Jump to content

WanderingGhost

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    5,245
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    12161
  • Clan

    [SSG]

Community Reputation

2,320 Superb

4 Followers

About WanderingGhost

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3,829 profile views
  1. WanderingGhost

    ST 0.10.6, soviet aircraft carriers

    Okay - as one of the few people, who has been willing to back an eventual, or really inevitable, Russian CV line - NO!!!!!! You have yet to balance the now FOUR existing CV lines at all - despite the claims your dev team made that cutting our lines in half would 'make balancing them easier' which unsurprisingly to anyone with some experience in game design or common sense, has proven false. You just put in a woefully inadequate attempt at fixing DD vs CV that goes against what the rework was supposed to do, making the class easier for newer players to take up and lower the skill gap, that isn't going to do anything to stop those of us with half a brain using FFAR, HVAR, and RP-3 from adapting and continuing to absolutely slaughter DD players. Let's even talk about the fact that aside from the fact there is still WAY TOO MUCH balance work needed on AA, ordnance damage, plane regen rates, on down a long, long list that seriously needs to be addressed like I said in my 10.5 feedback post - where's our other USN and IJN CV's? Or are we not going to see them now because when you guys told us that you were going to have Essex and Yorktown carrying floatplanes that dropped smoke and put out fires we rioted - and rightfully so. As much as you guys may have deleted all my CV line related threads when you nuked that one part of the player suggestions area - I still recall the vast majority of ships in all of them. For the paltry 16 carriers you have in game, representing 4 nations lines not counting premiums, some of which never should have been added as such, the full count the last time I worked on it was - 1 full USN CV line 4-10 of purpose built aircraft carriers ending in original Forrestal design (straight deck, not in the range to be classified by current definitions as a super carrier) 1 full USN CV branch from 5-10 of converted ships to carriers (I believe it ended in Montana conversion if not the proposed Iowa one) 1 evens only CV line branch of Escort/light/ASW carriers (depending on direction chosen) 1 full line IJN purpose built carriers (ending with Hak) 1 full line IJN converted carriers (ending in Shinano, which is in something of a grey area but you've breeched enough of them I think we can handle it) Potential evens only IJN light/escort line (things here were a bit sketchy and was in progress before losing stuff) 1 full 5-10 German CV branch - despite the sabotages of using Graf Zeppelin - and with out the 'flight deck cruisers' your team added which ARE NOT AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. They are cruisers, with flight decks that have a couple planes, meant to be more surface merchant raiders with some planes that can scout and attack, unlike a CV where the air power is the main weapon. 2 full lines of British carriers 4-10 1 evens only line of British 'medium' carriers 1 full or evens only French line I only had materials for an evens only Italian line - others with more knowledge on that front have put out possible full lines A line of evens only in Commonwealth, that could have had Canadian, Australian, and Indian Branches even though somewhat jerry-rigged - there was even a possible Pan-America line All of which used ships that either existed completely, started construction, or started conversion, with some that only existed on paper mixed in in some cases to finish/fill out a line that had at least a couple of ships that were built/being built/being converted, and almost no 'fake' ships. All well before a paper only Russian fleet. Which not counting the unsure of IJN CVL line, the Pan-Am line or any I forgot - is a total of 71-72 tech tree ships that have honestly more reason to exist in this game than a Russian tree. And all without hurting ability to have premium ships for each. And even if we want to play the 'Russia is home' type card - there are many historical CV's, from USN and IJN, removed during the rework and not returned, to say nothing of the still what the hell omission of Yorktown from the American tech tree from day 1, and the same for UK of never included and even Germany, that comprises even if we limit it to 1 line before additional lines, about a dozen other carriers that should be in this game first. I remember that one 'reason' and I use that term VERY lightly was that aside from 'easier to balance' the even's only was 'oh, the gameplay would be too similar between tiers - even though you've made it the same between basically all CV's. Now - while I find it very hard to believe your dev team has not figured out a way to give a CV 2 different types of DB groups or rocket groups or even TB groups at the same time - especially reading the details for the premium RU Cv, even working with that, and actually having some knowledge of how the navies at the time operated and all, it's not hard to find ways to make them unique to one another, but make it that going through tiers they can have different play, in fact, as CV's captain skills and upgrades are still not really flexible, it would give us an ability to choose and alter playstyles to what we want the same way a BB or DD player might through choice of captain skills or say taking secondary gun improvements over main battery. To work in what they actually did and could do historically as opposed to what you have done - USN current (purpose built) - Uses 5 inch FFAR/HVAR rockets on it's attack planes, these simply increase in quantity from tier 5 or 6 when they are unlocked, unless we add the 3 inch anti-sub rockets with those on the way. Torpedo bombers drop several at once throughout the tiers - 4, 5, to 6 torpedoes by tier 8, with 9 and 10 reducing the number of planes needed to carry that many torpedoes so if tier 8 is 12 planes for 2 attacks of 6, tier 9 is 3 planes, 2 a piece, group total of 9 and tier 10 is 2 planes with 3 each, maybe totaling 8 planes, but with pretty low damage given the volume and meant to be a bit more like birdshot to catch more nimble targets with the volume of torpedoes. Which brings us to sort of the mainstay - the DB's. USN CV planes have some pretty insane load carry capabilities - which after tier 6 can be used quite well with USN's overall sort of 'JoaT' thing with the top tiers getting the option of 2x 2000 lb bombs per plane, 4x 1000 lb bombs, or 8x 500 lb bombs depending on player preferences (gained at tiers 7, 8 and 9) with tier 10 being a choice of taking maybe the F9F or the like - an early jet that carries fewer rockets and has less HP, but is faster than the AD skyraiders that should be the top tier attack plane. With USN planes being decently fast and tanky, but not super agile. USN (conversion) - in some ways fills out a little like early USN fleet CV's and Escort CV's - they focus basically on Fighters (attack planes) and Dive Bombers. Whilst it would be far better if it could carry 2 bombing groups, assuming that it is technically impossible, and not a choice by Wargaming staff, It would start at tier 5, and with rockets, and with HE bombs though possibly an early option of what it wants to carry based on planes used at tier. And it too would be able to choose between more lighter bombs or fewer heavier bombs - however unlike the 'main' line it would get the Tiny Tim option and AP bomb options, as well as maybe some more 'unique' aircraft at the higher tiers (such as the 'flying flap jack' or twin engines like the F7F or the proposed and successfully tested carrier conversion of the B-25 that could open other options for it). IJN current (purpose built) - running possibly only TB's and DB's unless you could arm fighters with bombs or we suffer the rockets they shouldn't really have, it goes back to the old days of 4 torps per group if not the lower tiers 3 with 3-4 attacking flights in a group - of which several are likely to be shot down because while having decent speed and mobility not the toughest planes. And these, unlike the USN counterparts, pack a heavier punch meant to kill capital ships. Which as they go through tiers also get options related to their bombers, carrying either a chosen size of SAP, HE, or using 800 kg AP or HE from level bombing planes. UK (current) - Make use of the fact these things carry a ton of rockets and smaller bombs. Aim for cruiser/DD killers with their massive rocket salvo's, choosing between a standard HE type or SAP rocket once you get to tier 7 and 8/9/10 options of more of the 250/500 lb bombs (like now) or fewer 500/1000 lb bombs per drop that unlike USN are best aimed from the side due to how they cover like rockets, as well as an AP option for those bombs. With these sort of being the planes with the 'balance' of speed, mobility, and armour Germany - basically most of what you got needs to be scrapped. They get rockets and bombs, similar to the USN conversion line. Unlike the conversion line - it gets way more accurate bombs as it swaps between various sizes of HE and AP after tier 6 depending on what the player is going after. With higher tiers having the option to replace the 2-4x 21 cm HE rockets that the nation should start with, for AP 21 cm rockets or smaller 4-5 inch HE rockets fired in numbers (albeit less than USN most likely) that are more accurate but less damaging than their bigger predecessors. Maybe even have the option of instead of or including the smaller 'Panzerblitz' rockets use the 21 cm version of them and add a couple more of HE or AP 21 cm rockets per plane. With Germany being similar in planes to UK particularly at the start but trending a bit more toward armour as you move out from the 109's in to the 190's at around tier 8. If your hell bent on torpedo bombers - there are options, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. Which brings me to this 'slow, low hp sniper' your trying to make RU CV's - the existing lines, aside from some annoying to me ahistorical issues with performance, have issues with some of the trait combinations you've done and this one is a recipe for disaster. You want to give them skip bombers - great at least they used the technique unlike Germany, and that can be something that as far as a tech tree thing is unique to them. Seriously though, as they had no navy planes, and they're actually smaller than American Avenger TB's - just toss some IL's on the CV's if were going to seriously add RU CV's, maybe some A-20's if I remember correctly that we loaned them and they used this tactic with, that are slow, fine, but are basically just flying bloody tanks that can absorb hits despite being few in number and have a range of rockets, like they actually did, besides a knock off 'Tiny Tim', a couple torpedoes, and of course, the skip bombers, which I'm sure there are options of what size bomb to use n skip bombing or alternate torpedoes or whatever to add more choices as you progress past tier 6 so it's not just adding 'more planes'. Because tier 4 should be where players are introduced to and use just TB's and DB's in most cases - as these are to an extent your 'main' weapons against most ships and are arguably the hardest to use. Tier 5 should be when we introduce them to rockets, and let them get the feel for them after they have gotten practice with and hopefully mastered using that lines TB's and/or DB's. Tier 6 should be in most cases, the only tier that is just 'adding more planes' because it's basically the first 'real' carrier they will be playing with basically no training wheels and more the tier that tests their knowledge and should be the end of the 'beginner' phase for them. With tiers 7, 8, 9, and 10 offering options for CV players to choose the loadouts their planes have going to battle so after 100 matches they can maybe change it up by using a new type of ordnance, other tactics based on changes to how a plane may operate like going from DB's to level bombing, etc. Planes becoming a bit more distinct as they go up in tiers and choices at the top end of 'do I want an early jet that carries fewer rockets, and has less HP and/or fewer planes but is much faster without a boost or do I want a tankier plane with more rockets but slower'. Which also I say specifically those as we should not have jet TB's and DB's ever again, we can get away with rocket armed planes, if you guys do it right. TL;DR - you guys have a lot of work that needs to be done on existing CV balance before adding another line, you have ships that should seriously be in this game already that aren't, and this paper line is already starting in a not great place with slow planes with low HP, I'm not sure why anyone thought that was a good idea in the first place.
  2. WanderingGhost

    Update 0.10.5: The Grand Battle

    We have been trying variations of that solution for as long as the game has existed of 'make less [insert type of CV ordnance] hit'. What your proposing is basically the same thing Wargaming is trying to do with the 'make it easier to dodge' nonsense. As much as I'm for cutting -to oversimplify a little, USN rockets by 50% damage and UK by 60% - because if we give them the proper historical numbers they fire more than their USN counterparts and the damage effectively equalizes, you could do a straight 40-60% cut of all the USN and UK rockets currently in game, other than Tiny Tim, which would be a consistent fix to the one rocket group causing an issue. Tiny Tim's aren't nearly that accurate, and even then that's basically a battleship round hitting you - it should chunk most anything. And unlike what you seem to propose, putting a hard limit on the number the hits, which to put it bluntly, is a bull concept to apply to only CV's when Battleships can nuke even other battleships landing 5 rounds or Atlanta's landing 10 rounds per salvo on a DD at close range, and does not actually solve the issue in any real way when even on the low end your still talking 2800 damage on ships that have barely 11k HP in cases or 12k. We shouldn't be punishing CV's with stupidly high dispersion or limiting the number of hits, they score a hit, that isn't reduced from damage saturation or a spot that has sufficient armour to stop them - the ship should still take damage. And my solution of reducing the damage, means that a CV player that doesn't have as great aim, but lands 4 rockets, deals half of what your solution would have, while landing the higher up 8 count that can happen on well executed strikes matches your 4x limitation - without some nonsense limit on how many hits are allowed to land. And leaves intact the ability to inflict damage to larger ships with them, cause hey sometimes that's all you got, seeing as to use Lexington as an example, you have 8x rockets per plane, 3 a group, so your firing off 24 rockets, and can land 20 hits on a Battleship, which at the current damage assuming 15 miss heavy armoured areas, or you aren't attacking something like NC, instead of the over 10,000 damage they'd do, plus any fires, to a ship that shouldn't be that wrecked by 5 inch rockets, do over 5000 damage, which is still a nice chunk of damage when your talking ships at that tier having around 60k. We have tried over complicated fixes of 'adjust the spread', adjust the aim time', 'adjust the shape of the aim point', 'adjust the time delay and add fancy fireworks that do nothing' on down a list. It's time for a simple and direct solution - rockets fired in high volume have way too much damage - it's time to just nerf the damage. Maybe a small compensation of better fire chance and in the case of UK which should have it anyway better penetration on the RP-3's. Pretty sure if you poll CV players - they'd rather have the damage reduced, and have all their rockets damage a ship, then eat another accuracy nerf and a hard limit on how many of their rockets are allowed to hit.
  3. WanderingGhost

    New stage of submarine testing

    For starters - it would have been nice had this been made a tad more obvious so I could if it's being publicly tested again try to test them. I only stumbled here, because someone's thread elsewhere pointed to 'oh hey, their being tested again'. "Dive Capacity" - Seriously guys - the Oxygen system from Halloween battles, in terms of base concept, was PERFECT, you only needed to tweak the times on how long some could stay/regen/etc. It gave Submarines the ability to dive, as needed, but encouraged historical gameplay of staying on the surface until needing to submerge. Also opened up opportunities for some uniqueness in subs/tiers/nations of things like Snorkel's so that maybe they can stay at periscope depth - having a lower chance to be spotted but eating a speed penalty to resupply air at a lower rate than surfaced. The battery recharge was incredibly dumb, and this hard limit, let alone one where it can change based on hydro, may well be dumber. Know what Hydro and Radar should do - spot the sub, in the case of Hydro- tell us torps are headed at us too. They go back to limited amount of air per dive before being forced back to the surface, even a USN standard if it knows where it is can go head on to try and ram it if it's at periscope depth, or sit on it till it runs out of air and is forced to the surface where it can open up with it's main battery and secondary guns. To say nothing of, albeit a tad ahead of the changes, simply having it as well surface =full speed of sub, Periscope = crawl, submerged = something between the two. Dive controls This sounds good, mainly the return of true periscope depth. But I need a chance to play this for more accurate feedback. Torpedoes and sonar ping I'm going to say, what I have been saying, since you guys came up with this Hunt for Red October but in WWII nonsense. Drop it. Drop it like a hot potato that is actually a radioactive hand grenade. If your going to be THAT insistent on it's existence - tier 9/10 only - because Subs should have full tech tree's not even's only nonsense, and even then it should be a C hull like some of the old AA hulls ships had. So because they are the easiest to go to, something like Gato/Balao made at the end of the war, of which some received conversions and served later on, get those 50's/60's conversions as a C hull that trades things like AA and deck guns for the ability to use homing torpedoes, that are weaker in damage than a standard straight runner with 0 guidance. Where as the standard/top hull are the old fashioned WWII look you see in most war movies or in 'Down Periscope'. With standard torpedoes that run straight. If you want to give the US the homing torpedo it had fine - but lets be real until they put the German copies in they used an anti-sub homer that would be great for a second line gimmick (USN has more than enough types to make 2 lines) of being sub hunters but not very effective against anything bigger than maybe a DD. And even then they, and the German ones, should be passive homers - like in the Halloween event, that are lower damage but take out modules more. And should be an option like how surface ships change between shell types. All nations should have a standard, basic, 'fire it and lead it like normal' torpedo same as every DD, CA/CL and BB in game with them. Some, like Germany, maybe get a homer, that boosts ability somewhat vs say cruisers or DD's due to the homing it has. Others get other benefits - Japan lets say gets harder to spot DWT's that hit BB's only and hit them hard. USN maybe has ones geared toward cruisers, etc. There is plenty of room to play, and stick still to the general basics of history while being fun and arcady still. Hydrophone Add it back, because you should go back to the original O2 system, but make it better. It may be unrealistic but make it more like a sonar screen on the HUD or the compass with 3 rings that a player can guess well what the range is to use depth charges or possibly in the future something like hedgehog. Other Subs firing SAP - just give them HE, give Germans HE with better pen. Maybe up chance of fires.
  4. WanderingGhost

    ST. 0.10.6, NEW SHIPS

    Please, before you guys go too far with the bloody hybrids, can we fix actual CV's first?
  5. WanderingGhost

    Update 0.10.5: The Grand Battle

    Yeah, okay, why do we even bother giving feedback or doing PTS at this point? These ridiculous rocket changes are going in anyway - oh, but with an untested thing of German and Tiny Tim armed planes climbing before attacking? Changes to aim settings and time it takes to prep a run what the hell Hapa? Where these things in the public test I maybe missed and didn't notice while I continued obliterating Destroyers with 5 inch rockets or some untested thing your throwing in as a last desperate bid to make this ill advised folly of a change work? This change, isn't going to do jack, unless these aim settings and prep time changes weren't in the test in which case throwing out a relatively untested if at all change on the live server isn't a good idea, Graf Zeppelin should have taught the dev's that. Oh it may yet again weed out some of the less skilled CV players and the like, just like the many changes in RTS, that whittled away at the lower skill players, only leaving higher and higher skilled ones that made the class seem better than it was. And you'll have the same complaint from DD captains you've had since day one of rockets about losing too much HP to them. About the planes just loitering over them. Really in many ways the same complaints from the old RTS system. Yet again, making a change that will increase the CV skill gap - that the rework was supposed to curtail. If you wanna fix CV vs DD - fix the AA system, rework it to DPS based with flak as bonus damage, and rebalance the AA of most DD's and a lot of the other ships mainly in lower tiers but even some higher tiers, like Yamato, upwards and cutdown on some of the unreasonable AA monsters like Minotaur. Get rid of 3d spotting from CV's and have it minimap only, or limit it to they can only spot for ships within x range. Lower the damage on 6 inch and lower rockets (currently the RP-3, HVAR, and FFAR to my knowledge) given the numbers they are fired in anyway. And figure out something to make DD's less easily disabled. And I'm not saying this as someone that play's CV's 'once in a while', or 'only in tier 4' or only plays DD's - which I have 2657 battle in across all nations and tiers, but as someone who despite the fact I absolutely despise the reworks gameplay, and despite taking months off at a time due to my dissatisfaction with the Dev team's job and direction, that I still counted in this math - average at least one CV game a day since the rework. If we count all of my 2580 CV matches - I've played closer to 1.25 per day even with extended breaks since the games release - and that doesn't count all the games in Alpha and Beta I played in them. As someone who has no bias because I play both classes equally - the damage on smaller rockets fired in volume is too high, that is the biggest issues of CV vs DD that isn't spotting related. Better ability to dodge isn't needed, paying attention in a DD I've dodged 2 CV's attacking me simultaneously for little/no damage in DD's and even at times cruisers - no delay needed. The problem is when I get that one CV player, slightly better than the average, with a little luck, who realizes I'm going to turn for his attack to dodge, but has offset and started a tad earlier to compensate, and even if he made an error and I'm still bow on - has 5-6 rockets hit my ship, at 700 damage a pop, taking away 35-4200 HP of the 11-12k I had. I literally took the time, to get video, of a situation just like that with the changes your putting in - unless as I said you did not give us all the changes and are tossing in more last minute. If you guys seriously want to balance CV's in this game - great, I'm 100% for that, I'm willing to conceded there are areas they need nerfing, but some they need buffing, and vice versa on the ships they fight. Let's have some moderated thread and REALLY DISCUSS IT. Not the usual belligerent parties of both sides shouting at one another that is every other thread which is why I say a moderated one, lets get one where players of all types, who can be reasonable and actually have a discussion, and dare I say maybe even almost a negation, about changes we can make, to all the ships, so CV's don't seem to non-CV players as gods of death or ineffectual wastes of a slot, and that CV players don't feel useless in one set of matches and laugh like maniacal villainous toons in others. And maybe have some of the Dev's involved, so that if some ideas we have are technologically impossible at the moment, like say 'ships can only see a ship spotted by a carrier in world not just on the minimap if it's in the range of the ship's main battery', they can tell us and we move on to the next idea. Otherwise - just stop trying to fix them, and let us deal with what we got, cause all your doing is making it worse.
  6. WanderingGhost

    United CV Community

    I was part of that percent too, and maybe it's just me - I've never honestly seen what seems to be an increase, at least not one artificially induced due to the tier restrictions. I still went several battles without even seeing a CV after the initial rework launch when people were playing about with them not necessarily what population we were going to have. I've never seen constant CV games, hell when I play CV's MM still usually takes minutes, but then again I'm playing above tier 4 usually which I know 4 is plagued by 2 CV MM cause hey - no real AA to worry about still. Only at tier 4 and 5 - and honestly, I never understood all the complaints about it in terms of ability to do damage. As someone who came to play CV's initially - the manual drops were broken. The damage was way too high to be dropping pretty much undodgeable attacks and most ships had garbage enough AA I wasn't taking that many losses unless I was -2 or in tier 10 when I used it. And I say when because I'm first to admit I avoided uses them cause I fought against them from day 1. My damage record in Essex is just under 190k and my record in Midway was 251k in RTS- both of which were not only after the nerfs that saw only 1 TB group for USN ships but done with auto attack and just adjusting the aim/drop point. I preferred the auto-drop mechanics because I found them quite useful and a little more challenging than manual drop, but that's me. As to AA - fighters strafe ability never should have been as strong as it was and a few cruisers could get out to I think it was just over 7 km to any one direction, I believe total diameter was 14.4 km though because basically 3 tier 9-10 cruisers could basically cut a map in half. They've never had the balance right on it and probably never will. They couldn't handle it in RTS, constant complaints of 'CV one shot me', 'CV kept me lit up the whole time', 'my AA should be god level and I be untouchable by CV's', on down a list that I still see in the rework. SSDD. Thy only positive I can give CV's is finally we have regen, and we have rockets as an option. But at the cost of half our tech tree's? Completely disregarding history where it's not needed? Making them all feel like cookie cutter box ships with a coat of paint? Making us fly the planes like a CAG instead of the ships captain? Which if I wanted to fly planes I'd go back to World of Warplanes. At the cost of the class actually being something different and a little more of a challenge? I look at what changed, what was changed yet stayed the same - not worth it to me to have this over RTS. Hell they couldn't handle the last days of RTS that were arguably better - I'd have loved to see the tears if they had to go against the Alpha style carriers where they could citadel a DD with a bomb and basically nothing had AA that could defend against them and then ask them just how bad were the last days of RTS balance wise. But all spreadsheets are bogus, they're meaningless unless you have the actual feedback and context of them. How many times have I seen Wargaming staff go 'but the spreadsheet says' and they can't get it through their heads that like with some CV's in the rework put them against tier 6 ships they are nightmarish fiends racking up 150-200k damage but then against tier 10 don't manage 30k but oh - the 115 average they generate is 'fine'. That's not balance. How many players bring up something of WoWs numbers 'look at this number it's still good' when your talking an average built up from when it was not reflecting performance today. Most of the haters have never actually played a CV above tier 4/5 that only confirms their point of view, so they can't possibly begin to understand the numbers on a spreadsheet as they go 'the average damage is so high' but have no actual clue WHY it's high. It's like Wargaming's latest joke 'fix' for rockets yet again basically going 'lets try to make them less accurate' with this strafing 5-6 second delay when we can still land 5 HVARS at 700 damage a pop that chunks out 3500/11000 HP on a DD.
  7. WanderingGhost

    PTS 0.10.5

    Okay - well I finally have some video as promised, not as much as I had hoped though because I did not realize how and what it recorded so a bunch of it was unusable because I was listening to music (and would get copyright struck) or because it recorded my whole screen and the stupid Windows 10 alerts popped up emails with information that shouldn't be seen by others (one of my videos here will have one, but it's just the generic 'your subscription was renewed' email for Final Fantasy 14). Also apologies you may need to manually adjust the quality to high (if they've rendered in it by the time you click) - the last time I really uploaded things to youtube was the mid-2000's nd it was way simpler back then other than the PTS footage of the last time they were nerfing UK rockets and by nerf I mean doing nothing of actual value. The first one I'm putting in (and that actually uploaded) is of me using Implacable - Assuming the screen stays the same - the 'play' button to start it is over a shot of right as I hit a DD with yes, only 2/20 rockets if I recall how many it carries right - while flying through a cruisers flak that blinds me at one point - dealing more than 1500 damage and knocking out steering. And that's just 2 rockets. This short clip ends as it tries to smoke, I attack it head on, and end up landing 4 rockets for about 2100 damage which sinks it. This one you'll see me admittedly screw up my turn in for the first attack and dump the rockets to get back to my second and third strikes - that take off huge chunks of HP with the numbers of hits I'm getting. The third is a much longer uncut gameplay sequence (where you'll see the notification) of attacks on 2 different DD's. Also for context whilst you will see me have some issue at one point attacking the second DD, part of that is the spotting on it which would be an issue even without the changes, and part of that as you'll note is that it was almost 4am and I hadn't yet slept - with a bonus of being on hospital prescribed anti-inflammatory/pain killers so I'm not exactly on my A or even B game here with how out of it I was at times. but you'll still see me landing 3, 4, 5+ hits taking out huge chunks of HP, with only some reduction thanks to Damage Saturation. Anyone who wants to say 'but there was some dodging' or 'but bots' - that's not the point. We have all played this game - we all know there are times that the bot's are as good or better than some of the players we encounter. We can still land those heavy hits that take out huge chunks of HP, we can still disable the damn things pretty easily, and that last clip in particular - you can see just how ineffective that DD's AA is at preventing me from attacking it. THESE are the real problems with CV vs DD - it's not the fact that we hit them, it's how hard, what it does and the inability to defend themselves through their AA suites. This lead up time nerf is at best a stupid gimmick waiting for a purpose in the guise of a nerf. CV vs DD will never properly be fixed until you balance AA correctly, and lower the damage on the HVAR, FFAR, and RP-3 by 40-60%, I personally favour 50% to the USN FFAR and HVAR and 60% to the RP-3 while giving the UK planes their historically higher numbers and increasing the penetration, and you guys make it a bit harder to disable a DD. And of those 3 - it should take you guys, other than any testing you want to do but honestly it won't need much, what maybe 5-10 minutes to go change the piece of code that tells the game how much base damage these rockets have, maybe 20 if you have to go ship by ship, and you could cancel this strafing joke and include it in 10.5. Hell, I'd be willing to even say screw it just test the damage reduction, without the strafing nonsense, on the live server - that is how confident I am on my math and own pen/paper testing that it'd work. AA that's a massive rebalance that's needed across almost all ships as well as retooling away from flak as the main damage source ( these videos should give you some clue why) that also will affect other things such as CV plane HP/plane regen and what not. Making DD's harder to disable - that one I don't know if you can increase module HP without increasing Ship HP. That said, this change has a more noticeable impact on the larger/lower count rockets used by IJN and USN with Tiny Tim's against even cruisers which is itself an issue especially as these weren't nearly as big an issue for DD's - other than the fact that for Tiny Tim's it's basically being hit by a Battleships HE round, and any DD player expecting to take almost no damage from that is being unreasonable. A side note - I did some of the PTS testing with Saipan since it gave me the ships on my main this time. I'm not sure if it's AA changes while I was away, AA changes in this round of testing, or something else - but I was taking 60% or higher losses against tier 6 ships that I never used to take those kinds of losses against. Saipan seems to be becoming more and more unplayable as things change. And before I hear about it's 'tier 10 planes' that are 'tougher' - this is where a little thing called 'math' comes in to play because yes - 1-1 Saipan's planes have more HP than Lexington's, the problem is that at 2 planes per attack group, 6 overall, I believe it works out to 30-50% less HP for the overall groups. so just to keep the math simple (and because I don't have the HP numbers in front of me for an unmodified ship) if a ship has 500 DPS and will fire for 8 seconds for 4000 damage, Lexington planes are 1500 hp x 9 and Saipans are 1800 x 6, making them 13,500 and 10,800 respectively, at that point Saipan has lost 1/3 of it's striking power and another plane is down about 25% of it's HP, while Lexington has only lost 2/9 planes with one still having 1/3 of it's HP left. And the speed difference, particularly in lessening AA damage, is negligible. Either the planes need more HP or the regen rate needs to be higher. And you can easily circumvent the 'but Midway uses those planes' issue, namely for attack planes, by getting rid of the F8F from Midway for the AD-1 or a similar aircraft and leaving the F8F to the Saipan which is more where it belongs and was designed for or using different planes for Saipan that still work even if that means using tier 9's for TB and DB. Hopefully this of some use @Hapa_Fodder but if this 'isn't useful', 'isn't constructive' or 'not in a format you can use' as I've seen you say over time with various posts - I honestly don't know what is. To which I would then once again say 'Help us, help you, help us'. I'm not some top tier CV player, this is footage of a maybe average or slightly better player, with a few hours of a new system with week long breaks between under his belt, in one case half asleep while out of it from prescribed meds still able to wreck a DD. What do you think I could do awake and alert with actual practice and adjustment, let alone the numerous better CV players than me? This change won't work, this isn't IFHE where instead of fixing that by reverting CL to 1/6 pen and keeping the 25% on it you could fix it by changing % HP lost on BB's and/or reducing repair party and DCS cooldowns on BB's - you need to lower the damage of the rockets directly. We have tried these types of accuracy nerfs with rockets 2-3 times now, it hasn't worked, lets try something new.
  8. WanderingGhost

    Is the Izumo really that bad?

    Not all. I find most peoples issue with it is that it doesn't play like many of the other BB's - namely 'lol I smash you with all guns' or the fact that they are overly tempted to use the third turret at times they shouldn't. Honestly - I find I do poorly in a lot of 'good' ships yet some that are supposed to be 'bad' I do quite well in, or better than others make them out to be. Case in point the Izumo I do on average 11k less damage - but I have just under a 57% WR in it when the average is 48 and change. And I'll admit I know why my damage is lower - I'm playing the ship actually more aggressive than most instead of as a back line sniper so while I do a good bit of damage I'm probably getting knocked out before most others using it. But apparently, I'm doing something right in causing chaos and distractions and being a damage sponge in it for the team if I'm winning that much more in it.
  9. WanderingGhost

    PTS 0.10.5

    Alright, So I've actually played the PTS some (not having access to my premium ships is a pain but whatever) but suffice to say I'm not surprised by what I see from 'change mobility and aiming 2.0' on attack planes. I'll work on trying to compile a video of in game play to better get the point across hopefully - but here's a couple screenshots @Hapa_Fodder that shows pretty much why this 'fix' isn't going to work. And before I hear about 'bots aren't as good at dodging' which some did attempt to - I intentionally came at them at wrong angles and misplaced the aim point to simulate attempted dodges and CV player adjustments for predicted dodging. Though I did hit Gaede broadside after as you can see - I obviously left it completely disabled so it couldn't. I should have video of attacking another destroyer, a Hsienyang, head on as it tries to vanish in smoke - and landing 4 hits that kill it due to it's low health. I sadly forgot to start recording when I made a pass on a Fubuki - that resulted in a 1 shot kill due to detonation from all the rocket hits and how much health they lost in a single pass. I'm hoping to maybe find some human opponents, other than the single one I've encountered who kept his Benson between 2 AA ships so I couldn't attack him in the first place, but I doubt I will given that yet again - your team has orchestrated a Public Test in the crunch time of a Dockyard event that people will be trying to do and frankly if it weren't for the fact I don't have any money and missed basically the first half of the window - I'd be doing too which is where your company is seriously shooting itself in the foot especially when we have you and others basically saying 'we want more people on PT'. The only time that I've really had any 'difficulty' targeting a DD - has been when in order to set up an attack run, just as now, the DD vanishes from sight due to spotting and changes coarse while I can't see it. Which while I might be able to do something in the current gameplay the delay is too long to do it properly - without further adjusting how far out I go. But this is an incredibly specific scenario in which it functions as intended and not one worthy of the aggravation this change will cause or the issues in skill gap and weeding out for lack of a better term 'lesser' CV players moving more and more toward what we had in RTS where other than the stubborn like myself all you had was top end players who made them look better than they were. If, you want to shorten the time to 1-2 seconds of strafing delay because your going to add the ability for machine guns and auto-cannons to knock out unarmoured turrets, torpedo tubes, and AA guns - fine add in that functionality while making the delay change. As is - the change to attack planes needs to be cancelled, and your Dev team at minimum needs to spend the couple weeks going and changing the damage on FFAR, HVAR, and RP-3 rockets by 50, 50, and 60% respectively, and add back/to the number of RP-3's to the historical amounts where it carried more, and change the penetration number so that it has higher pen than the HVAR. Because those should be changes your Dev's can do in a short amount of time unlike the other needed changes of better AA on most of the older DD's and generally rebalance of AA and reworking of it in it's entirety and solving the issue of DD's being too easy to disable.
  10. WanderingGhost

    PTS 0.10.5

    "They don't inflict damage to ships, but show the exact spot where the rockets are going to hit. This information, together with a prolonged attack time, will allow the Captains of agile ships—destroyers, primarily—to maneuver, and thus reduce possible rocket damage." @Hapa_Fodder - why, instead of actually reducing the damage, that is way too high, on FFAR, HVAR, and RP-3 rockets, implement something to 'reduce possible rocket damage' that is going to create yet another issue with CV player skill gap and/or drive players away from playing the type, when part of the entire point of this rework was to close the gap and make them more popular. To say nothing of is it the rounds are showing the exact landing points, or the 'general' landing points? Which, aside from being silly - will give the top end CV players even more of an edge as they then have a new tool to learn the general pattern of where they are going to land to try and maximize how many hit. FFAR and HVAR as I recall run around 2000 damage, maybe 1800 at lower tiers and 2200 on higher. 33% of that runs from roughly 600-700 damage per rocket to keep it simple. That means 5 hits - out of what is usually I believe 16 on the low end and on the high end 30 (10 a piece on a plane that couldn't carry that many and are still placed weird) which even at the lower damage is 3k HP on ships that in the general CV tier range of 6-10 despite an illogical lack of odd tiers, have between 11000 and 20000 HP generally, meaning that with only landing 1/3 -1/6 of the rockets, taking away about as much HP. And we get 3 passes or more on the majority of DD's because many of them lack AA. Your dev team really thinks that this will help despite the fact that we could still land that many rockets at wrong angles? Or anticipate the dodge because even a DD is going to need to start early? Or the fact that the mostly lack anything that can be called AA? Or that they are incredibly easy to disable and that a single rocket even just close enough - let alone gunfire from the CV's friendly ships - will knock out steering and/or propulsion making it easier to line up either the second or third strike? And that's the best case scenario - from a balance point of view, because the worst, that the anti-CV crowd would enjoy, would be making attack planes basically unusable, again, like you guys did at one point not long after release fiddling with accuracy and attack time - to make it harder to damage DD's and easier on them to dodge. Which only impacted how they functioned against BB's and Cruisers - because it changed ability to dodge/time in AA and unlike DD's they actually have some that can be quite lethal. Which is another thing I think your dev team has overlooked - impact on how they work vs other classes because your increasing the run time meaning more time the planes are out of our control. 50% reduction to FFAR and HVAR, 60% reduction to RP-3's with them buffed up to historical numbers carried and if were going to have them be SAP rockets - give them pen higher than HVAR, the attacks are still the same as is ability to avoid AA vs larger ships, but the same attacks as described in my example above only take away 1/6-1/12 of a DD's HP - ruling out that a single set of strikes should completely destroy one outside of detonation or combined fire. Combine that with a long overdue overhaul of AA numbers on about I'll say 80% of DD's - as you've added some new ones that if anything need some AA nerfs, and frankly an overhaul of the AA again changing from a system reliant on Flak to deal massive damage instead to one focused more on the DPS with flak being the equivalent to dodging citadel hits for CV players because there should be virtually 0 scenario's where a CV loses no planes attacking any ship that has AA (other than some of the historical ones like the Kami clones that have truly pathetic AA). And the sheer volume you can still hit a larger ship with - especially if we add in the handful of RP-3's some of these planes are missing and increase their pen, limits the negative impact against them seeing as if your getting 15 hits at 600 damage on them that's still 9000 damage - and even Yamato will notice that. But then again rockets are really the CV's equivalent to secondary guns meant to engage smaller ships usually (TT is an exception, as are the 21 cm rockets Germany actually used and similar IJN projects to a lesser extent) and should really for a heavier ship like a BB be using it's main battery (dive bombers) and torpedo tubes (TB's obviously). Don't worry, if I can get on the test server - I'm going to be testing this a lot, I may even include video in more hands on feedback. But frankly - your Dev team has put time and energy in to a solution to a problem that is simply a needed change to a couple pieces of code that tell the game what the damage number is for 3 types of rockets. Very much the old 'developing a pen vs using a pencil in space' bit.
  11. WanderingGhost

    CV Improving idea.

    There's a difference between what I want - which is a little more historical accuracy, for what is supposed to be a historically based arcade game, where it is applicable, or potentially even beneficial to the game - such as creating a real difference between ships, especially post rework CV's, having the right names for things, etc. I'm not one of these fools that wants to make it the competing game where it's realistic, mostly cause I hate that other game. To say nothing of the fact that the general 'main' lines of these nations tend to follow also with IJN being the better usually at taking out capital ships - which they were the only ones using carrier based level bombing, with AP, that happened to be meant to take out BB's albeit for the purposes of gameplay over history attacking moving targets not stationary, The UK ships have generally been better at anti-DD/CL work, which the RP-3 and the tendency to carry more smaller bombs as opposed to the Americans fits well plus use as DB's as opposed to inaccurate (both technically in game and historically) level bombing, Germany the ships are a bit better geared to fight cruisers, even heavier ones and there is always the Stuka - which that and the general accuracy attributed to it's strikes and using 21 cm rockets be they HE possibly with the same general 1/4 pen rule or AP that may not be historical but fits the class concept would be a far cry better than what they fire now quite well fits that role and the nations overall flavour, which leaves USN which as other lines have been introduced has been more a JoaT and not only did the RTS CV's (like IJN with anti-capital ship) reflect this even this crap show of a rework still has elements of it, just needs some refining in my opinion - and so something with flexibility I feel better suits the overall American line themes while also managing to be somewhat more accurate to history. I don't want the game to be a sim, but I also don't want it to be an outright arcade game - there's a balance between the two that while in the end will lean a bit more arcade, can be struck and is what frankly has made these games unique to others for me and why I enjoyed them, and moving away from that as Warplanes did drove me away as it became little more than an arcade game using names and pictures. And I don't want that to be this game too - why I take issue with the last iterations of Subs I was aware of that are basically nuclear attack subs reskinned as Second World War ones, that and I felt they were better balanced/more fun when they played closer to historical ones though still pretty far. Because this is a place for history, discounting CV's post rework which is a problem of it's own premiums are historically accurate to a time of a ships career if based on a real ship or actual drawings, tech tree ships are based on their real life counter parts I'd have to check as I believe Iowa's AA was changed while I was gone but the AA suite it used was one of Missouri's from the early - mid 50's, much if not all the ship armour schemes are based on history as well why Yamato despite being something more of a ranged ship has more than I believe all the German Battleships meant to be up close where they'd need the armour more.
  12. WanderingGhost

    Salem/DM build

    Well, you've already done the math on SE, so allow me to do the math on Heavy AP 5000 max damage with a standard pen is 33% of that which is 1650, so an increase of 5% is 82.5 damage per shell on a normal hit. 250 if you manage a citadel. For context - in order to make up the same HP in damage dealt as the HP you'd gain from SE - you'd need to land 54 normal penetrating hits with AP rounds. Or score 18x citadel ribbons. Citadel's will most likely be against other cruisers, BB's it'll more likely be normal pens if not over when you get them - but the 203 mm guns auto ignore BB armour with HE and set fires without IFHE so - really that is a somewhat better choice unless it's actually broadside to get the normal pens. SE gives you 4500 hitpoints to survive anything that hits you.
  13. WanderingGhost

    CV Improving idea.

    Or - we go for the most mind numbingly simple fixes that have somehow eluded Wargaming's dev team. Reduce the damage of FFAR and HVAR rockets 50%, and the damage of RP-3 rockets 60% (while going to the higher historical counts per tier that could be carried). These are the only ones that really devastate destroyers other than some lucky hits with the likes of Tiny Tim and IJN HE rockets - but these are analogous to being hit by 12 and 8 inch main battery rounds respectively - there going to hurt and they aren't as accurate anyway. Make the minimum spotting range from air of all cruisers max AA range +1 km - that solves the borderline stealth AA issue on that front Give DD's AA that ranges from passable to good (note that 'Good' in this case means 'can shoot planes down but isn't on the level of Friesland, Harugumo, etc') Go back to how it was in the very old days, that they even had a Cap video on - you pop smoke and have AA blasting, planes get to know where you are, you go dark, you stay dark. To say nothing of retooling the lines to actually have flavour and be a tad more historical - IJN the 'Capital ship killer' line, if we have to suffer rockets as opposed to 2 different DB groups fine, but has 3-4 torpedoes per drop that are pretty strong but have a gap between them DD's/cruisers will usually be able to hit, and either DB's with smaller SAP bombs or level bombers with the 800 kg BB killers. Weaker planes vs AA - but lots of them like the old days. UK as the 'DD/CL hunter' - high quantity of 6" rockets, 5 torpedoes per drop almost lowest damage, DB's with multiple smaller HE or AP bombs (actually DB's, not the carpet bombing crap they have now). Basically the 'average' planes - not the fastest, not the slowest, maybe a tad under on durability (most used easier to knock out liquid cooled engines), etc Germany as the CA/BC/CC nightmare - the actual historical rockets - 21 cm HE or even the later potential 21 cm AP that may have come out of the 'Panzerblitz' rockets, AP bombs instead of torpedoes, HE bombs with higher pen (similar to other German ships) roughly around the 500 kg range though maybe down to 250 kg, and possibly an option for a smaller/higher quantity rocket (I believe closer to 4 inches). A certain blend of speed and armour to let them get through the AA these tend to have leaning more in to the Fw-190 at the mid/upper tiers and similar designs. DB's having the round GZ style 'hit from any direction' aim point and fairly high accuracy (which itself is something of a drawback cause if it moves out of that smaller aimpoint you miss outright). USN as something of a 'Jack of all Trades' - slower planes (for the altitudes they are operating at) but absolute tanks in terms of taking damage to make up for that and not being the most agile, with it's current rocket options of 5" HVAR/FFAR and Tiny Tim, back to 6x low damage torps (and they'd be the lowest of all current CV's), and options to carry depending on tier x pounds of bombs of either 500, 1000, and 2000 lbs (so say we use something like the AD skyraider and it has an 4000 lb limit for gameplay/argument purposes, it would have an option of 2x 2000 lb bombs, 4x 1000 lb bombs and since it has more than enough racks 8x 500 lb bombs). The torpedoes (numerous enough and tighter like UK to better target DD's, enough to still hurt BB's due to hitting with a number of them) while more generic aren't really the focus the bigger being the rockets 0 with the higher volume FFAR/HVAR that are easier to use to hit smaller ships and deal damage through number of hits or Tiny Tims that are less accurate but are basically 12 inch BB rounds with a 14" BB round bursting charge that are better against larger targets that don't dodge as well and are definitely going to feel it, and on the DB's that similar range from lower damage, somewhat more accurate area covering to a couple bombs that are really going to hurt if they hit.
  14. WanderingGhost

    Fires + Floods on BB's

    As far as torpedoes are concerned - If your spotted and see no ship and it's not planes or radar - assume it's a DD. Regardless of what DD even the likes of the Kamikaze clones at a range they stay hidden it takes roughly 30 seconds or more for a torpedo to hit you. So you want to change speed and coarse every so often, better if you have an idea what way the DD is from it's last position. I left a red DD bewildered the other day doing that - because I was dodging his full salvo's in a Kansas. As to HE spam - if it's normal HE, it's not too bad. But if were talking IFHE and HE guns that have enough pen without it (cause that happens with some sizes/tiers/ships) - your only real options is to just not be there. Otherwise all your gonna get is 'wait on DCP', 'fires can be fixed', etc everyone defaults to. That's just going to be how it is till Wargaming, and a frustrating portion of the player base, actually understand the math problem of even say 3 rounds every 6 or less seconds at 733 damage per round with a 6% fire chance and virtually no armour that can stop it that isn't turrets, of which 50% of the pen damage is fixable, on top of fires of which fires the average BB build for all tiers, as opposed to some of the extra's higher tier BB's can use to make it slightly better, and I do mean slightly, is roughly 1 fire to 1 repair party with repair party on the majority of BB's being an 80 second cooldown, same with DCP, and even then you only have enough to repair 4 or 5 fires that burn through. And that's someone with a crappy 25% accuracy, most cruiser players can do better. And most of them and the IJN 100 mm DD's are simply going to lurk behind something they can shoot over and you can't or get as close as stealth permits before opening up to make sure your in range as long as possible.
  15. If I were going to watch a streamer - it would depend on what I'm looking for exactly. If I'm looking at the shiniest new ship and how it plays - I don't want to know the god tier unicum opinion, they are the minority, I want to know how it is for an average player. If I'm looking to improve - I want someone that knows something about it - and again I don't care about the stats though if they are on the higher end, maybe a bonus because for all I know their 60% WR is 90% 3 man divs with broken combo's and all - which makes things irrelevant to someone like me that's pretty much a solo player. But just because someone has an average win rate doesn't necessarily mean they don't know the mechanics, it's a question of do they apply them 24/7 and what other factors may be in play that determine things. That said if they bore me to tears, or something about them grates me, I'm not gonna watch them. But then again I might as well be considered an 'anti-spreadsheeter' or something, ship stats, player stats, I don't care what it says on paper, or a website, unless I have the other inputs that give me the needed the context to know why numbers are the way they are because numbers are meaningless without context, anyone who needs an example why - look at CV's which Wargaming has been balancing off spreadsheets alone for years.
×