Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

527 Excellent

About WanderingGhost

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling


Recent Profile Visitors

902 profile views
  1. What I'm saying is that unless you literally do all the damage, and sink all the ships - there's a team behind you in that win. That in a loss, it's a team loss. Does a solo player on the team have no influence, no, but there's a point to be had there's 11 more people. 3 AFK's or super late loads, well, that's 25% of your team that needs to be made up for. If you constantly get teams where you and other average or good players can't compensate for the bad or unlucky ones, your gonna have a losing record. Someone that only deals 25k damage a game average could have a 60% winrate because teams they get do most of the work for them while someone averaging 150k is at 40% cause they just can't get a decent enough team. Luck is always a factor, especially when it's picking 21 other people and randomly putting them on teams with or against you. If someone can more than their own weight, they can certainly push their win rate up, if they can make up for any bad teams they get. My point and stance always has been, and always will be, that measuring "skill" by Winrate alone is idiotic, as is suggesting people not play due to it or question why they do. Baring those weird matches you get some times it's 12 v 12, meaning that typically, you contributed to every win, and to every loss - but so did 11 other people on your team. Solo you do well over average, hell in Pensacola in most fields your double what the average player can do - yet it sits at 41%. I do under the average in all but MBH yet I'm not even a full percent under you in Winrate - does this somehow mean were almost equally skilled in the Pensacola - hell no, you'd kick my no problem 9/10 most likely. But where as mine is likely a matter of I'm not doing enough to help my team, yours is more likely team can't do enough to help you. Hell, look at the near 10% difference you have from having 1-2 other people you probably know have skills and are actually working together. People need to look past those first row of stats at some of the others.
  2. Because people have this delusion that winrate is 100% on you - when it's not. Do you contribute - yes, but your attribute, generally speaking, 8.33% of it. That, is how much of the TEAM you make up. If you constantly get rekt with maybe 10k dealt, odds are yeah, you need to improve. I can't tell you how many losses the last week, let alone last year+ I'm top of the team, even if I was the first ship destroyed, 30, 40, 50, 100k damage, etc, etc, but I couldn't carry some of the bad players or unlucky ones on the team. I go out in the first 5 minutes without taking someone with me and (depending on what I'm using and all) only deal 15k damage? well, I definitely contributed to the loss. How about all the times I'm last alive with 90-175k damage done and we lose? How many matches have I seen thrown because we'll win on points, I've ended up dead after doing well, and even though we have 4 ships, they have 2, those 4 surviving ships get too greedy for the kills, die, and cost us the match. I have a low as hell winrate in my Midway, and yes, some of that is me - but I'm also well over the average of planes shot down for the simple reason I keep getting teams spread out everywhere and so I'm having to be more focused on downing the other CV's planes because the team is a bunch of independent lone wolves meanwhile the red team is grouped up so my planes can't get near them. Bismarck and Tirpitz are near the same ship and even before Tirp was buffed, it had a significantly higher winrate then my Bismarck because I couldn't buy a win in the thing for some reason. Hell, The variations on Kongo of the ship itself I have 50% on ARP Kongo, 46% on Kongo, 56% on Haruna and while only 11 in Hiei it's at 27%. Kami R I'm at 48% and 28k damage while Fujin is at 58% almost 59% and 40.5k damage. Even in clones with different colours somehow the numbers are all over the place even though it's the same ship, I should do just as well in it as the others. Hell my winrate chart on Warships today looks like someone in distressed hooked up to a heart monitor. I was near or at 51%, dropped to 50, suddenly jump back to near 51, drops again, starts to come back, then a fight to stay above 50, keep fighting back, get back above it, lose it again, and get stuck in a slide that at times is more fought against, bottoms out, and is rising again. What did I suddenly get bad at the game? Especially seeing as I had been playing in Alpha and Beta. Hell, those longer slumps of losses I was actually getting higher averages on damage and xp (and no I wasn't just damage farming, I'm too aggressive a player to just sit and do that, part of why I have lower survival rates). I had my fair share of bad matches - and plenty of bad teams as well. I play, because I know I'm better than my record shows. I play because, usually, I have fun. And I play because while winning is always more fun, I would take a 30% winrate and still enjoy it if every match was actually close and a real fight and not constant one team gets steam rolled because I've had more fun in some losses than some wins.
  3. Well, French BB's are new, and needed for missions, cruisers apply to one as well, and then Aigle as well, I've been spamming them for those same reasons, but done now. A bunch of people, that left the game, and those that played PvE but not PvP an extended time, were given one for free and some only now are using it or still using it cause it was quite good. USN cruisers are up a lot because of the split coming, Atlanta for crew training, missions (good for ribbons and all), and the fact there are a lot of DD's running around, and Atlanta's eat DD's. Which is where you then see in most cases rather even spreads of ships through the tiers. And put simply on CV's because some people were chicken little and don't know what they are talking about. 1 on 1, which is what tiers 4-6 have, USN fighters are vastly superior to IJN's, even better for USN, no strafing at tier 5. Tier 7 however, is a wildcard. Against most experienced IJN players, especially those abusing the ability to lock the fighters with an exit strafe, and strafe with the other group to obliterate their fighters, they'll get their fighters mopped up and then their attack planes destroyed at will, if AA doesn't handle them before that point. However, against newer, less good players or players that try not to exploit cheap mechanics, they have a better chance at potentially running amok and dealing stupidly high damage. Basically, most of us are still angry that we are forced to use one setup, and that for some of us, not even a setup we want to use. Tiers 4-6 basically got massive buffs or were mostly unchanged. 7-8 are screwed by mechanics and all, as well as some of the AA they see, but, in the right scenario, yeah - they wreck stuff, the added TB's I'm doing double the damage I was doing with just DB's (and I was doing 60-80k with just DB's in some matches and part of that is how relatively short they've been. But it's at the cost of trying to cover my team and I'd rather have less damage against ships because 1 fighter can't be everywhere to cover everyone. 9 and 10 is, at best, complicated.
  4. A Whole Lotta DDs: A Question

    Here's the thing, I play all the classes, I admit a little more CV and BB than the other two unless needed (last few days have been the Aigle show) and while it may not be as bad when it's say, 5 DD's that have very short range torps or a super narrow gap for stealth launch, or ships with the OP as hell radars, 5 ships that have 2 km+ buffers and can launch at times 9-15 torps in a wall of death that yeah, can one shot a Yamato - yeah, it's kind of a problem. I think 4 is a good cap if MM is swamped by DD's because yeah, they can nuke a BB without ever being seen, to which yes, I agree BB's nuking cruisers the way they do is a bit much as well at times and AP needs a slight damage nerf, but at least the cruiser 9/10 times sees the thing that fired at it.
  5. You Know I'm a Hacker Boy

    Y'know, not actually what I was expecting but good (honestly thought it was gonna go to "sk8er boi" and yes that was painful to type).
  6. PT 0.7.2 has a few CVs - just a few

    Apologies in advance for the wall of text. Except - nobody that plays a CV uses that mod to increase rearm time BECAUSE as much it would increase the speed, you become so handicapped in fighters of which that and other planes you have a limited supply. Because it's not just ammo, it's 20% HP vs whatever DPS in the calculation just as the other FCM upgrade is usually passed over for 15% to attack plane HP. And where do you even get 253 seconds? and 226? If your using what I think you are, it sounds great as a way of math for this in theory but absolutely fails and doesn't work with how the game actually works. My 16 point Midway captain, no TAE or FCM, has 39 seconds on fighters and TB's, 43 on DB's - which all rearm at the same time, and as other planes launch, meaning, the first plane launches at 39 seconds, first squadron is airborne at 49 seconds, all squadrons up in 99 seconds, give or take 1 or 2, and Hak same captain, lets round down where needed to 18, 22, 22 with 8 squadrons, where yes, first fighter leaves the deck in 18 seconds, first group at 28, but, launching all aircraft takes 98 seconds. So, that's actually a wash almost. But yes, IJN can get there faster, which saves it time, but again, has more groups to recover, where it will again lose time, so it may still manage to get in an extra strike, at most 2 extra, assuming, as before, they go for the same target ranges every strike. Not to mention that fast rearm of planes on IJN also means a juggling act because if you suddenly have to scramble your rearmed fighters, that may well cancel the ability to land the bombers likely still in the air. Also a 2x multiplier of USN squadrons downed would be 80 seconds, that are again, done at the same time or 1 minute and 20 seconds, and IJN's, at a 3x multiplier, 54 seconds in which point yes, they are significantly faster on that point, but the question then is reserves as many use 2,3,3, albeit some use 4,2,2 to try and get a leg up on USN especially after the botched loadout changes. But, let's compare the fighters now, Midway upgraded, no skills/modernization's - Speed 178, 70 DPS x 6 planes, 54 loadout (ammo), 1910 hp. Hak's - Speed 180, 87 DPS x 4 planes, 30 ammo, 2030 HP. Barely noticeable speed advantage. USN overall DPS is 420 while IJN's is 348, USN has almost double the ammo, and IJN has 120 hp more. Which, those DPS numbers and HP translate as 20.6% chance a F4U downs an A8M every second, and 18.2% and A8M downs a corsair. But, the semi hidden stat that is overlooked is that say that IJN group DOES get the first kill, that drops the DPS of USN 350, still higher overall than IJN, Albeit it drops the chances to 17.2% now. Still, better than the 2% advantage USN starts with. But also keep in mind now that these are the tier NINE USN plane as opposed to the former tier 10. Which, not only shows you how much power they have even down a tier remember - now because of these dumb, misguided changes, both the tier 9 and 10 CV's have aircraft of a lower tier, and can make use of the DFE skill that many take advantage of just for even more ammo, something that no matter what, IN can't use to boost DPS. Now, that would become 77x6 vs 87x4, which becomes 462 vs 348, which changes it to 462/2030 vs 348/1910, which makes it 22.7% the USN fighter group shoots a plane down vs 18.2% for IJN. IJN gets that first kill well, now its 385/2030, which, is 18.9% meaning - even down a plane USN STILL has the edge, and this number is close to the numbers, a little lower actually, than what it was for the F8F. Even add in the extra plane per group, the percentages, it stays the same basically even though the numbers change, USN fighters have the undeniable edge in the fight, even down a tier. Yeah, IJN rearms faster when shot down, but all the faster back to the slaughter and remember, a USN group, down a plane, can still pose a threat to a fully intact IJN one. And USN has double the ammo meaning it doesn't have to worry about actual rearming as much. But IJN has a slight edge against AA guns which, is admittedly backwards. So, take the loadouts then, both get 12 TB's now (unless IJN uses AS), USN gets 14 DB's, IJN gets 15, assuming AS skill, otherwise 12 and 12. IJN's DB's are, admittedly, on paper, a bit more accurate with a slightly smaller dispersion circle and a max damage of 4600. USN has a larger dispersion circle, but more planes that, in practice, actually make them far more reliable than IJN's, which the USN HE DB's deal a max 10800 damage, were not even going to include the new BB nuking AP bombs. USN torps deal 9867 damage max, with a speed of 34 knots, and range of 3.7 km. IJN's are 8567 max damage at 35 knots, and 3.4 km. Speed is almost negate, USN has a little more range and a max damage almost 1000 HP more. Keep in mind that USN is also 4x6 not 6x4 like IJN, so, any losses are detracting from 6 planes, still making it easier and at times more devastating to be hit by still. Because 3 planes from an IJN group leaves a lone torp or a bomb or 2, 3 from USN leaves 3 tightly grouped torps and 3/4 bombers of 6/7. Sure a 3rd TB group means an extra angle to hit from, if all 3 make it to the drop point, or one wall of death, same as USN, but, TB's are always focused first and both ships can hit from 2 sides at that point, and, USN has more accurate bombs, that are heavier damage, than IJN, and more tightly grouped, higher damage torps. Not to mention the fact at launch USN is launching a potential 248004 damage (+21600 more with AS) while IJN launches with 158004 max possible damage (+13800 with AS). that is exactly 90000 more potential damage than IJN. To put that in a bit more perspective, if they somehow released their full damage potential, Hak could sink a Yamato, Zao, and Shima, with a little leftover. Midway, meanwhile, could sink the Yamato, Zao, 2 Shima's, the Hak that launched the attack, and still, without AS, have about 12k damage leftover. So - pretty sure that US still has the edge, part of WHY this setup was taken away from Midway the first time. When it comes to Midways TB's - it's a change that never should have been made, period, it should have tier 10 aircraft, in all fields, but WG have no idea what the hell they are doing apparently. But yeah, the 2 tier lower aircraft can be run down, not a surprise and remember, USN, before they botched things trying to fix the balance, were as fast or faster than IJN's. Basically, when it comes to CV's, Wargaming has had the right ideas but executed them wrong 90% of the time. Different number of fighters are fine and what the "Nerf" to USN fighters was conceptually right in fixing the balance but executed wrong by lowering their tier. They should have stayed tier 10, with all USN fighters receiving an HP buff (to be higher than IJN's, making them more resilient to AA), a nerf to DPS, and possibly a buff to ammo, while IJN gets a DPS buff (closing the gap in down chance and having the initial edge) but maybe a slight ammo nerf. Short run IJN has the edge but a longer fight is favoured by USN and odds are, way fighters work IJN is going to be forced to disengage before destroying USN due to lack of ammo, and USN can just fight ammo less planes or, go run down the bombers with what remains. Assuming we keep attack planes and damage the same (thinking of an alternate plan that I know CV players are liable to hate short run but might like long run), USN does still need it's DB's to flat out be more accurate than they currently are, been saying that for years, but, with all the AA buffs meant to cancel out manual TB drops, that were more IJN's things, they need their HP buffed to make up for those or, in general, just buff their and the TB's HP while nerfing AA so that USN's are more durable, while IJN, as it was originally meant to, relies on overwhelming a target with more groups of slightly more vulnerable planes. Give USN it's AS setup back, and make the "new" setups, except Midways the strike option (Midways needs to return to 2,1,3) and change IJN's so that they match the USN in fighter groups per setup, so, we'll stick with Midway and Hak, Midway would be 3,0,3 AS and 2,1,3 strike, Hak would be 3,2,3 AS and 2,3,3 strike. Which, combined with fixed AA, having those more accurate, and powerful DB's, while not as good as GZ (or what a German line should be) USN can be the more effective of the 2 at DD hunting but really - it's bread and butter is attacking cruisers, especially lighter ones, as it has the HP to survive the AA better, and take out AA guns as it scores hits. And can of course hit a BB, but is going to usually be reliant on burning it over time which, again, fixed AA means that's a little easier to manage. Where as IJN (while not maybe as good as UK would likely be given their heavy focus on torpedo carrying aircraft over really DB's), is focused more on hunting the larger capital ships because they are bigger and slower, easier to hit with torps that are far more effective against them then bombs. Sure, it can maybe catch a cruiser in it's cross drop or a DD, but, those can be a bit more agile and cruisers do have DF AA and IJN's planes aren't as durable as USN's in this scenario. And sure, maybe it can hit a DD with some luck but really - those DB's are more there to soften BB AA for the TB's. And maybe now we just normalize reload times or base them on aircraft speed. With IJN become the capital ship killer, who's fighters excel at hit and run and shorter engagements and relies on overwhelming a ship with attack aircraft, while the ship itself is harder to find (as they currently have better detection than USN), while USN's aircraft become tankier, and about the long fight, great for escorting bombers even into enemy AA, bombers that make it a cruiser hunter to help the teams DD's run amok, and can send it's fighters as escorts because, much like now, they have some of the best AA just like other USN ships.
  7. Need some help

    nvm - saw the next post as was posting
  8. Demolition expert and/or IFHE on high tier BBs?

    I wouldn't worry about putting DE on a Battleship, they don't really need the 2%. Not to mention the strength of German secondaries at the last check is actually they tend to have 15 cm AP rounds that eat cruisers alive. IFHE I've been experimenting with and it's a toss up really, so far mostly tested with Bayern (not messed with a UK captain yet, just trying to get them trained regular) but it does have some good uses. Unlike some BB players, I switch ammo depending on target that I expect, and if I expect a DD and suddenly a cruiser (or some BB's) more chance of it penning the ship, superstructure and in some cases citadel. It comes in handy as ships that have torp tubes at closer ranges I want to hit with HE to knock those tubes out (and has saved me plenty). And the fact that some ships I've encountered (Atlanta, UK cruisers below tier 8 or 9 I forget where the line is) I have overpenned the ships citadel at close range with AP and HE itself, even German, can't quite pen the cit normally. So, between that and all I haven't retrained that captain, but not using him a ton over my standard secondary build. It has use, and UK with those bigger guns can get some scary pen numbers, but, it's defiantly debatable and a matter of player choice and scenario. Usefulness of FP - it's useful for sure, more because they need to fix fires on BB's and CV's still, but, other ways to deal with fires like all the stuff to reduce burn time and all. Lower DCP cooldown. All those fun things. I can't speak to UK and France, only at tiers 7 and 6 respectively, but Germany, really just better with MFC and AFT/BFT and whatever other skills fit your style, be it survivability, more repairs and hydro, or even more dakka (adrenaline rush).
  9. Yet Another Find by R/V Petrel

    Can we get this man and his team a medal? Found Indy, Lexy, now this? Rate he's going he'll find some of the other missing ships in the pacific, the Minerve (long lost French sub in the Med), and Flight 19. Hell, he might find Atlantis.
  10. It'll happen, it's just into it's 3rd year of development (the rework that is). Now, if it'll actually be good and functional is the question because so far the last several changes made to CV's shows they will likely be terrible and they have no clue what they are doing.
  11. Oh, Come On, Team!

    Idk, is it worse that I had a match where in my Cleveland a bit ago at 2-3 km I think it was I dodged the French cruisers torps, then sunk the DD with him (albeit I messed up and got killed and was still number 1 on the team at the end, should have taken the screenshot before server went down for reset). Gonna have to see if I can record the replay of that because it was hilarious to me.
  12. No new carrier lines

    Far as from CV players, were always going to want some new ships and lines to change things up, just like other classes, but yes, I fully agree that UK is next, German/French after that, I would say German first, and then after those two, and possibly IJN, USN, and UK splits/second lines Italy and Russia in that order. Others have done more work on digging up the various designs and studies they did, so, I'd say they are feasible but basically yes the "were running out of things to add" lines. And yeah, Germany at the top tier definitely needs at least 1 extrapolated ship (Montana is actually based on ordered but ever laid down ships at last check) at the top, maybe 2 depending. Tier 5-8 are easy (I actually think, given how late they got into development, Germany should start at tier 5 instead of 4). Because there was a second GZ hull, and a plan to remove GZ's 150 mm guns in place of more DP 10.5 cm guns in sponsons that was nixed because how far along the ship was and the cost and time of the rebuild, that could be applied to that hull, which could be tier 8 or 9 depending. And that's actually fairly easy to do when you look at their CV plans, what they were looking at, and the fact that it's an already familiar gimmick to the nation. Basically all the designs, compared to the ships they'd tier against and just in general, are heavy on DP guns because aside from the air threat as commerce raiders support and the North Sea and all they expected close quarters fights with DD's and cruisers and the like. So, much like IJN and USN (stealthier and AA focused respectively, which lines up with their "national flavours"), it'd fit right into the German line as a whole. And taking from other German designs across the board and all (H-class, Maus, landkreuzer, etc) did my own extrapolation when I did my likely in need of a reworking write up for the line, where basically, bigger than any other CV (unless they really add the ice carrier they modeled), some 12.8, 10.5, and possibly 8.8 cm guns (few if any medium/short range AA guns) reliant on accurate DB's and no TB's (in this case the Ju-187 "Super Stuka" project, were it allowed to be completed) and the Ta-152 as the likely fighter conversion (as Germany seemed intent on converting land based aircraft for ease of production for the most part). Though, given some of their ambitious designs, plans, etc, I would also say as a bomber option not to rule out the Ju-88 (The US got B-25's off both a Yorktown and Essex Class CV, and recovered it on the Essex, and the Ju-88 is actually smaller and lighter than the B-25H launched and recovered by the USS Shangri-la), which was used as a DB (and a ground attack plane, and a TB, and a fighter-bomber, etc) or if they bring jet fighters back as an option (higher speed, lower DPS, more like interceptors, albeit fighters need an overhaul in general) the ME-262 and other jet fighter projects. Truth be told I personally am not a huge fan of taken foreign ships to make up a line, I only ever bring up Aquila with a German line because they had a hand in building it and all, and I get why Pan-Asia was added seeing as they added 2 DD's that represented countries, but they had no real use as trainers and there was some call for a line and further representation from the region but no one country could make a full line really. Though... we saw how that went once the flags became involved. Could they use the foreign ships - sure, but I think that should be "okay, there is no way in hell we can fill the tier with the designs we have". A ship like Kongo is an odd exception, the Japanese had the UK build it for them, but I think generally a ship not in some way at least partially built by the country (not counting the likes of the Commonwealth that were supplied by the UK which they were effectively part of), should be more of a premium ship/reward ship, not part of the tech tree, but that's me.
  13. Next new tech tree?

    IF they get things sorted, I doubt they will, - UK CV's. I have a feeling they did a bunch of work but as things fell apart put them on the back burner. Though, apparently, they have also in the past run into issues trying to do UK ships because of issues getting materials so that could be another reason. Next actual thing that's brand new, my guess is cruisers, likely Italian, or maybe French DD's.
  14. Scharnhorst, where did it go, why is it gone?

    This and the fact after x time most people that are going to get it have gotten it, so rotate in some new stock, eventually have some newer players that don't have a Scharn so you sell some more once you rotate it back in.
  15. No new carrier lines

    We were supposed to get a CV rework last year (only reason they put in premium CV's because that was the stipulation) as well as a second UK line, likely the CV's, that never materialized and they have at least one modeled though it's likely not actually part of a line (they have the ice carrier modeled in a vid). Supposed to have the rework year before that too. Far as CV's go they've proven they either don't know what they are doing, or are incompetent, possibly both. Depends on the definition of "paper" because not all players define paper ships the same way. GZ was the furthest complete of Germany's CV's (unless you add in Aquila, that was A:built with help from the Germans, B: using some German parts such as the second GZ hulls aircraft catapults, and C: was captured by the Germans but sunk by Italian frogmen to prevent them using it in anyway.), however, most of the German designs were yes, conversions, that fit at various possible tiers, and all those ships had started the conversion process but were halted after Hitler's last fit about the failure of his surface fleet. So they made it off paper and had physical hulls and work done on them, however, never made it to operational. To me, those are "Real" ships, as they physically existed and make up the majority of the line, albeit yes, they would need possibly an actual paper ship or two (even UK likely does in the Malta class) or a stretch of history/fake (similar to the BB line), however, to some those are paper ships, so o that one your kinda dealing with semantics. Also, unlike France which, under my definition has actually more paper ships than Germany (I don't count the fully foreign made ones), Germany has an actual air force that could have had aircraft converted to CV use to draw from where there's a gap in French aviation unless you include foreign made aircraft. Also, while a mix of real and maybe some paper, IJN and USN have the materials for second full lines, or even just branches at around tier 6-7 that go to 10. While the other 4 nations that at least have some ships and paper designs/design studies (Russia does actually have several from the era), should be lower priority, we should have had another CV line by now considering there is at least 3-4 of every other line.