Jump to content

WanderingGhost

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    4,750
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    11049
  • Clan

    [SSG]

Community Reputation

1,870 Superb

3 Followers

About WanderingGhost

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,749 profile views
  1. WanderingGhost

    GK - The Phoenix?

    In the words of James T Kirk - "Pray Savik - the Klingon's don't take prisoners" Despite what the wiki says, yeah, the ships just always seem to be on fire, and nothing to do about it. Feels like a holdover from the pre-IFHE days (when in all fairness, German BB's were otherwise immune to many cruisers and a bit too effective). The only other remote thing is use islands as you charge them as shields to get in close and try and destroy them before they start fires.
  2. WanderingGhost

    Ramming...

    Way back when it used to matter - two opposing ships could collide side to side and be maybe slightly more impactful than ramming a teammate. Your bow in to a ships stern could be a slow grind down of both ships HP as you continue shooting at each other. T-bone was most effective, and doing so at full speed you could literally cut a ship in half and go through it (even a BB long as you severed the bow). Hell, a sufficient ram could actually cause a BB to break in the middle and sink in two halves and your ship/BB got brought to a dead stop. It was glorious. And then they decoded to dumb the mechanic down to both players die 9/10 times if they barely touch. I really want the old ramming mechanics and more varied sinking animations back (as well as the debris remaining after but that could be a rating thing). It was really hilarious to see DD's ram BB's for whatever HP thy had left and snap in two.
  3. I know it is, why I was mostly playing along. As opposed to straight up ranting. As far as the torps, on one of my history benders here - I am fine with Germany having an anti-ship acoustic homing torpedo, unlike USN they actually had one (the USN's homing torp was anti-sub, and a last ditch fire cracker vs a ship). HOWEVER - it should be what it historically was which is a passive acoustic homing torpedo, that is it listens for sound then homes in. And the range they would start homing is within 3-400 meters - or .3-4 km, and also would turn toward machinery/prop. Were this implemented it would still essentially be a skill shot - it's not going to correct a ton in the last couple seconds of it's run. A near miss may be converted to a hit, yes - but a hit that may have struck forward of torp protection may now hit it. As well as the homing torp, like it's real life counterpart, should pack a little less punch. But it should basically be a second type option against just a standard torpedo, like how other ships swap between HE and AP. USN meanwhile should have a standard straight runner that hits everything, and seeing as they are a tad more of a cruiser hunter nation (unless WG can separate CA and CC as their own thing for USN to target) gets a DWT that is still 100% skill shot that if it hits can citadel cruisers (if possible just CA and CC) if it hits that area of the ship with one. Both (and really all) nations get a generic torpedo, allowing them to deal with any threat as needed, but they get second options that provide flavour and fit the nations usual kind of role. The bit of tracking German subs would have, at least at higher tiers as I would but Type VII, IX and XXI at tiers 8-10 with them, 6 and 7 being inter designs (type I, maybe the prototype or others built for other nations built on UB III design) though 7 could be early war type VII and 8 a later one, and then UB III class as the tier 5 sub (as it evolved into the type VII effectively). But not sure on having homing below tier 8, maybe 7 at the lowest - 5 and 6 could maybe have pattern runners but I digress, a better shot at hitting DD's and disabling them. USN better against cruisers, maybe CA/CC if doable, IJN BB killers as usual, with their DWT citadeling BB's when they hit the right spot. UK - maybe CL or something else - have to do more research there. But hey, that's me.
  4. WanderingGhost

    What is RNG

    As the guy says above - "Random Number Generator" In regards to battle it's basically applied to shells after they leave, causing the pattern of how they land in the imaginary circle around the ship that shells will land in, it also applies to CV rockets and bombs. It also applies to fire chance - how with a 10% fire chance and 100 hits you can start no fires. It also has an effect on torpedoes, though more often harder to see (if you pay attention torps from tubes/planes will have inconsistent spacing, which especially at longer ranges can leave gaps a ship can dodge through). The biggest one though is arguably detonation chance - each hit on a magazine - be it direct hits or shock damage - triggers a roll. For fire chance/detonation, think of it as the game rolling a 100 sided die, in the case of say 10% fire chance, you need to 'roll' a 91-100 to light a fire, while on a detonation, if we say that too is 10% if you 'roll' a 1-10 you explode. For accuracy think of a bullseye or dart board around the target with numbers assigned, and what you roll that matches lands in that circle. As for winrates - It's the fact the game randomly picks 24 players, other than div's. You can get 11 clueless fools that a toddler pressing buttons randomly can beat, or 11 demigods that will kill everything faster than you can even shoot at them. Same with the other 12 players. It's part of why people like me put less stock in Winrate as a metric than others, someone is just as likely to get teams that carry them (I know of a player who makes the other 11 do all the work, so his WR looks impressive but he's a trash teammate) as much as a better player may just get teams he can't make up for how bad they are - even if they out score everyone on their team and most of the red team.
  5. -remembers iteration 3- Much as I like Crimson Tide and Hunt for Red October, if I'm playing subs in this game I want Das Boot, not those two. Even if some of the tier 10 options come closer to those 2 (but not outright the same). Bad enough CV's have been turned into an unholy abomination with missing tiers and an unnecessary lack of historical accuracy (I mean more than a year and the HVAR rockets on the F8F are STILL mounted wrong, they can't even hit that T-ball with a 1000 car freight train skidding sideways?) we don't need subs being the same. Especially considering some of the historical accuracy removed from CV's and not present in some of the sub testing is way more balanced than their 'screw history just game logic' approach.
  6. WanderingGhost

    Kremlin best DD hunter?

    279 mm dispersion max with 9x 457's in 3 turrets that are pretty close on the ship with a 30 second 180 time (That's faster than a 406 armed GK by 10 seconds and even Republique's 431's by 6) which is lower if you take Expert Marksman, use the upgrade for another 15% off and/or to cancel out the drawback on main battery mod in slot 6 (that would get you a 30 second or less reload and still likely 2% faster rotation) - meaning you aren't turning the ship hull as much which seems to mess with aim a tad. Or in other words - The fact it's Russian. Even Thunderer has slower rotation, fewer guns in a less advantageous 4x2 setup which it's accuracy and reload don't quite fully make up for against a DD at range. And Thunderer doesn't have armour that matches or in places surpasses Yamato.
  7. Not the numbers I'm seeing - WR and average kills yes, I'd say 3rd average xp tied with Thunderer, 6th in average damage (though still almost 90k a game) and yes 5th in K/D at 1.66, none of which fully defeats his point though on survivability. If you look at the 'first 3' (Monty, GK and Yama) they are 1.44, 1.32, and 1.38 -literally all within .06. Kremlin is in the same realm as Thunderer/Conq that has a zombie heal, as is Republique. The big thing for USN was always it's AA and Montana is 5th nearly 2 planes behind it. The only other ships with better AA are premium/resource BB's - and even they don't exceed it by that amount. It's in the XP realm of premium/special ships Of the first 3, Yamato was always gold standard for damage, especially given it's ability to overmatch anything. GK is the only ship to release after it and not out damage it. Despite Kremlin having a slower reload, it has almost 3.5k over it with a smaller gun. Likely a combination of her better traverse, higher fire chance, ability to deal with fires (survive) and the higher velocity on AP rounds as well as consistent velocity. It's managing almost a kill a game, the first 3 manage about .8 - including back pre-IFHE when cruisers couldn't auto-pen the bow at will. I personally don't put much stock in WR, but it's among premium/special BB's that usually always trend higher for various reasons at 52%, when the newest tech tree ships barely manage 50%, and the original 2 don't even make 49%. Take out the premium/non-tech tree ships - 1st in WR (by over 2%), 1st in frags, 3rd in damage, 1st in XP, 1st in average plane kills by a massive margin, and second only to Conqueror in KD and not by much. Now let's consider that it's protection in most areas matches or surpasses Yamato, it's almost 3 knots faster, has a faster rudder shift by 6 seconds though a 100m larger turn circle, slightly lower detection, and more hit points, and while limited uses of DCP - has a far faster CD meaning she can manage fires better. Not conjecture - other than why she may have higher damage average than Yamato - but facts based on in game numbers and info I'm pulling straight from the port and from WoWs-Numbers. Sure when you keep non-tech tree ships that usually trend higher stats wise than tech tree ships (there are, of course, exceptions) she seems a little less impressive - remove those she's top or close to it of every category and in cases by fairly sizeable margins. I haven't played Kemlin yet, but I've played against it a lot and noted it seems abnormally strong and quite popular. But this is very much like when in a different topic way back Sub responded about Kaga and CV's somewhat generally that if WR, damage, etc are good why do plane losses matter? They matter cause that average damage and all that is 'good', is because Kaga absolutely stomps on tier 6 and even 7 ships of which many ave inadequate AA while bottom tiered AA is a damn nightmare, even though it's insane reserves do help it mitigate better than Lex, Saipan, and Shokaku, and the average that on paper looks fine is more the product of 2 extremes. And unlike Kremlin I have a Kaga for first hand experience and evaluation - as well as some of those problematic AA ships like Neptune and Mino. Numbers are great and can be useful - as long as WHY the numbers are is understood. Case in point I can tell you exactly why Kremlin is trouncing in AA ships like Montana - It has 10 bursts at 1820 damage against Montana's 8 at 1680, Kremlin has 70 more DPS at long range and opens fire at 6.6 km instead of 6 km, and while Montana has more at 3.5 km Kremlin has more at 3.1 while the last AA guns of Montana don't open up till 2 km. She's got more time for weapons to deal damage, especially on the ones that deal damage the longest and have a higher damage, while also having 2 more powerful bursts that can catch planes. Aside from the fact that they should be using using half broadside salvo's that are a fixed number related to guns that can fire over a side (5 in the case of Montana, 6 for Kremlin thanks to her 4 center mount secondaries) Montana should have a slightly faster rate of fire on bursts (1.8-9 minimum vs 2.0 on Kremlin) and should at the minimum closer match Kremlin in DPS and more similar range (likely reduction in Kremlin max AA range) which would serve to reign in Kremlin's AA, after that would be any possible adjustments to the range/DPS of the short range 25 mm guns. But simply put the issue between Montana and Kremlin AA is the same as Montana vs Yamato - how far out is DPS happening and at what levels. The only things likely keeping Kremlin from being number 1 across the board are her limited number of DCP's to get that 50% faster reload on them, and the fact her RoF on the main battery is a round every 33 seconds - though given now that the slot 3 upgrade has no reload penalty and should cancel out the traverse penalty on slot 6 see even more players make use of the reload upgrade to make it 30 seconds or less on guns almost as big on Yamato's with a better traverse - a traverse I may add, that is significantly faster than any other BB - for reference it with nothing traverses 9x 457's in 30 seconds while my closest ship is my GK with a commander with Expert Marksman armed with 406 mm guns that takes 34.6 seconds and even stock Republique's 8x 431's traverse in 36 seconds.
  8. WanderingGhost

    European DD event

    Could you also write up to just make these events ones where you just straight up can earn a ship or not? Like, directive 1 gets me the tier 5, 2 is a little harder and gets me 6, 3 is harder than that and rewards 7, etc. Because seriously - the RNG stuff we've had the last few I will say is nonsense cause I can't use the word I want to. Work my butt off to get these tokens, RNG just goes 'lol no' and gives me 10-20 at a time. Just like UK cruisers - I got nothing with the bloody bundles and all, and before that I lucked in to one. You want to monetize the borderline 'live PTS' that these are - fine. Do it better and in less frustrating ways. Have a whatever tier premium, as you guys seem to have one for each event, that either you can work for enough crates/tokens/whatever to get or drop x money on crates that also give whatever else to get it now. Or the Camo's in RNG method's maybe with some slightly different bonuses like the alt Tirpitz camo from Christmas/New Years a few years back. But seriously, it's infuriating to go through the objectives and then chance says 'lol no'. Same as why I hate getting SC's at Christmas for tier 10 wins now - 500 of a flag I already had 700 of because I don't really use it is just grand.
  9. WanderingGhost

    New russian radar

    I think it comes down to how he is defining spotting data. Yes, all those things would tell you where the ship is - like how the first few seconds tell you where it is on the minimap. However, if it was over the horizon, behind a rock, obscured by smoke, etc - this would not magically make the ship visible to you - which is where part of the real issue with Radar in game. If it only told the red team where my ship was, and they still had to get in spotting range to shoot me, you could give Des a 3 minute radar and I wouldn't care. As it works now as a means to defeat open water stealth and smoke - fine - but then it needs to not work through rocks so the Des can't sit unspotted behind a rock just trolling any DD or ship that tries to cap. Let alone when they basically chain them.
  10. Which some of generally get, and can even understand, even if we don't agree. What most of us seem to take issue with is how drastic and opaque it's being made. Case in point the fact premiums are 'day of or later' for info - if the ship is 'finished' there should be no harm in giving us days/a week to watch content reviewing it's finalized stats or even look at the wiki on it to make up our minds. Granted I still fully disagree with the move because while I get people can be dumb and panicky and incapable of understanding somehow what 'work in progress' means (granted some of that is also that Wargaming of late regardless of what we say seems to make no/minimal changes, and frankly it was only a bit better back when I was in ST before/just after game launch) - some of us still need time to set money or resources away for a ship. Cause we aren't all super wealthy with the ability to drop 20 dollars on a whim, let alone the ever increasing amounts being charged, or we don't all have 8 billion of the super signals that make it so we have a ton of free xp to convert (which tier 9's should be back to 750k and tier 10 should be 1 million as that's roughly the amount of XP required to earn that tier normally AND is closer to the shop price of the ships, or at least the price tier 10 should be, as opposed to now where anyone that converts it is getting majorly gauged), or the money to convert XP sitting on our ships because this dev team has been against adding an 'accelerate captain training' like it's sister games for some reason - beyond the response years ago about it being unnecessary at the time as the game was new and everyone on relatively equal footing, something that is now way out the door now and would help low/mid tier players catch up - especially if they buy premiums - to those of us who have been here longer and have a 19 pt captain or 5. Because while I do like the 'elite captain xp' concept, it fails to replace 'accelerate captain training' for anyone newer and only benefits those that can take advantage, in that vein of 'rich get richer'.
  11. Most of that was the late development, they saw decent though still limited use in Okinawa. And it's at least an option and not the default, and arguably a fair one. Not 100% sure on performance - after all the warhead was basically an adaptation of 500 lb SAP bomb, but if Wargaming were utilizing thing's PROPERLY - it'd be interesting. Generally USN has been a tad more 'anti-cruiser' but overall the 'jack of all trades' or 'Swiss arm knife'. Especially with CV's. If they had actual thought things through and not gone with this even's only slacker line, USN in particular could have had SEVERAL options through tiers to make them more unique. The 5 inch rockets for DD's and TT's more for cruisers, maybe even ability to citadel some of them (likely lower damage though), sticking to the RTS style TB group maybe only 1-2 passes with larger groups till you get to high tiers and 2-3 torps per plane (but lower HP for overall group) with lower damage that are more effective at scoring the his but lower damage per - just a generally effective attack, and the options like 1-2 2000 lb HE bombs to make sure a BB feels that hit, or 2-4 1000 lb HE or AP bombs to go after cruisers. Maybe even options with a number of 500 lb bombs. USN would be heavily customizable for whatever job your looking for. IJN was always the capital ship killer. While not as many torps in the water at once, Hak's 3x4 setup should come back (but with the damage per torp LOWER than RTS damage not higher) and the lower tiers as well have their groups shuffled. The spacing in a drop like the old days may mean better chances namely for DD and CL to dodge, but you will know it hit you for sure even if only one. There are exactly 3 CV's of the IJN that I can list a name for that I'm okay with having rockets - Taiho (currently MIA), Shinano (also MIA), and Hak. And that's because the first two are very late war (and may have had them if given the chance) and Hak is a paper ship anyway. Maybe an Unryu class premium of the like, but sure as hell not my Kaga and all. IJN fighters should be armed with HE bombs, 60 kg on the A6M2, 250 kg when you get to the A6M5, and then maybe at the high end a 500 kg bomb. The dive bombers should use SAP bombs, their are multiple ways to do this. Easiest is high pen/low fire HE. But with SAP shells could work similar to them but again, should have a fire chance (just as SAP shells should kinda have). This would give them some real bite on BB's same way 152 mm guns with IFHE can have. However they would have 2 her options. To swap out either DB's or maybe even TB's to level bombers carrying 800 kg bombs, either HE or AP, with MAYBE the tier 10 B7A2 acting as a DB (because it should be the tier 10, not what they have). But generally the 800 kg AP would decently hurt a BB, but likely overpen 'normal' cruisers (ones with heavier protection than normal like some Heavy and Super cruisers may get citadeled too), while the heavy HE while not quite up as high as USN 2000 lb bombs would have the higher fire chance and still hurt considerably close to one. UK really depends on choices. They didn't put as much development into really having DB's. Given the tendency to rate for lower altitudes and inline engines with less drag, as well as other design and factors give them good speed and agility, but moderate HP that makes them excellent for avoiding Flak and setting them up as CL hunters (if we consider USN a bit more CA Hunter) that can branch a bit to anti-DD relying on either 6" RP-3 HE or SAP rockets (HE being a normal standard, SAP having actual higher pen, both more so than the 5 inch HVAR that is a smaller diameter and slightly slower, though maybe SAP default on Indomitable - least on a way of reworking it I'm thinking of to be more actively competitive), Torpedoes likely closer to USN or in between USN and IJN, and using multiple smaller bombs in either A: proper dive bombing runs or B: glide bombing runs, not the carpet bombing level bomber nonsense. They'd still be capped at 500 lbs, but possibly AP options as well as choice of at higher tier 250 lbs for better accuracy (more anti DD) or 500 lbs (anti CL). Which while they would have what they 'specialize' in, would still have capability vs other types on some level - unless possibly a player chooses to over specialize in some way which hey - it was their choice. But hey - that's me, I think historical accuracy actually matters to a point and that each line should have a purpose similar to the other lines of the nation or their common theme. And you do better with TT's - more power to you man, use them. It's part of why I want more options to tweak CV play like you can other classes (the other classes have somewhat more freedom of skill choices and modernization's, we should get a bit more freedom in modules because the rest to stay competitive in a CV is pretty rigid) - so players can find what works for them and have real options. As for me, much as I can use TT's, I prefer FFAR/HVAR - but that's also because I constantly get teams that leave 3 grid square wide holes so DD's get through to me and have to kill them myself, and the volume of 5 inch rockets lets me use maneuvering to cover a wider area when they pop smoke but stop firing to try and pinpoint them/deal damage.
  12. The Hornet isn't a thing till the mid 80's which honestly, I think is a bit modern for Wargaming. Odds are if they were to expand more to the post war ships he's talking about, your talking later 50's up to maybe the 70's. In which missiles are an option, but not everyone had the same ones at the same time for air launch, and the technology was still new and not super reliable. And even if the preferred weapon today is an anti-ship missile, does not change that the F-18 still carries bombs (both smart and dumb) and rockets that could be used to attack a ship.
  13. I feel it plays a little too much role in it personally, why I stopped using TT on Midway and just stuck to HVAR. Personally I'd rater have a little less alpha damage (except on HVAR/FFR/RP-3, those need a lot less alpha damage) to take some of the RNG out of accuracy. Honestly between 2k lb bomb and TT's standard I'd like to see Saipan tweaked a bit to be a real more anti-cruiser dedicated ship (compared to the semi JoaT USN is normally). Yeah, they've screwed a bit too much with usability on DB's like changing aim circles, fall times, and now time between attacks (which has really screwed me up when I attack 1 ship, get to the other ship I intended to hit and have to wait 4 more seconds) but once you get it down, they can really cause havoc. It's part of why aside from historical accuracy I want tier 4 to have rocket planes removed - to make those who are going to play CV's learn how to use the DB's and TB's that are really the bread and butter of CV's work. Tier 5 (which is also where the first subs from WW1 should come in to play) is where rockets should come in to play. Sure the high volume rockets can stomp DD's easy when used well but bombs and torps will wreck anything just about (UK is a somewhat problem plagued exception in it's design). When you consider that planes are CV's turrets (not it's ammo) - DB's are effectively the main battery, TB's obviously torp launchers, and attack planes are secondaries. Saipan and Midway/Lex using TT's is sort of a weird prototype of what a mixed artilery ship could look like (with Saipan/Midway namely having DB's whose ordnance is roughly equal to 16+ inch guns and Attack planes whose rockets are equal to 12/14 inch guns depending on if you go by diameter or filling).
  14. Very, VERY false. The ONLY time any aircraft I can think of was 'missiles only' is during Vietnam when they removed the cannons from F4 Phantom's because they thought, incorrectly, that guns had become obsolete. And even that was still inaccurate to say as the F4 could still carry bombs, rockets, etc. The only plane type that would be gone moving into the late 60's/early 70's is non-ASW torpedo bombers. These would be replaced by something carrying an Anti-ship missile all likelihood. But that would take Wargaming having to use a system similar to the nonsense subs had last we saw to ping targets (acquire radar lock in this case) that's usable on a plane, as well as some form of countermeasure to jam the radar or make it missiles can be shot down (because even the Exocet's mentioned in Top Gun were a sub-sonic missile). Though damage would likely not be too crazy - or at least no craier than any ordnance now as most of the air launched ones that would be on a CV seem to have 500 lb or less Warheads (making them maybe equal to some torpedoes, less than even some of the tier 6 CV's bombs for max damage). And that assumes we don't just lower it because it's a freaking missile. I'd also assume they don't have super accurate snap direction changes do maneuvering may also be an option. But Rocket attacks and Dive bombing would still be a thing. As would use of fighters with guns. I believe 3 years ago now they tried to develop missile cruisers for tier 10-ish given the first of those is late 50's, however it did not pan out with what they tried - and based on how they talked about one of the ideas being controlling the missiles and that they had the 'basics' of the rework from something else they tested and lying about - I'm guessing that what they tried ended up becoming the CV rework as well as a prototype to Submarines guided torps from some of the other things they tried. I believe the GMC's were talked about in a video but no memory what the title was or where to even start that search. But ship-ship anti ship missiles is where you start getting a tad crazy in potential damage. At least ASM's have small enough warheads to keep damage in check. Beyond that they have a rule no 'super carriers' or angled decks. Frankly, at this point - the angled decks rule is just stupid with us limited to one group. As for super carriers - I'm inclined to agree on modern super carriers (why when I talk of adding Forrestal I say her original design before the angled deck and all in which technically she does not meet the definition of 'super carrier' and I say 'modern' because Shinano could potentially be considered one and it should be put back in the game). However many carriers have very limited air defence beyond their fighters (which are already a balancing nightmare at the moment) at the point we'd be talking tier 11 and 12, not to mention the way they are constructed actually kinda takes a lot to sink one. Battleships effectively disappear, what few last past the war really take up the role of cruisers helping cover with AA guns or are really there for shore bombardment/anti-ship if anything gets in range. DD's and cruisers remain - but the line really starts to blur.
  15. The key part is - they have half a brain. I broke my Saipan out and while DB's did some work (other than the match where a Musashi nuked me from across the map while I was dodging flak) DD's managed to juke just right or the spread was off, or hit the torp protection I don't know how on a BB, meanwhile DB's no issue other than misses that knockout steering and propulsion so I don't miss again (other than some issues still adapting to the idiotic change to time between attacks throwing me off). Couldn't attack any of the cruisers other than a Mogami where I just generally wrecked it. But still had errant shots in the circle hitting torp protection/0 damage hits. But that's PvP.
×