Question About Legendary Upgrades

    there's only end date for technical reasons. It will be updated continuous so effectively there's no end date
  13. I am New 13 Random battles

    You gave good advice in your post, but personally, I would not start with UK BBs. Their HE shooting playstyle can get new players into bad habits that will not translate into other BB lines. Similarly with the Germans. They are very forgiving in giving broadsides, which again get new players into bad habits that will get punish in other lines. For new BB lines, I think the IJN is the best. They have good guns, decent accuracy, and decent speed. You are tough enough when angled, and are more resistant to HE spam than the French or the British. Once you learn how to play IJN BB properly, you can easily translate those skills to other lines with minor adjustments. For new cruiser players, the French is a good choice as people have suggested. Also good is IJN. They have the most consistent playstyle throughout the line from T5 all the way to T10. Other nations may have significant changes when their ships go from light to heavy guns or from squishy to tougher ships, but the IJN is very similar all the way through.
  14. first, DO NOT use 6 km torps. They are completely useless for you since you have no guns (to speak of) and rely on torps to do damage and using 6km torps requires you to close to suicidal range to use them, not good for your health. For general tips, mid tier dds are the toughest, especially if you don't have 10 pt captain. Try to focus on torping BBs from stealth and spotting for your team. Contest caps if it's safe, and don't overextend. You should have small detection advantage over most gunboat dds (unless they have concealment expert and you don't), so you can avoid them and just spot them for your team to kill. Also, use your smoke as mostly defensive tool to escape, not to shoot from, as your guns are just not that good, and smokes are torp magnets.
  15. The next Season of Rank

    Tier 4 is a bit too low for "competitive" game play, I think minimum should be T6. I think the reason they don't wan to go to T7 or T8 as in previous seasons is the presence of several high performance premium ships in those tiers that would break the balance of those tiers and make it less enjoyable for people who don't have those ships. well, in certain card games, in competitive mode, there are "banned cards list" which specified which cards cannot be used due to their being too powerful. Well, why not have similar idea in Rank? If they want to do T7 or T8 rank, just make a short list of few premium ships (that cannot be currently bought anyway) that people can't use. The three most obvious to me are Belfast in T7, and Loyang and Kutuzov in T8 (OPness of Kutuzov is debatable now with so many radar ships). That way the game is not decided by who has the most OP premium ships on their team.