Jump to content

XxX_BlindSide_XxX

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    9592
  • Clan

    [KTFO]

Community Reputation

226 Valued poster

About XxX_BlindSide_XxX

Recent Profile Visitors

535 profile views
  1. XxX_BlindSide_XxX

    IFHE change is trash

    Please explain, if CAs are so weak against CLs, why: Cruisers across all nations at tier 10: Top 5 cruisers at tier 10 non-premium tech tree only. If I were to include ALL "cruisers" this would also have to include the super cruisers and then it gets even WORSE for the CLs Average Damage: No CLs 1. Venezia 2. Goliath 3. Henri IV 4. Zao 5. Hindenburg Win Rate: 4 CAs 1 CL 1. Goliath 2. Venezia 3. Henri IV 4. Moskva 5. Worcester Avg Kills: 4 CAs 1 CL (something a CL SHOULD excel at...kill securing) 1. Venezia 2. Minotaur 3. Henri IV 4. Goliath 5. Zao Avg K/D: 4 CAs 1 CL 1. Venezia 2. Goliath 3. Henri IV 4. Zao 5. Minotaur SO as you can see for the 4 big categories 3 of the 20 spots were CL's, the rest CA's If I include ALL cruisers the Smolensk is only 6th place for average damage, The Colbert makes it to 5th place as the best win rate and average kills and K/D for CLs. Perception contrary to popular belief is NOT reality when it comes to numbers. Lets put it into perspective. The Venezia with a 20 second reload and no fires does 10,000 MORE average damage than the Smolensk does with its 4 second reload and thats BEFORE the IFHE nerf. The Venezia averages 250 MORE XP, has a 3% greater win rate, shoots down MORE planes, kills more ships and has a much higher KD than the Smolensk. How exactly is the CL overpowered?
  2. XxX_BlindSide_XxX

    IFHE change is trash

    you are forgetting something very important. 4.5% chance is only YOUR chance to cause a fire. That doesn't take into account the automatic fire resistance of tier 10's + fire resistance skills/modules(quick math equals about a 1.5% effective fire chance for EACH shell). EACH shell that hits the target assuming it hits a target in the correct spot i.e. no fires are already present has only a 1.5% chance to start a fire. If you hit a ship with 16 shells in a perfect salvo that doesn't mean you have an 24% chance (16 x 1.5%) to cause a fire. Think about that...take a 66 sided dice and roll it 16 times...each time it comes up with a 1 you get a fire IF the spot it hits isn't already on fire...pretty slim odds. Put those together and yup yer chances are causing a fire are probably 1 in 66 for EACH shell if YOUR base chance is only 4.5%. Now for more fun. Take into account: has the target used repair party and its still active? Is the spot you hit already on fire? Does your target have the skill that reduces maximum number of fires...add it all up and I can EASILY see you having games with that many hits and no fires based on that fire chance. As for BBs...spec tank, if you spec glass cannon then that's on you. Don't blame the guns for causing tons of fires on your ship. Blame your captain for not having the counter fire skills/modules to DRAMATICALLY limit the amount of fires and damage they can inflict. If I can spec my cruiser to inflict high fire damage to YOUR ship why wouldn't YOU protect yourself from it as best you can. The IFHE nerf has completely wrecked many cruisers and destroyers. IFHE was always a trade off. Being able to pen targets more reliably for base damage at the cost of causing fewer fires. Take IFHE away and some cruisers and DDs will get ZERO damage EXCEPT fires against most targets since all their shells will just shatter. Before you talk about "just aim for superstructure" do not forget about saturation. Being able to pen deck plating was the only reliable way late game for many cruisers to continue to get damage in the match after the superstructure was saturated. As a Minotaur captain how fun it is to fight an aircraft carrier after its become saturated. PS if I had a choice in my BB of getting shot at between the Smolensk, Colbert or Zao and Henri give me the Smolensk, Colbert ANYDAY. Ill take their fire damage just don't give me the high alpha AND fire damage caused by the Zao/Henri. Zao/Henri - Railguns with high alpha AND high fire chance vs moonshots/shatters at range from Smolensk/Colbert. A Zao or Henri at long range kiting...shudders. A Smolensk/Colbert I can overmatch...smiles. There is nothing more fun than 1 shotting a Smolensk sitting in smoke. There is nothing LESS fun than being on the receiving end of a Zao/Henri kiting and focusing you...No IFHE required. This is one more example of WG acceding to players perceptions vs the reality. Biggest fire ships (just my opinion. Other ships cause fires but when I see these I think oh dang...here comes the blazes) at tier 10 based off memory and lets face it...im old so correct me if im wrong lol. These aren't in any particular order. Conqueror (no IFHE needed) insane penetration already Zao - no IFHE 34mm penetration Henri - no IFHE 40mm penetration Smolensk/Khabarovsk - IFHE was a must if you wanted to pen deck armor of lighter targets (larger guns than harugumo but less effective pen) 22mm penetration w/o IFHE 29 mm penetration with IFHE Harugumo - IFHE not really necessary but still useful 26mm penetration (last I checked all IJN dd 100mm guns had effectively same pen as 155mm correct me if im wrong again going off memory) Worchester - IFHE (larger guns than harugumo but less effective pen) 25mm penetration Des Moines - No IFHE 34mm penetration of all those ships including a destroyer only the 2 CLs and the Khab could not pen the deck armor of a typical high tier cruiser with HE without using IFHE. So the only ones the IFHE nerf is going to really affect are those ships that actually NEEDED IFHE to make them viable. I think in the near future we are going to see the average damage for CLs at high tiers plummet and considering they already only have 2 or 3 ships in the top 10 for average cruiser damage without 1 being in the top 5 that isn't a good thing. The Henry averages 84k damage a battle, 5k more than the Smolensk, 8k more than Colbert and 18k more than Worcester and thats not counting the super cruisers...light cruisers are pushed even further down the ladder if you include them. Across all classes the Smolensk comes in at a dismal 17th place just among tier 10s for average damage and thats the first CL to make the list and it comes in at 25th out of 35 for average win rate.
  3. XxX_BlindSide_XxX

    Unsporting Conduct - Allied Aircraft Destroyed

    Okay, glad i'm not the only one this has happened to. Just happened to me running my Tirpitz with NO allied CVs in the battle....it seems my AA shot down a spotter plane.... um yeah..... this is now apparently a thing.... GJ wargaming....you managed to take RNG to an entirely new level of suck.
  4. XxX_BlindSide_XxX

    Unable to view post battle results

    Ive reset my router many times to try and fix this issue. Do you mean reset to factory defaults?
  5. XxX_BlindSide_XxX

    KareBear CO-OP AI issue/Whining wall of text

    Oh well two more that are in life for the participation trophies. You want things easy, got it. You don't want to be challenged, got it. May I suggest solitaire?
  6. XxX_BlindSide_XxX

    KareBear CO-OP AI issue/Whining wall of text

    Oh well time to close the post. Once the memes come out adding zero to the discussion its pointless to continue. If you bothered reading the replies many others wrote it would have made perfect sense. To be perfectly honest even if you had just read the entirety of the reply you quoted you would have understood the intent behind it but reading is hard memes are easy.
  7. XxX_BlindSide_XxX

    KareBear CO-OP AI issue/Whining wall of text

    "A harder version of PvE." implies there is already some level of difficulty to it. I believe that if you make CO-OP more attractive to more players by making the BOTs smarter and more engaging then the PVE player base will increase meaning fewer 1 vs 15 bot matches like I just had at prime time in a tier 10...(easy win btw). PS...I was quite proud of the title :P
  8. XxX_BlindSide_XxX

    the state of MM ruining games.

    And how long should our queue time be for all this? The number of times I have seen MMM be wrong is at least equal to the number of times I have seen it right so what good is it other than to be used as fuel for the toxic chat machine?
  9. XxX_BlindSide_XxX

    the state of MM ruining games.

    You go after the unicum on red which can lead you to not doing what you should be doing in order to do it. Double edged sword. Long ago I cared only about my stats to the point that I made it to the vaunted purple status. I used MMM and would RAGE when I saw nothing but red on my team and knew I would likely have to carry...I stressed, I cursed...I was toxic....then I deleted MMM. Quit caring so much about my stats and started to have fun. I was a marginal unicum to begin with and I have slipped far from that position now but I smile a lot more...I still curse a lot and I can still be toxic...but hey! At least I am not nearly as stressed as I used to be ;) All because I uninstalled that terrible...TERRIBLE mod. Look at some of the best players in the game (insert your favorite contributor here). How many of their videos do you see them using it?
  10. XxX_BlindSide_XxX

    the state of MM ruining games.

    I won't be dragged into the Karebear argument that all players are created equal. Sad fact is, in game, as in life, some people are simply better at some things than others. I doubt you will find many good players that would agree that getting to 60% is simply luck...
  11. XxX_BlindSide_XxX

    KareBear CO-OP AI issue/Whining wall of text

    So what I gather is folks like having 99% win rates in CO-OP? If there is nearly no chance of ever losing whats the point in playing? You may as well play solitaire after making sure that every card that's turned over is the one that's needed...There is ZERO challenge to CO-OP. Perfect example was last night...it was me and 15 bots....easy win. I understand folks out there don't always like a lot of challenge but NO challenge? Right now CO-OP is good for 1 thing and that is finishing missions quickly. I am not saying CO-OP is bad for the game, by all means a lot of the toxicity evaporates in PVE. If CO-OP was even moderately challenging it would make it far MORE interesting to play and I would probably find myself playing it more. My dad taught me something when I was very young; if it's worth doing, do it right. Don't half-bleep it. Maybe if it WAS more challenging CO-OP folks would finally earn some XP instead of complaining about how little they got as they have in the past. I for one, as a primarily PVPer, would LOVE to see CO-OP actually teach the basics of the game as someone suggested above but it doesn't. It teaches you how to beat up on moronic bots with no self-preservation and that's it like some ship based version of whack-a-mole. There was another game in the tank realm very similar to WOT where it was obvious the developers spent a bit with the AI because you could often forget you were fighting BOTs. It made the PVE world there so enjoyable I never even considered going into the PVP side of it even though I have been a life long PVPer. What I am suggesting and have suggested is that WG fix CO-OP here by making the bots "smarter" to make it fun enough that MORE folks would enjoy playing it...or do you like going 1 vs 15 against bots?
  12. XxX_BlindSide_XxX

    the state of MM ruining games.

    Im not Crucis but there would be several ways to measure a skill but there is NO way to measure player X-Factor. A player earns a rating for a ship. With the factors below used to make up that rating using a magic formula you math wizards can figure out. For the sake of argument lets say a score between 1-100 with 100 being the best player in the world in that ship and 1 being the worst. Players with less than ...oh lets say 50 battles for the sake of argument, getting an automatic ship rating of 50 (absolute average player in that ship). All are vs other players for that ship 1.) SOLO win percentage. (we all know a strong or weak division can skew win percentage) 2.) Average Damage to death (note not KD) This would help show how active that players ship is and how well they manage their HPs 3.) Average Captures/Decaps vs other ships. Do they simply farm damage or do they contribute elsewhere. Great players can do both items 2 and 3, good players can do typically one or the other and bad players do neither. 4.) Average spotting damage. Is this player at the front of a battle or at the back. Here is my reasoning. A great player that does 2 of the bottom 3 will raise item 1. A player that has great average damage for a ship...lets say an 80 on the scale of 1-100 but gets only a 10 out of a hundred on each of the bottom 2 would be the equal of a player that gets only scores a 60 out of 100(20 less than player 1) for damage but scores a 20 out of 100 for line 3 and 4. Folks understand all that? Good because that was all [edited]. ALL OF THE ABOVE MEANS PRECISELY JACK AND SQUAT. X-factors cannot be quantified. Are all players equal? Of course they aren't but making a matchmaker based ONLY on statistics is going to backfire. Is a player with a solo win rate of 60% better than a player with a 40%..absolutely but that doesn't make those players more fun to play with, it doesn't take into account the luck factor and the pure genius that can come from being completely clueless about META. I will freely admit...I am a stat (bleep) and while no unicum, I am above average and even I get toxic at times due to stupid things my teams have done in matches...could you imagine having 24 people like that in the same match??? shudder...No thanks...send me to the scrub league please at least there folks will remember its a game. If you want to see what it would be like do the Ranked grind from rank 5-1 and see how fun it is in chat to be on the losing team. What I am trying to say....badly.... is that while there ARE things that can be measured that help separate one player from another based on skill there will ALWAYS be x-factors that cannot be measured. I've played with players that couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside, are lucky to get kills, die early and often but somehow manage to win matches more than far better players simply because they have a positive attitude they use to infect and often inspire their teams to levels they wouldn't normally be able to achieve. There is one thing I absolutely know about WOWS compared to Tanks...there are far fewer absolute blow-outs in ships. This tells me that match maker isn't doing half bad considering all the x-factors involved. Oh and Crucis, regarding your reply. Servers can block the API release which would block MMM. Eve online does it so I am sure WG could figure it out if they wanted to. They already do if a player opts out of showing their stats, that's why websites that track stats can't see hidden stats.
  13. XxX_BlindSide_XxX

    the state of MM ruining games.

    Of all the things I dislike in the game...magic island penetrating radar, hydro that somehow manages to work with all the shell splashes friendly ships etc for what feels like half an hour (slight exaggeration), the proliferation of broken ships while others go unloved, the dumbing down of the community thanks to people that complain about paper ships using islands for cover....(You don't think even a battleship using cover when available/advisable is a smart play? Dead ships can't help their team)( I suppose in tanks you would just park in an open field ala Gettysburg and trade shots or you want battles like Jutland where everyone just lines up and goes, "come at me bro, one at a time please")...of ALL of that and even more I couldn't be bothered to list the MM is NOT there. The fact for every 55%+ player there seems to be a <45% player tells me the MM is working pretty well considering all the xfactors involved. As a non-unicum but above average player I hate mmm. Not only because it takes the heart out of players before the match even starts but because like many I have felt the sting of being focused for no other reason that I happened to be decent in a ship. WG should take that toxic catalyst out of the approved mods list.... ya, ya ya. DDs are cowards and OP, Cruisers are cowards and just spam HE, BBs are bullies that one shot everything and CVs are just there...we have heard it all before.... If you insist on keeping MMM take it as a challenge to up your game and drag your team to a victory despite what MMM tells you. Use it to play smarter...heck even folks in CO-OP understand that if 75% of your team is bots you need to play smart in order to win by offsetting how bad the rest of the team will be. MMM has 2 uses...to either make you overconfident resulting in a loss or make you give up before the match starts....again resulting in a loss.
  14. Since my clan basically quit after the great CV debacle of 2019 I have found myself running CO-OP a lot to just unwind after work. Since my Post Battle screen is currently broken after the last patch I find it a lot less irksome to not see how well or poorly I did in CO-OP than randoms. That leads me to a quick request. I would like to see some work done on the CO-OP AI. Especially with regards to CVs but all ships could use some work. I play a lot of DDs and for a very long time I was a DD main before taking time off from them (see above CV debacle). I've begun playing them again in CO-OP. Take this as a grain of salt, after all we are just talking about CO-OP, Wargamings version of Solitaire, but still I find it perplexing that my annoyance with CVs extends even to CO-OP. The CV AI is broken in a couple ways (okay more than a couple). A.) the AI is so bad that you are at nearly no danger at all from the AIs terrible drops...assuming it even DOES drop. Most of the time the rocket planes circle you at 1km (wish MY planes could turn that well) and are unable to get into an attack run. They end up just circling until you shoot them down. This leads to my next gripe with em. B.) The AI knows EXACTLY where the enemy DDs are at ALL times and will unerringly head right for you at the start of the match regardless if you try to be cute and go somewhere the AI would never expect. You cannot avoid them, you cannot hide from them except in smoke and even THEN they just circle you the entire match unless you manage to shoot them down. DDs like the IJN and some others have pitiful AA. That means that while the CV has no chance whatsoever of damaging you his teammates will happily eat your lunch thanks to their ability to hit even 50+ knot, hard maneuvering DDs with the greatest of ease. Thank goodness players rarely show that kind of aiming skill. In my tier 8 DD against tier 10 planes I can easily be spotted and ANNOYED nearly indefinitely. C.) Once spotted the AI CV just sails in slow lazy circles until finally blapped, a sometimes overly long process. That's the point of this...The annoyance, it isn't like CO-OP is difficult, no matter how hard some players try to make it so. And I for one went to CO-OP so I WOULDN'T be annoyed after a long day of work. But I also find its AI so basic that it takes a lot of the enjoyment out of doing it. I would love to see the difficulty ramped up dramatically in CO-OP without giving enemy ships magic ship tracking abilities (i.e. blapping a DD in smoke that didn't fire to give away their position). If we cannot make the AI smarter then unbalance the teams; match player tier 8s to AI tier 9s or give the AI a couple extra ships...something. I would love to see CO-OP as a sort of training ground for Randoms. I would like to see AI that targets the ship of greatest opportunity (stopped broadside, biggest threat etc) Instead what CO-OP does is teach people such bad habits, (insert zerg rushing DDs here) that when newer players DO try Randoms after playing CO-OP they are crushed and disenchanted or flamed. I know it seems contradictory that in one paragraph I complain and whine about CVs and their magic DD detector just to say the bots are too easy in the next but that was just to illustrate how poor the AI bots behave. If a CV isn't circling you the entire match like a talonless vulture the battleships/cruisers/DDs are ramming into the first ship they see. I also know that WG makes their money in Randoms and Ranked so I can't and shouldn't expect them to expend much effort but I would love for a little more time being spent on the AI. I left Randoms primarily because most of my clan quit thanks to the CV rework early days but also because I found myself being toxic to players, that I now know, just didn't know any better. Although the AIs aim is good (that at least is a plus for CO-OP) The AI is so basic that even the newest player needs only a few games to learn how to game the agro system and will happily park broadside a few km away from a ship knowing it won't ever target them. We know, as Randoms/Ranked players, that doing that will almost always get you blapped. Here is a good clue, if a player has a <50% winrate in Randoms they absolutely should NOT have a >90% win rate in CO-OP. We have all seen it. Players that come to Randoms from CO-OP jumping on their teammates because they don't realize how different the two are and cannot recognize that Randoms aren't CO-OP...DDs don't charge the first BB they see (okay MOST don't), cruisers don't park broadside to BB's only a few km away (okay MOST don't) and full health BB's don't ram near dead ships and know what WASD does..(sigh..okay.). But ask yourself...those players that DO do that in randoms/ranked...where did they learn those bad habits? I said early I believe (without knowing for sure) that WG makes far more money in Randoms/Ranked from players buying premium, buying camo etc. than they do from CO-OP players so isn't it in their best interest to help players graduate out of CO-OP?
  15. XxX_BlindSide_XxX

    Unable to view post battle results

    Update - There has been no word on when this fix will be implemented. I know some of you are like me in that the post battle results screen is a BIG part of the game. I am finding it more and more difficult to find an excuse to play since I cant even see what I accomplished.
×