Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

19 Neutral

About Avrien

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

601 profile views
  1. Do carriers currently have surface planes destroyed or affected by fires and whatnot in any way. usually if I get hit I'm about dead. But does it do anything interesting. This could be a means to balance carriers later if they need a buff. Give them an internal number and let them be destroyed on the surface. This could give strategy to carriers again. But it might require it to be more complicated again. Like if they added the ability to move the ship while flying etc. This could lead to making carriers base more around playing well again and not so simple. Or at least add option for those who choose to actively dodge and live dangerously. I miss dodging and attacking at the same time. Some carriers are really good at this. Would also make CV vs CV more fun again. Maybe fires could stop launches. Or does all of this exist already? Make it how real life would work. The depth of the mechanics would make the game a lot more interesting.
  2. https://wowsft.com/ship?index=PASA110&modules=113221&upgrades=123313&commander=PCW001&skills=134899880&ar=100&consumables=11&lang=en Is this a good one for a torpedo focus. And is High Alert and/or Jack of all trades worth it for the reduction in torpedo bomber healing times? Does direction center for fighters do anything for sqaudrons? Is stealth worth it over speed and HP or is it best combined with it for the best survival? Is cruising speed increase worth anything? Is it better to focus on diver bombers since torpedoes don't do as much damage now?! I'm assuming the cloak and faster speed might outdo the extra HP. But I'm not sure.
  3. Avrien

    Cost of Ohio!

    Is Ohio only available for a short time. I was thinking it was permanently available to try to get. That the only ship I'm interested in atm.
  4. Avrien

    Important dates for the Community

    Am I the only one that finds it hard to keep track of these events. I think it's too cluttered. Visually probably. It's hard to take in. It needs a nicer easier to take in thing in game. Like something showing the time frame simply so we can see or visually how long we have or something. I'm not sure exactly, but that might help. My brain goes on the fritz trying to take it all in.
  5. Avrien

    Cost of Ohio!

    Too bad I don't have any teir X ground out at this time. I'm only up to 8 I think.
  6. Avrien

    Cost of Ohio!

    https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/game-updates/research-bureau/ https://www.wows-gamer-blog.com/2019/06/st-ohio-new-american-tier-x-battleship.html 62500 points How many times up the tree will this take. Is it up to 10,000 per ships? Or per tree? NVM, it looks like per tree. Holy crap that is a lot. You would need to do all the trees at once or something. Can you stop and start the lower trees and repeat them over and over for easier grind. 500+500+1500 wouldn't be so bad if it's repeatable. Or do you have to do the entire tree up to tier X? I could do the 1k per tree and repeat pretty easily. I'm assuming it requires a full tree to repeat though. I like the idea of being able to grind out flags. But I wonder how hard it will be to do or time efficient. So, if I have 8 tier X ships researched. Can I run 3 of them up to the 1k mark and repeat over and over again. Being dependent on the number held while doing the research?
  7. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NSWC-Dahlgren/Dahlgren_Centennial/Blog/18_Inch_Gun/ Is this the gun it's using? 2600 Foot/Second (ft/s) = 792.48 Meter/Second (m/s) Shouldn't the belt logic for US shops means it would get an upgrade to take on the penetration caliber of the guns it uses? IE, raised to 457. That would justify the lower speed. You could even lower it a bit. So could we get this range on ships but with a loss of accuracy making it infeasible?(You could also make them more accurate at close range making up for the weakness compared to CC's)Realistic ranges would make BB's a lot more fearsome. Even with the range spot mechanics. It would make it more useful to scout with DD's and use radar ships. I don't get why range matters when you can adjust things like dispersion. It would give battleships more purpose and could make them much more dangerous without increasing damage. Or is dispersion realistic and the ability to fire more controlled volleys(choose which guns fire) is reducing the natural ability of the ships?!
  8. Avrien

    "Flags" in Fitting Tool ?

    Where did you find the flags?
  9. Avrien

    Theorcrafting Ohio!

    https://wowsft.com/ship?index=PASB510&modules=1111&upgrades=512122&commander=PAW101&skills=290472964&ar=1&consumables=224&lang=en Not sure if this shows up. where did the fitting tool go that used to have flags on it?! There was another one besides this. Either way. The DPS from both main and secondary are equaled out. Would love to see flags in this. I'm assuming this has been done a lot. Plus I can't find the specifics between john doe and hasley. Can't find the info anywhere. I know there are more specifics. Either way, they seem to be perfect for ohio builds. I hope they don't nerf it. Is Inertial fuse good for this? Is the dispersion important for secondaries in this case or is the concealment better?
  10. Avrien

    Bikini Atoll map!

    Sorry, my idea has nothing to do with a cap circle. It goes against the point. The point is to kill the enemy or be destroyed. End of story. This is to set a shorter time limit,(which you would have seen if you actually read the OP), and force people to use teamwork to kill efficiently with others as opposed to solo play. There is no point to the map but to make people work together in a time crunch. The nuke is at the end to destroy all vehicles and incur repair cost if nobody wins. I don't care if anybody dislikes fake nukes in a fictitious environment. And hunting down ships is a part of war. They can figure out a way and think that out ahead of time or loose. It's all a part of strategy. The point has to do with making people kill together instead of running around separately. Anything to slowly make people learn to work together. If you set a time short enough you can eventually get them to realize they need to fire on the same target and learn to take them down more and more efficiently and play against the enemy. if you add a cap circle they will just sit on it an cap and die making their team loose. Better yet, make the time even shorter and minimze the potential to kill the enemy team off. Let their wallets be their guide. Maybe it will make people play better. If you can't tell, it's supposed to be a hard map. That is the point. It's a challenge.
  11. Make a map made on focusing purely on killing the other side as quickly as possible. The setting is Bikini Atoll. You have a timer. You have ships. At the end of the timer the nuke goes off it destroys any ships alive and it's a draw and all sides face full repair costs! particularly nasty at higher levels. The only victory condition is to destroy the other sides ships before the timer ends. The timer can be higher or lower based on tier or to speed up the time to get people to work together and learn to kill efficiently. It should not be raised to make it easier for people because of complaining about not killing without teamwork. The point is to reinforce teamplay and efficiency. Fairly simple concept. The map would be called, "Under the gun!" This map would be in the random maps pool for all ship tiers! If not at least the ones appropriate for the type of ships tested at Bikini Atoll. But it would be better for learning if you made people all tiers do it. The timer could be half the normal timer. 7:30 instead of 15:00
  12. 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?
  13. Avrien


    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?
  14. 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.
  15. 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.