Jump to content

axyarthur

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    263
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    9813
  • Clan

    [PNG]

Community Reputation

111 Valued poster

About axyarthur

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia
    [PNG]

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

593 profile views
  1. Below are some small changes I like to see so the gaming experience can be better. 1. when replenishing premium consumables with credits, allowed user to choose individual consumables to replenish with credits. i.e. I am using both premium damage control and spotting aircraft, but I always want to have premium dam con even if I have to spend credits, but I only want refill premium spotting aircraft if I have them in my inventory, once those run out, do not spend credits to buy new ones but use regular spotting aircraft instead. Right now you have to keep track of how many premium scouts have and turn off replenishment when you have 1 left, then re-equip premium damage con the next game. it's easy to forget and either spend extra credits or go into game with regular dam con because you forgot to re-equip the premium version 2. same as number 1 for flags 3. for economy flags, the "replenish with gold" option should be defaulted to off 4. like mounting flags, and camo, allow us to preview of ship stats when mounting upgrades, before we click to buy them. If I'm deciding between range or reload mod in the last slot, I like to know what range or reload will I have before buying the 3 mil upgrade. 5. Can we remove AA deadzones on some ships? i.e. some ships will have medium AA, but no close-in AA, or long-range AA but no medium AA. Just fill in the gap with the AA values of the next ring of AA. So if short range AA is missing, use the continous damage of the med-range AA, you can even add a penalty, like 60-70% of midrange AA, to represent less effectiveness of these guns to engage close-in targets. Similarly, if mid-range AA is missing, fill in with flak and continuous damage for long range AA. Number of flak same, but burst damage and continuous damage decrease to 60-70% as in short range case.
  2. "alpha tester' just means he started playing the game during alpha testing stage, doesn't mean he is any more knowledgeable regarding any news on the game than rest of us now.
  3. axyarthur

    Flip KGV and Monarch

    What monarch needs is better gun performance. Right now fighting against a Monarch you don't feel threatened at all. Its AP is probably worst at its tier, it's HE is good, but only slightly better than IJN or US BB HE. One of the problem is that the guns are not consistent, it needs better dispersion. Maybe simply increasing the sigma by 0.1 to 0.2 would suffice.
  4. axyarthur

    Another shiratsuyu question

    Running with no smoke in current CV heavy meta is too risky, in my opinion. I used to really love shiratsuyu when it can mount both smoke and TRB, but since they took away that option, Akatsuki is definitely the better IJN dd at T7, with better gun power, more torps which reloads faster. The only advantage Shira has is concealment.
  5. axyarthur

    Ships not doing there role

    When I play cruiser, I do try to kill dds, but sometimes that is not possible or advisable. To reliably hit those dds, I would need to get closer, and if there's a lot of enemy BBs around, opening fire is an invitation for all those BBs to switch their guns on me and delete me from the game. So sometimes I would stay further back and focus on HE spamming BBs instead.
  6. I would not say it's a "must have". It is a nice skill for mid-tier dds to get past 25mm threshold, but 4 points is kind of costly. It competes with skills like survivability expert, BFT, SI, even RPF. I never take IFHE for dds except for Akizuki - Kitakaze because I find other skills are more useful.
  7. axyarthur

    (yet another) CV proposal thread

    I am curious as to the extent of your objections. Do you only disagree with the extent of my "nerfs", or you think that no changes are necessary and CV - surface ship (esp. dd) interactions are fine as they are? Is there any one of the items I suggested that you will be willing to accept? Let me offer some alternatives: 1. We keep the current damage of rockets / bombs / torps as well as mode of attack, and only change the spotting mechanic regarding dive / torp bombers, is that acceptable? Are you willing to accept that only 1 type of your squadrons can effectively spot dds? or 2. We keep the mode of attack for planes, and nerf rocket damage, but increase bomb / torp damage to compensate, in addition to change of the spotting mechanic, is that acceptable? Sure you won't be able to damage DDs as effectively, but your damage against cruisers and bbs will increase. What do you think about infinite planes (ie, you will always take off with full squads) with cooldown between strikes? What do you think about fighter consumable deployable on map? What do you think about improving effectiveness of DFAA? I would like your opinion on each of these options. You accused me of handing out "bad, biased and utterly punishing nerf" to CVs, so let's negotiate. What, if any, limitations are you willing to accept in the CV's ability to deal with dds? You mentioned radar cruisers, sure they are very punishing for dds, but it's much easier to escape from a radar cruiser than from CV planes. If you are 12.1 km from any radar cruiser, you will be safe from him, but you can be 30km from a CV and he can spot you just effectively as if you were 10 km away. Also keep in mind that radared targets now have delayed spotting for rest of team, where as CV don't. I don't like this mechanic so I didn't suggest it for CVs, but people have suggested adding this mechanic to CV spotting as well, or even that dds spotted by planes be only visible to CV player. Is one of those options something you can support?
  8. axyarthur

    (yet another) CV proposal thread

    That is probably true, and I do deal with it every game in my surface ships. But I think the negativity towards CV as a class is making the community more toxic and is detrimental to the game. Surely we want to improve that, for a game we care about, right?
  9. axyarthur

    (yet another) CV proposal thread

    You are right I don't play CVs, but I have played against CVs in all other ship classes. My main goal is to make playing against CVs less frustrating, while allowing CVs to retain their scouting and striking potential. I never intend all my suggestions to be implemented in game as written, and of course balance and testing need to apply. When designing mechanics for a ship class, you not only have to consider gameplay from the perspective of that class, but also how other classes interact with it. Right now the CV mechanics are designed in such as way that it is not fun or engaging to play against it. 1. Can you explain why "it would not work"? CV have unique ability to provide scouting over entire map. And it also has ability to deliver damage anywhere on the map. Why must it be able to do these two things at the same time? 3. Of course the number of torps / bombs and damage over each torp / bomb will need to be adjusted. Number of planes in each squadron can also be adjusted. Like I said, my suggestions are only preliminary, and all kind of testing need to be done to finalize the actual numbers. RTS CV dropped the whole squadron at same time, and CV players were fine with it, why not in the current mode as well? 4. If people want infinite planes, fine, give CV infinite planes. But, after each strike, introduce a cool-down (1-2 mins) where CV cannot launch any strikes. This is fair as people bring up infinite torps for dds, well, if torps have 1-2 min reload, you can have no problem with planes having similar reload, right? In fact, with my system of separating aircraft into scout vs. strike planes. We can make it so that scout (rocket) planes don't have this reload (or a much shorter one), while strike aircraft have the longer cooldown. 5. So you don't think it's really inconvenient for CV to deploy fighters when you are striking targets on other side of map, and your teammate needs fighter protection? the bigger engagement area and intercept times can be adjusted in my model as well. Currently, there's really no incentive for CVs to play against each other and deny each other the opportunity to attack their team, since doing so means you have to sacrifice your own strike ability. 6. Shorter cooldown and increase in DPS amount are possible solutions for DFAA. Like I said, I believe DFAA in its current form is not really a deterrent, not to mention if activated too early, CV can simply fly its squad out and wait for end of it. So you either wait for CV to commit, which means that effectively, you only get a few seconds of increased damage before CV drops ordinance, or you just wasted a DFAA because CV sees the activation on approach and just turns away. The overall concept of my proposal is that at any given time, a CV has to choose between scouting and dealing damage. Right now, CVs are frustrating to play against because they largely negate most concealment builds, while at the same time can deal substantial amount of damage. The way that damage is dealt by CVs is also annoying. Since AA is basically automated (sure you press 1 key to change sectors or another to use DFAA, but that's it), the only way to actively counter CV attacking you it is to maneuver. well, you dodge first attack, congrats, but CV still have 1-2 more attacks with same squadron. So from a surface ship perspective, I would rather give CV more alpha in their strike, but just limit to 1 strike per squadron, so either I get hit and lose health or I dodged and don't have to worry about another strike for a while. Either way, just get your attack in and be done with it. Coming back to the scouting issue, currently, CVs counter DDs on 3 fronts, simply scouting by aircraft, actually attack / damage by aircraft, and attack by friendly ships due to CV scouting. That is simply too constraining for DDs. So my proposal seek to eliminate 1 of those 3 threats. If the dd is in stealth, then CV can counter it by scouting it and allowing friendly ships to shoot at it. If the dd is spotted by something else already, you can deal direct damage to it with your bombers or not allow it to go back into concealment with plane spotting. Sure it will be difficult for CV players to deal direct damage to unspotted DDs by itself, but given how powerful CV is, this one weakness is acceptable. You can rely on your teammates to damage it just as surface ships need to rely on each other's AA to effectively counter air strikes. My proposal also makes downtier CVs more profitable, as I suggest that CV be given special spotting damage XP so that spotting damage counts equal to actual damage for XP gain. So even if low tier CV cannot strike effectively against high tier AA, they can still contribute by scouting. Another possibility is to give greater rewards for protecting your teammates, like 1 plane shot down by your fighters is same as 1k damage, etc. I want to point out that I never intend to "nerf" CV. Unlike the people who thinks CVs should be removed from the game, I think CV does have an important role to play in this game, and should stay. But CV players must accept that CV in its current form is not well received by rest of player base and some changes have to be made. If we can make CV not only fun to play, but not so frustrating to play against, we won't have the situation where CV are thought of as a disease to the game and people won't celebrate and pray for no CV games in their surface ships.
  10. axyarthur

    (yet another) CV proposal thread

    Actually, I don't think CVs are OP per se, but just annoying and frustrating to play against. So the changes I made hopefully will improve that. My version of CVs will be less frustrating for surface ships because you only have to dodge 1 attack per squadron, and DDs will be less annoyed because when CV spots you with his rocket planes he also cannot take off half your health at the same time. you will still be shot at by rest of team, so CV is still a threat to you, just not overwhelmingly so.
  11. axyarthur

    (yet another) CV proposal thread

    yeah, this needs testing, i'm just taking numbers off top of my head. But I do feel DFAA currently is lackluster. The increase in flak burst damage is meaningless because if you don't get hit by flak, no damage is done and if you do get hit, flak damage is already really high so the extra damage is redundant. The extra continuous damage is nice, but doesn't really feel effective enough. Perhaps only +50% to continuous damage in exchange for the buffs I added?
  12. axyarthur

    (yet another) CV proposal thread

    Actually, I forgot to mention one important detail in my piece. Increase spotting damage XP for CVs. Make it so that if you do 1 point of spotting damage in a CV, you get same XP as if you do 1 point of damage yourself.
  13. axyarthur

    (yet another) CV proposal thread

    I meant that a DD is unlikely to survive encounter with Mino / Worcester, when he is surprised by them, which is considered fine. So in your case, if you in a CV gets surprise by shima and you don't survive, I don't see a problem with that. Regarding ineffectiveness of CV in dealing direct damage to DDs, I think it could be a valid trade-off. In the game, different ships have different roles and it's ok if some ships don't perform certain roles well. In my version of CV, they are good at scouting with rocket planes, and dealing damage to cruisers and BBs with bombers. Because they can already negate DD's best weapon of concealment (from anywhere on the map, mind you, something no other class can do), lacking the ability to heavily damage them might be ok. In exchange, the bomb and torp damage from bombers can be adjusted so that the alpha strike potential for CVs is potent again. Regarding CV maneuverability, yes I agree that is a problem. If only we can manually control ship movement in CVs...
  14. axyarthur

    (yet another) CV proposal thread

    You use one of the best AA ships as your example, on average ships will not be as potent. But even for the DM, is the effect I proposed that effective? DM puts out 10-11 flak bursts per salvo? so activate DFAA, gets +20%, so becomes 12-13 bursts. accuracy is 80%? so +20% means 80*1.2 = 96%. I don't see how that is so overwhelming. Keep in mind that most cruisers only have 6-8 flak bursts, so +20% only add 1 - 2 more bursts. USA have most accurate AA anyway at around 80%, Mino have higher accuracy, but it can't use DFAA. So with +20% accuracy, most ships will not exceed 95-96% for USA ships
  15. axyarthur

    (yet another) CV proposal thread

    In such a case, I would argue the dd is wasting his time and not helping the team. Even if you think such a move is valuable and you get killed by said dd, I don't see problem with it. This is a game where positioning is important, why should CV be exempt from positioning mistakes? If you encounter such a situation then either you or your teammates have made mistakes allow the situation to happen. Think about it, in 1 v. 1 fight, CV will win against most other ship classes (cruisers and BBs), is it so bad to allow a CV to lose in 1 v. 1 against one particular class. Isn't the same as a cruiser being surprised by a BB, or a dd jumped by a Mino or Worcester. Plus, CV can already negate the effectiveness of DDs in a team setting simply by spotting them.
×