Jump to content

Avrien

Members
  • Content Сount

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1491

Community Reputation

14 Neutral

About Avrien

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

319 profile views
  1. Avrien

    CV rework twitch reactions

    But for DD's you have long times on reload and other factors. If you have 15 minutes that is 900 seconds. If you have an 80 second timer on torps you can only fire 10x per volley that is only 112.5 torpedoes per game max. A ship should hold a lot more than that potentially. Destroyers were not small ships. At 30 seconds and 12 torpedoes per volley you are firing a max of 360 torpedoes per game.(This is the same value needed for max sized BB's.) There is no reason to limit torpedoes unless it is for a later date in the game where you add more to the reality of going to port and rearming on a world map or something because you need to balance the game on being able to reload while holding an area. Ships have to have massive ammo to keep out in the water for long periods to be effective. https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/46806-how-much-ammunition-would-a-ship-carry/ This seems to indicate less than I was thinking, but I always heard they had enough for much longer periods of time. Maybe they were talking about total max ship capacity if filled to the brim?! Maybe if they limited Cruiser ammo! >< Of course cruisers fire much smaller rounds... Lets see 8 seconds for 12 guns is 112.5*12=1350 ammo for main guns!? Could a Cleveland carry this?
  2. Avrien

    REWORK

    Do you actually play these CV's? Do you know from personal experience what it takes to do what you say. Do you do this regularly yourself?
  3. Avrien

    CV rework twitch reactions

    That is because actual ships had so much ammo on them they basically couldn't run out of ammo. Planes have limited ammo because they really did. As you will note if they can go back to ship and get more they do in essence have unlimited on the ship. Just not on the plane at one time. This is correct to real life. The planes were limited though. They should give them realistic numbers of planes. All of their numbers are off for, "balance," instead of making it realistic and balancing the game around realistic things which would make the game better. The other problem is once again them being too cowardly to tell people half their problem is not working together for AA. This is how real ships worked. They can't undertand they need to do then and then also use smaller ships to go out and basically keep a parameter stopping the problem with torpedoes being out of control. It all properly conforms to how they worked but they refuse to make people do this and learn so the community eventually learns and conforms. It would help if they changed things like starting positions to realistic ship formations to give people a clue. It might help people realize how they can be used so they then use it in actual situations and learn quickly. It takes a lot of real life time and effort to get captains and crew to know how to do this they need things to help in game play also. The simplest is what I just mentions. Give things so the players do it a little in game. Especially in the environment they use it in. All maps were based on real figths if I'm not mistaken. Start them exactly how they would be going into the battle in real life and let people decide from there. Simple logic trick to get info into peoples heads. They will eventually incorporate that and use it where needed and learn from it. How did ships normally travel together. What types of things did they use in different situations. Get this in peoples heads and how it can be used in game and the game may advance better. Particularly get them to experience it in game in actual matches a little. As I said, the easiest start is to start people in formations. Maybe even give an infrastructure where someone is the leader in a realistic way. IE random rank(based on real life things like ship position or ship type etc.). And presume they are temporary leader of the whole team or part of the team. Then have squads inside of them to form things like dd groups or whatnot. Use some real navy logic. Get different logic from different countries if needed also so it's realistic to period and see if it helps. Let it play out and add more to help the game flow. Then if people don't want ot use it they at least have it as a tool to use. And seeing some of it may spark the idea it is useful. If not they may see an enemy do it and realise how it can be used and copy it starting the flow. You only need one side to use it. This would be where making the AI enemy in one match type use better coordination could be good to start the ball. To go against this would also make poeple potentially learn about it and consider using it. If not form ways to get around it which lead to another thing and then another etc. There is a reason people did with these machines in real life what they did. If you get that right it should all work out. Talking realistic, why don't they add more of what made bombing potentially difficult? Do they have realistic damage or AA for ships. It's a static percentage chance instead of hitting the ship in realistic ways and the chance and crippling things. So, maybe a crew member(bomber) dies(can't drop bombs or other crew replace temporarily with possible delay in drop depnding on how it plays out.), but the plane returns in pieces. It is repaired under the ship but is temporarily replaced by a fresh plane. They did absolutely no work in designing carriers. That is the entire problem. So, instead of actually trying they are making a newer lazier design. These problems are all very easy to fix design wise. The problem is how simply it was implemented. For god sakes at least add a random role per hit to places to impair them and hit random locations in the plane with random degrees of severity and random realistic effects and responses/consequences.). Anything to make it more realistic and add more ways to balance the planes. The simpler the design the less means there are to balance things and the harder it is by definition. The only issue with CV's is they have been done as simply as possible. And now the only part of them that was a little realistic is being removed. This games problems are very obvious. This is something that a long time ago was dealt with better in games. All wargaming had to do originally was keep the balance of the game and tell people the problem was that they were not using enough teamwork and suggest using clusters of AA and other things better and stick with it. Most of this could have been done with simple straight forward words and time. But once you make a bad change an then justify it and then keep going you end up making another change eventually based on that bad change and it keeps going. Most of these issues in the game were education ones from influxes of new players or game changes that throw things off and fixable. Instead they, like most games today, use statistics and say that a balance of statistics needs to be maintained(which is complete nonsense and destructive to the game.). Statistics are much more complex than that and have nothing to do with anything. In fact they have to know how to keep the game on it's own to even correctly use statistics afterwords. So, we get wrong action after wrong action when the initial problems are much simpler. As is, as I've stated, most of the problems are because the implementation of carriers and specifically planes are absurdly stupid and simple. Add a more robust design taking into account some minimal things and ways will be opened up to balance it. It's simply done way to simply. And even with the current design has more things that can be done to try to balance it. The wholes design at this point has nothing to it and never has. There is no end of things they could try. Not just to planes in general but to each nation and specific plane to make them unique, interesting, and work out more like in real life. They should put at least as much work into the aircraft as they do the ships individually.. And they already have a game with planes in it to use. So, I'm not sure why they are struggling when they can use the planes already in world of planes as a basis. Without any prior knowledge of the game I would assume that is why world of planes came out before world of warships! Why have they not utilized all of that prior work? If they can't shrink the planes at least use statistic and logic to get a similar affect with similar potentials. Anything will improve it. It's simply a matter of absolute simplicity in implementation at this point and always has been. This can be implemented for plane vs plane and plane vs ship/aa etc. As a side note, if they do every add more complex plane damage rolls, please don't do it simply. Don't just add one chance of a damage per hit. Make it so it's realistic with lots of things damageable. But of course be realistic to the plane(s) and the things firing at it/them. Edit: I don't get how people don't understand this. The only way to die to a carrier is to go solo and get hit. Carriers are simply anti stupid. The reason people are complaining is every plays stupidly(generally playing solo and isolating yourself.). Don't give carriers the edge and they have to work even harder to get things. And I mean much higher levels of coordination harder. If you die to a carrier it is completely your fault. What is even more stupid is the more challenging you make it the more fun CV's become. They are based on it. So, the more people learn to counter the better it is for CV players. But instead of working on that we get this. The other problem is that game is incentivized stupidly based on individual performance instead of team performance. Unless you can incentivise based on the mass complexity of actual teamwork perfectly you decentivise and overemphasize certain things. This destroys gameplay as only people working over this work for actual teamwork and winning. The simple solution is simply to incentivize based on wins and give everyone stuff for winning. It's impossible to justify the value of one action over the other as it is too complicated. Everything, even little things, have massive weight and are part of winning. There should be nothing giving a bonus over another if you want the game oriented on winning in a team vs team environment. And games stopped understanding this along time ago. It is half of the problem. There is one rule of games when it comes to players. They will always try to do what is most efficient for them. If you want teamwork you make it only so it is most efficient for them for the team to win. Any other complexities and this is absolutely without question not going to happen. It's as simple as this. How a game works and the community act are totally in the hands of the developer. Players within a game are a predictive absolute. More so than the rest of the game. Design the game correctly everything else will turn out correctly in the end.
  4. Avrien

    Competitive Montana build

    I still like the Yolo Montana! You can go out in a blaze of glory lighting up the map like a pheonix along with being lit up like a pheonix. Possibly trade Inertia fuse with Manual Secondary focus. And remove flooding/fire recovery flags for money and cost flags. I wonder how well she could be made to work. I would think inertia fuse would be good to get all of that side damage though. I guess it depends if you want more fire or more damage. Or both with manual control for secondariness you would hit more. Although it would be funny to get in the middle of a lot of ships and light them all on fire at once over and over. You would/could run this with HE also. If not you can afford to quickly change between HE and AP for versatility and god knows what. Everyone will hate this build though. As I have seen in the past. HE is apparently not viable even though I would think you could do a lot with it if you tried. 9.1m range and focus fire should be good carrier defence if combined with a good spotting cc or dd. It should be practical to keep torps and stuff off tight formations also. It should be viable for competitive in the right conditions. Or at least be scarier to incoming ships. I'm assuming Adrenaline rush sadly does not effect AA?! 8\ That would help solve the AA problem on ships in games. Maybe they could afford some carrier buffs then as it's a common skill. If you could convince your team to take a tighter set of ships and head right into the middle of the enemy and torp and light everything up.. It could be a fun aggressive strategy. Just have to sneak up on them and get in close.
  5. Avrien

    Dido-Class Cruiser

    First we have the furrytaco and now this. This has a less original knickname than the furrytaco...
  6. I found this too. Is this really in the game?
  7. Can you put a hyperlink in with the video. I can't see it because of problems with firefox not displaying videos for some reason. Or it is easy to find on youtube? Is it this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePcxC0j2lVI Ok, slight necro. But: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaKC6yNOP0 Not sure how the change in view is better. I feel insanely claustrophobic just watching this. They should go back to the old view and add all the realism to carriers like how many can fit on the deck. How many can load on the elvator etc. Just hash it out realistically give the realistic amount of planes and then just use a limit to number of planes total and let people play how they think they should. Most american carriers from wiki info seem to be a bunch of fighters and a few dedicated bombers. that would make more sense. You could even get rid of the auto aim for torps and let fighters act as a shield and let all planes out at once. Then use risk/reward to balance. That would get people to use teamwork in AA more often and try to counter it. Then implement subs.
  8. Avrien

    Why Do I Get So Many Bounces?

    Because: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTeDJNPDEwU Your enemy is using bounce! I was saying I wanted to go he focus in a montana and I got yelled at repeatedly. 8(.. Also inertia fuse. http://bit.ly/2nF9pPL
  9. Avrien

    Did I win some kindof lottery?

    Those might be ships given temporarily for clan battles.I have a bunch of tier X's like this that say only for clan battles in the tooltips. They may just give them without checking account levels. I could be wrong though.
  10. Here is a little more specific example. All bonuses to the plane could be small tweaks to the percentage chance per x to have the plane die. There could be a small mode to time to hit also including +- seconds to any timer. This could account for potential maneuvering. Things could be simulated, as I said previously, temp per shot and permanent bonuses. Permanent bonuses are on the planes side. Temporary are either calculated and applied on a bullet hitting or are on the plane side. Things, with their current system could be simulated including dodging, formation, plane separations, fires, engine failure, etc. A whole complex battle could be done with a few small number checks. It could all be based on real date a from the actual ships and their stats and then applied to the logic to make it play out correctly and also simulate common things involving fighter experience or other factors. Start with whatever the normal chance to die is. If needed change it to fit the added factors. Assume the planes fly how they did in real life. Their stats are checked for damage or already have things applied, like damage buff/debuffs, and then things like turning are taken into account. If the planes fly normally in certain formation(depending on skill levels) they would fly somewhat predictably to the enemies movement. Take into account some things like sun direction and other normal factors and create randomization. If you have sun in a bad enough spot you have increased chance to not see the enemy and turn in a bad way. This increases the chance at turning into their guns increasing the chance at hitting for x seconds. The guns fire when they have the chance. Maybe waiting for a best chance based on percentages. Otherwise they could fire whenever they get the chance. But the timer could be controlled by other factors making it take longer... If you make a bad turn as a formation in perfect health the enemy ships get to fire and depending on position and time to hit activating they do x chance to down you based on all factors. This can create a dynamic chance instead of a constant one. Many factors from previous damage can be taken into account. A hit miss would then, potentially like D&D roles chances, apply damage with extra checks for pen and other stats. This could be also automated in a roll system. This simplifies the number down to less checks. This could smooth out the calcs to 1 or 2 and add damage and severity rolls to the hole thing. Even one roll based on a 1D100 or other roll factors. You can get extremely complicated factors then. Some from the roll and the other from environmental factors and get a very good plane battle. The roll table could include factors involving extreme potentials of the plane to maneuver combined wtih buffs/debuffs from pilot experience etc. All factors could be done in a simple table. It would probably be better than now. this could also be used to apply permanent and temp bonuses which could be tallies onto each plane in a simple counter. You just have to put the correct factors into the table so that they account for all plane factors. Each plane type has a table and is activated on the receiving end of the bullets with all factors kept track of. Some things can be fixed base on equipment realities in the field or supplemented in the air, and other things only get fixed or alleviated when returning for repairs. Number of fixes could make the plane stay in hanger for longer. This might only matter when out of planes. Although factors for planes getting out of the base and onto the deck could matter. It would depend on the reality of each carrier. Flight and maneuvering would be assumed and preset for the most part. It would be based on supposed tactics and ways to deal with a flight situation from real life.(if enemy does x you attempt to do y.) Then pilot experience and environmental would factor into the percentage to effect the timer to hit or the 1D100 roll. All with simple modifications to a few small numbers. Turns could add time based on evasive realities in small ways and elongate a chance to fire. Then other factors take into account when it actually fires and the roll occurs. The current roll would determine the overall damage and clean shots vs messing up a vital an distant crash or tacking on a permanent bonus for a plane taking damage and increasing the roll value to even things like loss of fuel and increased speed/dodge from fuel or odd things. Which vehicles are involved and their abilities and general real life uses would determine battles and how they play out and what and how much of a bonus is applied in each situation. Along with enough environmental to give variation from player choice including things like weather/engagement location and position of sun etc. Apply this to ship aa vs ships as well and you get a more interesting combined system. The more complex and thorough you make this system the better the results. Edit: In fact the maneuvering could take into account environmental factors automatically, like going into sun or from it or using clouds, to create more randomization factors. There would be a timer for when each plane hits. It would have a target and timer would modify per plane as to when it fires. It would be modified by the enemies maneuvering as it ticks down or doesn't. when a plane finally gets to fire it check on table and then repeat until it's done. All factors would be done with just a timer and a table roll. I'll laugh if someone tells me this is how it currently works!
  11. Avrien

    Does anyone really need to spec for AA?

    They need to reimplment games with more CV's. Make it matter through attrition. They were designed for it anyway. I've never seen the issue with AA. AA and small gun fire go together in the captain skill. You can spec both and focus one or the others. It's always good for cruisers with small weapons and potentially destroyers. That is obviously so smaller faster ships can move and help with AA in different positions. Can't learn that if it's not needed enough.
  12. Avrien

    USN naval gunery 1863

    Maybe they could make an older sea battle arena for old ironsides. An historical set of ships going over the history of sea warfare and tactics could be interesting and educational. If they did boarding on those types of ships it may lead to better mechanics on the newer ones. Either way interesting.
  13. You should look at the mechanic more. They already simulate a lot. That is how you make mechanics. There technically is no such thing as a sim. You do what is needed to get the end results. Sorry, I'm trying to be serious about this. There are ways to make things balance out. It's amazing how everyone on here has no ability to think out design but tell everyone they should go somewhere else. Complicated mechanics will not drive players out. Stop trying to tell people things you don't understand. They can make most of it under the hood. They just need to make it play out correctly. Most of it would be in the AI or mechanics for the planes working in combat situations. Very little would need to be changed from the current AI. This is how you fix things. You have to make changes in a way that get the desired result. What this does is make it less simple and means a less sever result which is the complaint and root cause. This is how you accomplish this. Literally. It's the only way to do that. This is fundamental design! Simpler generally makes greater severity. More complex generally smooths that out(unless something simple is still exposed causing a problem).
  14. If the are getting problems like some AA killing ships too easily it's likely caused by oversimplified mechanics(That or that is historically accurate). It means they need to simulate the shells or something deeper than they are. That would go a long way. Doing that can end up changing the combat dynamics which can elevate the problems on it's own. If not it could open up a way to balance it. if one is not as easy to find before. Most issue like that are the result of mechanics that are too simple. How much do they simulate planes and shells atm? There are also AI things that could be adjusted for combat between planes and things like fighter formation and a choice to choose them going into combat etc. Those are common things in plane sqaud games like this. This is why it's bad to simplify the mechanics. If you do it gets even more difficult and it will keep spiralling out of control potentially. If that is historically accurate you still might fix it with greater depth of mechanics. It can soften the effect. They could start adding stuff like plane system. They have simplified enough mechanics for fire and ramming. I'm assuming they have equal room with aircraft atm. If so there are likely very easy things they could implement that might do quite a bit of good. http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Anti-Aircraft_Fire This is potentially a lot like the ships guns argument with single barrel. It could go along way to change dynamics. And that is what is needed in air. It would just be slight under the hood in this case because air is largely automated fire. Same with planes. It could remove or lesson the effect of the HP bar and add more dynamic systems. I think that link was saying there is not actually an HP bar. But a chance to die. This could be made more complicated be adding more specifics. Instead of a flat percentage you add some more details like bullets hitting an actual location or anything to add more considerations. This can quickly lead to a solution or things that can lead to a solution. Even if it's still a chance. The location of hit could modify the chance per hit and or more depth as to what is inside that location. Some bonuses could be temporary like armor bounce some permanent like hitting a vital part from penetrations and degree of harm or nature of harm from the hit(don't oversimplify here unless really sure and it's still likely a horrible idea in the best of light.). The damage to internals could have effect on the individual planes abilities. Once too slow to keep in formation either the formation slows(different choices here base on race or strategy.) or it can get loose and picked off for instance.(or guns could fail or fuel lost and other parts of the fight effected.) Then more AI controls could effect the fighter flight base on fighter(pilot) xp and AI choice. This leads to more complex play and more balancing factors. Combinations of automated flight and player choices can be used to make this work very well for the game. Some of this will help give gun and tech of the aircraft more into effect and make it's specific more important. Even if done fairly simply. Although more complex may be better. complex can be better for the AI side and certain simplified choices like formation and other thing things given to the player to varying degrees. They could make planes act more like real planes that way. That would likely lead to beter play all around as it gets into peoples heads then. If you simplify it at a plane being weakened and having a better chance to be picked off with a simple modifier you get s simple result. If you add on actual flight time to pick it off planes going after that plane and some dodging and weaving you have a better potential result. This can be an effective multiplier to time to get a hit chance. Which can then be further effected by which components have been hit and how severely. It depends on the depth given. This could allow ships to aid in AA more. Not sure if that is realistic that last part is though. Was that common in real fights? Not sure how effective AA was. I'm guessing a lot of the time they tried to keep away from craft. It comes down to dynamics present to make up a situation and how far they are taken and in which way as to which effect. Simplifying mechanics can make you miss dyanmics in it's design or naturally leave no room for them. To simplify things for AI. the ships design/mechanics and limitation are the equipment. AI is how the fighters/pilot uses those things within those limits. Hardware/software. And to avoid oversimplified/powerful mechanics you always need to keep x layers in between the game and the vital functions. So, always add in x layers beyond what you think to put in. and if need x layers beyond that.
  15. You can always fix micromanagement issues with the interface or other things. What does this have to do with removing choice of planes. That has nothing to do with this discussion. The same amount of micromanagement is needed now no matter what. Sorry, what level of carrier I kept getting fed up with playing at or when I decided to play something else for various reasons has nothing to do with my knowledge of the game at this level and juncture. Very few people in this game even played when it was played more thoroughly or bothered to learn very simple things. IE, it has nothing to do with an argument or who is correct. This is silly to ask in this forum, but why don't you state the specific hurdles and how they couldn't be fixed. Or specifically what the problem was as a negative is hard to describe. Demonstrate your argument and show people what you are saying with enough specificity that anyone can see the details in full. Why do you think carriers can't be fixed. The problem coming from them being modified is not an intelligent argument. It's what the specific changes were that mattered. All changes do not get the same result. Hence the argument is not remotely thought out or applicable to the subject. Anyone can tweak something and get a bad result. You seem to not be able to think past that level of consideration to any specifics but want everyone to cave to your demands. That is not a good thing. Nor will it likely get a good result. And in this sort of a situation the most interesting thing is by definition the specifics. You'd be surprised how many options there are. And how different it is from most people view points as you get into more detail. There is a saying, "The devil is in the details." BTW, the thing about double strafing and fighters being able to avoid strafes one on one was extremely well known when these mechanics were first implemented. It was stated blatantly so people understood it. That has never changed. I would love to see what it is that can't be fixed about them. The company making this game not doing it correctly has nothing to do logically or otherwise with the potential to balance it. Both the potential and specifics of the game can be modified nearly infinitely in any direction, as with any game. There is almost no mathematical way for it not to be balance-able! And game development like programming is a mathematics field. Pure mathematics application once you get past the hardware and matieral knowledge and theories. That is the point of a computer.
×