Jump to content

PEROPERO_MAIKA_STOCKINGS

Beta Testers
  • Content count

    137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2387

Community Reputation

32 Neutral

About PEROPERO_MAIKA_STOCKINGS

  1. Radar breaks the game and needs to be removed

    The only problem with radar is the fact that it goes through solid landmasses. This means a cruiser can camp behind an island, in complete safety, and radar a DD or a cap. Radar needs LoS checks, similar to the spotting mechanism. There is defense available against being spotted by planes. There is no defense against a cruiser sitting behind a mountain and activating radar.
  2. Shima is fine

    That is not the goal of this post. There is no obligation for anyone on this topic to prove that Gearing is superior to the Shima and so Gearing needs nerfs while Shima needs buffs. The OP said the Shima is fine. What most of us arguing for Shima is that Shima is not fine in the current meta. The Gearing being better or worse as a torpedo boat does not matter, seeing as how many people use the excuse that "Shima is, in some metric, not last (to Gearing) so it doesn't need changes". To base an opinion on whether Shima is fine on how Gearing is doing is folly. If WG internal data supports your view, I would fully argue for Gearing buffs on top of Shima buffs. The Gearing being a better or worse torp boat has no real meaning in this discussion. The problem is that Shima, even if it were a better torp boat than Gearing, is still outclassed in the current meta.
  3. Shima is fine

    Great ad hominem. Please quote where i've argued anything about Iowa or nerfing Gearings, especially seeing as how I'm of the belief that both Shima and Gearing need some buff in the current meta. I have never once argued any one of the points you managed to somehow find in my name. You're the one who said there are multiple ways for people to play ships. Following your own logic, if people's playstyle creates significant deviations than raw damage is a bad indicator of comparison due to the HP disparity between classes. Sorry, but I'm not going to blindly assume that there is no significant difference in the playstyle between a ship touted as a torpedo boat with minimal CQC capabilities and another ship that is a jack-of-all trades. You're free to assume that, but this issue's not going to be solved unless WG gives hard data on this.
  4. Shima is fine

    So you basically just said that we shouldn't assume that ships play in a fixed way to advocate for looking at statistical comparisons that assume that ships are played the same way. To use raw damage as comparisons would entail that we assume that the Shima and Gearing are played in the same way.
  5. Shimakaze changes in test: Not addressing the issues.

    Using average damage would assume that Shima and Gearing players have no significant difference in playstyle and so both prey on similar types of ships. IMO, I would be extremely hesitant to assume such things due to the different nature of the ships. What if we have Gearing players more geared towards cap contests? Such player would face more DDs and cruisers. Unlike tanks, there is significant HP disparity between classes. What if most Gearing damage were capped against 20k HP DDs or 40-50k HP CAs? This would deflate the Gearing's average damage numbers. What if most Shima players, eschewing cap contests, went for 100k HP BB snipes? This would inflate damage numbers. This would be like asking to compare the performance of a player who did 40k HP of damage against DDs vs. a player who did 45k HP of damage against BBs. Raw damage alone couldn't possibly start to tell the whole story.
  6. Well, there are a lot of things that don't match with RL in this game. I'm sure you noticed the fact that ships can magically repair catastrophic damage in the span of seconds. Maybe you noticed how there are red triangles giving warnings about torpedoes that didn't exist during WWII. Quite frankly, torps are fine. The only people calling for further nerfs are tunnel visioning BB drivers who can't focus on more than one thing at a time.
  7. Gun Bloom Duration needs changed

    Or you could, you know, move your gun towards where the DD was last spotted, but maybe this is too hard for most BB drivers. What reducing gun bloom would do is prevent a stream of continuous OWSF. If a DD fires once, then re-stealth, the normal reaction should be "so what". A single salvo from a DD's gun is barely a threat and if any DD did something like what you described, they would be wasting minutes just to reposition themselves for a couple hundred points of damage. It's funny because in tanks, this kind of situation happens all the time. You have more agile tanks taking advantage of the slower rotation of TDs and heavy tanks to take potshots. There is skill in knowing when to shoot, how long to shoot, but also in preempting such attacks. The brave drivers of TDs and heavy tanks do this without massive advantage in HP or HP recovery equipment. Yet here, BB drivers are seemingly worried that DDs might take a couple hundred points off from a 90,000 HP pool, all while having repair party consumables.
  8. Why WG do not nerf Khabarovsk?

    This argument might make more sense if we were talking about the Grozovi, but the Khab has been in-game for quite some time in its current state, excluding the buffs in 6.3.
  9. Torpedo table with reaction times

    Even adding in say, 2-3 seconds of "human" delay, that would still be a window of around 11-12 seconds to slow and shift the rudder. Quite frankly, you underestimate how long of a time 12 seconds actually is. With 12 seconds, even the Yamato has ample time to mitigate damage to maybe 1 torp, maybe less seeing as how wide the torp spreads are. The chart also shows that, even adding in 2 seconds of delay would still leave the type 93 at 12 second of reaction time. For the sake of context, most non-IJN DD torp reaction times are in the 7 seconds window. There's a reason why I took off vigilance and TAE in all my ships. With this much reaction time, you would, quite literally, have to be tunnelvisioning to take more than 1 torp.
  10. IJN Kaga stats (SUBJECT TO CHANGE)

    Though it needs mentioning that old Hiryuu played in a different AA environment. Ships with good AA were far less in those days. Quite frankly, I'm skeptical whether 5 squadrons of 2 T6 planes is sufficient to actually do a decent strike against the likes of a NC, Bismarck, or Gneisenau let alone something like Iowa. I see 3/5/0 being more useful against DDs than most BBs the Kaga would face.
  11. IJN Kaga stats (SUBJECT TO CHANGE)

    I must wonder how viable 5 squadrons of 2 T6 TB are against the high AA of high tiers. Even with the Saipan's TB, it's hard to strike against ships without losing 1/2 planes in the process due to the small size. Even with 5 squadrons, I wonder how much would actually be able to make their way to strike against a BB, especially if the BB is smart enough to WASD.
  12. WOWS Q+A 25/3

    Gearing torps are really good, especially with torpedo acceleration skill, but I don’t support the opinion that IJN torpedoes are worse. We may stare at their specs and discuss them, but in the end, IJN DDs do more damage with their torps. Their alpha, speed and flooding chance compensate their higher detectability. Sometimes, I think WG thinks of us as morons. What WG said right here is that IJN torps are, in the end, superior because players get more torp damage in IJN DDs compared to other DDs. This should not come as a surprise seeing as how IJN DDs are a torp-centric line. Of course they would do more torp damage because they rely more on torps than other ships (which he was kind enough to explicitly mention a few sentences down). We also probably have far more IJN DD capts specced for torp gameplay compared to other ships. This is why I would sometimes want a long-form interview with the devs. In this kind of Q and A format, there's really no way to dig further into the responses, especially when WG gives out these kind of politician answers.
  13. Q&A With Sub_Octavian! Actually really interesting...

    I always must wonder where the devs get their numbers. 130,000 top 5% in both Shimakaze and Gearing? On WarshipsToday, even using a minimum of 10 battles all-time, there are exactly no players even 15,000 points close to the 130,000 mark. If what he says is true, then every one of that 5% must be using hidden stats. We also have to remember that the Gearing, and especially the Shimakaze are popular ships, both being with us from CBT. It's a stretch of the imagination to say that every one of those mythical unicums have hidden their stats.
  14. With 0.6.3 coming

    At the end of the day, it's not data, graphs, or models that's important here, it's the players. WG can have all the knowledge it wants, they need to explain to the players about such changes, especially because the players don't have access to such info. This is why WG got such flak by buffing Udaloi and Khab, when the IJN DDs received nerfs in the same exact situation.
  15. Best low tier (I-V) ships after 0.6.0?

    I'm surprised no one mentioned the Arkansas, especially considering that WG is planning on removing manual drops for low tiers. Arkansas has access to all upgrades which further boosts an already formidable 12 shell strike. Her 0 AA will be mitigated by lack of manual drops and rudder modules.
×