WanderingGhost

Alpha Tester
  • Content count

    1,770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4136

Community Reputation

342 Excellent

2 Followers

About WanderingGhost

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

291 profile views
  1. I think the smoke changes need to be refined a little more namely for UK cruisers, I'm already the guy who learned to trace fire back and nuke cruises that do it, though see where it was a bit insane when I had the other day 2 BB's and I couldn't count the cruisers and DD's in smoke shooting at me and tearing my ship apart. The larger ships, especially a large group of them, it was a bit much. The cruiser one is a bit harsher than it should be I think though. DD's honestly at that range your usually spotted anyway, cruisers, that is pretty far given that just means a DD gets close enough now the BB lights you up. Especially cause most, if not all, cruisers with smoke rely on that due to lack of armour, at the very least UK ans Iwaki Alpha do (t's a IJN DD with a citadel and bigger really). I'd say drop the cruisers ranges at least another km. I also don't agree fully with the IFHE changes. I only recently started to test things with it and it kinda is situational. The DD change is fine, but I think that only ships in the BB gun range should take a -8% penalty, while cruisers take -3%which as I recall is the current penalty, maybe, if they feel it's warranted -4%. Because 8% make's it near useless to CA/L while DD and BB's can still make use and set fires. That way, DD's use it for....whatever they use it for (not sure what the HE pen helps for on guns that small), Cruisers can make use of it against at least some cruisers, and DD's, and BB's can use it against cruisers to avoid over pen hell and/or knock out torp tubes and well, all HE pens the paper DD's call armour anyway. Don't get me wrong, I'm in the crowd that while I get cruisers and DD's need fire to fight BB's I think it needs to be nerfed a bit, but even I think basically removing the fire chance if you select this skill from cruisers is a bit much, same realm as that emergency take of penalty that basically removes any reason to take the skill.
  2. I will not deny that there is at times some focus on downing premium ships, usually because of whatever quark they have or, in some cases being close to or in fact OP, though, some think all are OP. Some is also "I don't have" or it being a rare ship. Case in point I remember all too well when I was in Supertest I got focused a lot, especially when testing Tirpitz. Maybe it a little harder to evaluate when 12 ships open up so you have no time to actually judge more than HP and suvivability. That said, as a CV player, especially depending on tiering for the match, your one of the biggest targets and lowest in AA rating, meaning less plane loss and if you've gotten away from other ships, you end up priority one barring a ship becomes a threat to me, or a teammate in serious trouble that can be saved. Just be glad at those tiers manual drop was removed (the ability to put torps about 1km off your side where you can't dodge). It's more an issue in higher tiers, however, trying to counter the broken nature of it, they broke AA and made it too strong so, also as a CV player - wait till they do the rework for CV's they have been promising. That way your not unlearning everything if they change it a ton. Countering the attacks your going to be encountering, watch the torp planes and get an idea of the angle they are going to attack from and what way best to turn. if they are about 90 degrees to you or coming off the bow, turn into the attack, if they are coming from the stern, turn away from the attack or if already turning away when you see the attack, continue your turn, I can't tell you how many people I caught angling the attack to come from the stern so they turned broadside into the torpedoes. DB's have a lot of RNG as it is, but if you have no TB's on approach, juke left and right a bit, it does actually help dodge them a bit. As to that particular premium, most IJN BB's (in game it is classified as a BB unless it's two ships of a similar name I've confused) Except Yamato tend to be a bit lighter on armour and are meant more to be used at range a bit more. Playing all the lines, you'll learn fast that not all ships of a type are the same and sometimes, even of the same line of a nation are not the same as the predecessors in playstyle. I can't speak to Itchy specifically, I don't own it, but premiums aside from 99.9% of the time being historically accurate (GZ might break that rule) always have some quark or oddity that makes them different even from a ship of the same class. Perth (a Leander) has a different type of smoke, Mutsu (Nagato) has torps but is a early point with less armour and worse shells, Sharn (Gnei) has the historic smaller triple turrets making her even more like a battlecruiser, etc. Few, if any ships in the game are "bad" (as in all but the top players can't make it work, as they are more likely to make it work anyway), but may not agree with the style of play of the player. Outside of a CV, I'm a more aggressive player, which, while I can and do play pretty much every line and class, I generally do best in ships that work more with that - German BB's and DD's that an stealth torp. Sometimes, a ship line just isn't compatible, or maybe just the ship. For me, it's some like Colorado - some say it's great, I just can not make this thing work for me.But NM and NC before and after, yeah, those I don't feel like I struggle in. But yeah, watch videos where you can and sometimes with ships ask questions on the forums. While most will play a ship as LWM and others say to, sometimes other players can't work it that way and some of us have alternate builds/styles/tactics that may work better for the way you play and that particular ship.
  3. This, prize of a super container and discounts up the line means a lot went for it, plus the regular IJN/DD players. Hell, I had a start towards Minsk, got to the tier 8 (Russian DD with IJN stealth torp ability - ) before completing it. Once I'm done Yamamoto missions, till the next set though I'm dropping back to mid tiers to make back all the credits I spent buying ships and upgrading them as well as to get away from the tier 10 camp fest teams.
  4. Reason there still in testing. I've encountered a few like Nelson, some played aggressive, some kept range, others were more the hit and run they talked about in the video. Hell, I saw the Nelson, in a tier 9 game 8-9 game (9's were a couple cruisers) come in closer to fire than a pair of Tirpitz and Bismarck, ships built for brawling. Problem on range isn't ships, it's how people choose to use them. It's why I'm considering dropping back to mid tiers when I'm done Yamamoto stuff because I get fed up in a hurry of every high tier game, especially when I'm the 8 in the 10, being the only one who wants to push forward and at the hint of being spotted the rest scatter like roaches in the light and get left to be focused down by the enemy.
  5. Basically, pray you do not get bent by MM like I did constantly seeing tier 9 - especially because the last I dealt with Ranger was before USN buffs (that buffed Saipan too) and lines like UK cruisers (damned AA monsters 9 and 10 are). Oh, and no Hood cause that decimates Saipan DB's in under 2 seconds, don't wanna see what it does to tier 7. For AS, you have the right tactic, somewhat better on Lex with the 1000 pound bombs. They hit, they can really ruin a DD players day for sure.The other option your team would prefer if you can make it work is the stock 1,1,1 - liberal use of strafe and being decent at it is required, but makes hitting BB's a little easier and gives you a range option against the likes of Hood. Build to the strengths of your fighters, especially built up they are out right OP against IJN. Do not bother with Emergency Takeoff and Evasive Maneuvers - better to seriously just invest the extra credits in premium DC and/or modernization's/captain skills (assuming you have the needed CV only ones already like AS) that prevent fire and put it out faster in the first place. The speed penalty leaves you in enemy AA too long and makes it too easy to have your bombers ran down and strafed. And the rearm penalty is so long it is literally only useful if your planes are going to take off right then, and DCS is down. You can use strike, but it sounds like you get the kind of teams I tend to get where they are spread out meaning you have to go get that clear sky to have a shot at winning. Where your only hope is try to avoid any fighters, while trying to sink ships faster than the other CV because only a noob/dumby is gonna let you snipe them, oh how many are still wasting time trying to do that to me and other long time players that expect it and know how to dodge.
  6. Because some people have fun just sailing a huge boat firing guns and watching things explode? I'd love to be back at the 51% I was at with 1500 battles as opposed to just under 50 from the slide I've been in the last 2k battles. And yeah, some ships, I actually do decent in, though have some really unlucky games in as well, that I can't even buy a win for. I prefer improving and trying to better my stats to see how high I can get them, not to impress others or belittle others for theirs, not everyone is great at everything, there's always a loser, and hell, some people just get the wrong roll of the die a lot. Hell, some of the "potatoes" may well be as good or better than some of the non. But that's me, I challenge myself to things, I like to try and improve, understanding that I will likely never be the best, only game I came close to that was Battlestar Galactica online (top 30 of strike fighter pilots in one of the starter ships, not the pay ones), and globally at a time top 100 snipers in the world of BF4 (cause I played shorter range and the objective). Others, they just jump on and wanna blow up, and it's their right to do so. Honestly, if were really going to get to the point that even 50% is being called a useless potato, because these threads are happening that often, I say we find ways to flood the servers on weekdays so the elitist jerks who want those they deem potato's gone must suffer more or maybe, instead of complaining do this weird thing called "Trying to help" if they see what they did wrong in a calm tone and not berating them or insulting them. Because hey, not everyone has endless hours to play, and not everyone can watch or read the guides and learn from that how to play something exactly, some have to learn hands on. Then again - I'm a vindictive Snow, especially with this stuff given hey, someone else is getting them too for you to shoot at and they have helped build your precious stats.
  7. Battleships I find.... unlikely. Commonwealth I think would more likely get a line of cruisers/destroyers as a tech tree as opposed to just premiums, those I think they actually had enough ship types of. That said, it'd likely be on the totem poll above any CV line that isn't USN, IJN, and UK. But below finishing out UK, Italy, France, getting Pan-Asia done like they said they are looking to do and Russian battleships.
  8. This - Sometimes, people know what they are talking about, even if looking at their stats, especially only one or two of them, seems to say otherwise. Maybe, they started in a hole they have to climb out, maybe they have bad luck, whatever. Now, an extreme case, guy can't get above 16% after 5000 battles, only does 16k average and just every ship has horrendous stats then yeah, you likely shouldn't listen to them. Someone the upper end of the 40% bracket, say minimum 47 and in general just around the average stats, they may have points and understand things, especially because this is the majority of the player base the game is meant to be balanced around, not the elite players. Especially if talking about individual ships because while they may have lower overall stats, they may actually be good in a particular ship. Not that I trust Warships Today all that much as they seem to say "Average" (calculated by taking the numbers, adding them, then dividing them) and having done that, found numbers seem to be off, and their system at least for win rate seems to be more like "take the high and low and pick the number in between" which I think is called range, been too long since I dealt with that stuff. But that aside, sometimes stats can tell you not simply "bad or good" but play style. I minimize my usage of strafing and Manual drop best I can - I post against it because even as a CV player, I think it's broken and needs to be reworked, in the case of strafing, or removed/replaced, in the case of manual drop. Typically in win rate, I'm close to, in some cases above, average, while some stats are oddly below average, namely plane kills and damage because I tend to do a bit less than others not using MD like they do or auto deleting 24 planes. I can, I had a match yesterday I likely made someone regret buying E after they engaged my fighters, I strafed out to delete all 24 attacking planes that were left and then wrecked his fighters, and was at about 150k abusing manual drop to try and swing the course of the battle from my usual 60-80k. Felt scummy and clearly hypocritical, but I did. Scharnhorst is one of my highest win rate ships and actually a bit above the norm in MBH and TH, but my damage is well below average as is survival rate. Which is less that I have no clue how to use it, I know how to quite well actually, the issue is just I'm an extremely aggressive player, and far too often end up having my help break off and get stuck alone trying to reverse, or having to pray I don't get hammered having to turn broadside. I tend to deal a fair amount of damage in the short time, and tank a ton of damage the rest of the team doesn't take when they maybe start shooting half way across the map, but kills my damage stat. Some of us know where our problems and mistakes are when we give advice, suggest balance changes, etc. Doing slightly better, least in some ships, trying to dial down the aggression, but I have more fun up close brawling with the enemy with secondaries flying everywhere. I know to angle a ship, much as I've not mastered it, I know to dodge when I can, that 8/10 times you want to turn into a torpedo attack (there are scenario's that make it worse to turn in), and I know to aim at the waterline and that sometimes, you need to make sure that next salvo is the other shell type. I also understand usually why I just got obliterated besides at times lack of help. TL;DR version - basically, just cause they ain't blue or aren't quite green doesn't mean the advice or argument is wrong - if you can't tell them, or anyone else, why they are wrong, and have to simply try attacking stats, best to keep your mouth shut.
  9. Yeah, actually they can be hit in the citadel. Is it easy, no, but than again, not easy as it was to hit the USN BB's now that they got theirs lowered. The reason for that aggression is that German BB's are weaker at range and if a round arcs down through the deck, they eat a citadel, I've seen it. That, and as well as from the stern/rear. Not to mention that especially with manual drop and the fact it's a line down the ship for AP, it's way more accurate than a BB salvo and not as easy to dodge. And even I agree that BB salvo's are a bit much at times. Thankfully, I've only encountered one E while in any BB, let alone a German.
  10. 24k more to go, been pacing myself while playing other ships for other missions and all. Easier when I manage to steadily earn 1k base in Minsk and not just get rekt.
  11. Fact Asia server motto is "we do what we want" aside - They look alike, I've likely seen 2-3 more that look alike, maybe there's a dozen. Thing is that sometimes, it's a matter of same artist, sometimes a matter of animators/animation team, sometimes an homage, and really, in many things, even live action things, you see a certain archetype or the like or certain traits are often cast the same or drawn the same. Part of that is having through one mean or another, the mind sort of being pre-programmed to essentially recognize a certain trait associated with that character type, subconsciously or not. It's basically what tells you when the movie gives no musical cue or clumsy dialogue/writing that x character is the murderer/mastermind/etc. Even think horror movies where you can tick off "They die, they die, they die, they make it to the end, then die, they survive to die in the sequel" in the first 5 minutes. Not to mention that especially through set time periods when there's a certain standard in animation, the base form is usually drawn the same, face shapes rarely change in particular, the difference comes from hair and eyes along with any other details you add like scars, freckles, etc. How often is the "old warrior" got shorter white hair and a scar, usually over the eye. A very strong Brunette, much more than you'd hing a human would be who takes out monsters with a group of others - Did I just describe Sango from Inuyasha or Makoto Kino from Sailor Moon? A rather serious dark haired girl sometimes in a school uniform, others white and red priestess garb and has skills with a bow - Kagome/Kikyo or Rei Hino of the same series? Find a character, odds are you'll find another with some resemblance, and that they share traits in clothing, personality, maybe even back story. Especially when they fall in the same general genre, partially because odds are successful things in it have it. Like how off brands use the same colours or competitors have different logo's but same colour scheme, albeit that also involves colour psychology trying to essentially use a Jedi mind trick. The rest of it aside when it comes to this example - look at the scene in Dr. Strange where he enters to meet the Ancient One for the first time after traveling to the far east. Who does he think the Ancient One is? The older Asian with white hair, the beard, and all of it, because in media it always is. Always the older/ancient wise master usually of a mystic nature or art. Mako in... well, a lot of things really, The master in kill bill, even to n extent mister Myagi in Karate kid. How often does the "old/ancient wise master" put the protagonist, usually young and impatient, through seemingly mindless and unrelated things to teach them. Yoda on Dagobah, again, Karate Kid, and how many others. Tropes are a thing, good and bad, and they usually share traits even physically.
  12. Which is another reason most of us want to keep this out of the game because same difference. Now the good players get focused, they spend matches getting pummeled or trying to retreat to the back, get fed up, leave, and on goes the cycle with no veteran players left to teach proper play through videos that are still up to date, maybe give advice, etc. Not to mention formation of bad habits of "oo, target him, he's good" when 3 other ships should be taking priority. Not to mention on the forum already you get people using Warships Today to start slinging mud over winrates at others regardless of any other stat or just average/not as good stats in general then dragging it into the matches themselves bringing all the toxic nonsense from WoT and before Wargaming basically killed it started to infest Warplanes for a while, and no one really wants that. We don't need to flood the forum with XVM sniping threads. We don't need people shouting at people for having bad win rates and WTR in the in game chat and running off or DC-ing to get out of the match "because they have a team of tomatoes with no chance to win". Mods like that are why we can't have nice things.
  13. Drop it to tier 6 with the historical Bf-109E reclassified to T and slightly bigger wings, and the Ju-87 as both DB and TB, maybe sporting 1,1,2 or 2,1,1. or just mix AP and HE in the groups to mix it up a bit, 1 group AP 2 HE, gives some hitting power against everything. And give it secondaries and HP combined with whatever armour it has that it can engage ships somewhat limited basis, making it truly unique as an almost brawler CV. Given it's one of, if not the only, CV's in game armed with cruiser level firepower, and at what should be 16 guns, a lot of it. Plus the 10.5's. Take advantage of her historically limited numbers yet insane firepower for a CV. Maybe tier 7. At this point, I'm still not happy really with what they are doing to the ship, and them doing what they are STILL makes me severely question why they did not make some of these changes to a ship like Saipan to balance it at tier 7, with say double the planes and a tier 7 or even 8 aircraft with more than her normal planes, less than double, but still at least a little more fair. This point, if my ID from the newer picture is right that they have change to the Fw-190 instead of the 109, they buffed secondaries and made the Stuka a DB - not just a TB - I'll take that small win at this point even if I still disagree that the Stuka should not be a tier 8 plane, even 7 is pushing it, and they might as well replace it with the GA version of the FW-190 as well (which took over the Stuka's role while trying to develop a replacement). And still not happy at the magic doubling of her numbers just to put her at tier 8 which feels like a cash grab. My only other thing - to hell with "high manual accuracy". Let's forget my usual rant of removing/replacing manual drop in someway - just make the fracking things more accurate normally, like the bloody Saipan.... maybe not exactly that level of accurate, but that general idea. Cause you do that to USN DB's, a bit more accurate, and this and hopefully further down the line a German CV tree when most of the major lines are done, that much more but no TB, hey, you make DB's that much more useful and effective minus issues against AA and oh right, help differentiate the carriers because more accurate DB's are great for DD hunting while able to DoT heavier cruisers and BB's or knock out secondary guns/AA while CV's with more TB's but worse DB's are better at taking on BB's while one in between can kinda do both just not as well as one or the other.
  14. Look, I get more about statistics than most who throw it about, granted, a long time since I used them. Most, would say with confidence that at 3000 battles I would still have slid from over 50% at 1500 to under by the 3000+ mark. That you would be 62% still. And that 99% confidence it would be that way every time no matter what. But sometimes other numbers conjoined with them paint a different picture. Even numbers can be interpenetrated differently to fit a narrative. Or some x factor not figured in. An easy example would be some of the polls last year, but that gets into politics and that is a can of worms we do not need to open. I'll simply take you vs me playing Scharnhorst as an example of what I generally meant since were close in number of battles. If we went by just Win Rate, like many do, I'm the better player. I have a full 5% on you in win rate. But then if you look at the other stats, it's a different story. Yes, were both close in MBH and THR, but you deal more average damage, have better K/D and survival rate, as well as average ship and plane kills per match. For me, I know my play style, which makes looking at mine easier for me, because I know I'm an aggressive player, and have a tendency to be tip of the spear, and while I lack in damage dealt, am likely eating a ton or having thrown at me instead of the team, to which maybe when it comes to that ship, I essentially do best acting as almost a damage sponge for the team. Or I've been carried that much in it for some reason. I look at your stats, especially vs mine, your likely a slightly more cautious player in the ship, possibly a slightly different build than me that makes you better at taking down airplanes, unless you get luckier seeing more easier to down lower planes or I deal with more high tiers. You likely do more damage not just because your likely in the match longer, but probably also have slightly better aim and/or make better choices on what ammo to fire at which target. Take my numbers with Hiryu, I have lower than average damage, but a pretty high K/D, a good well above average, that especially read the top of the page would likely result in someone usually going "Oh, he just steals kills well in it". The "finishes off damaged enemies" is actually more my USN CV's and cruiser/DD playing. Hiryu I tend to kill things I go after over a couple attacks. The lower damage is that I tend to do less damage per game because I don't typically use manual drops to basically guarantee the hits, say what you will, I think it's an unfair and broken mechanic. Same with strafe why most of my CV's are below average in plane kills. I don't put my stock in one number determining a players skill, I put it in all the numbers and try and see what is it that they do. What more is there that makes up that player. I at random picked a few names in this thread to search, one constant I saw, for the most part, all of them, have all 4 lines, WTR, WR, avg. exp and damage all going up, usually with only WTR going a bit wacky. Some are around 50%, other's 60% or higher average, but the trend is the same. Typically, around as many battles as me, if not more, or a few less. Meanwhile, mine look more like a roller coaster or something for WTR and Win Rate. It goes up, down a bit, back up, down again, and never really a smooth line with sometimes massive spikes and drops. I'm over 3000 battles, at 3000 was near the last of an upward swing that has been a decline that at times has comebacks, sometimes amazingly so. So am I just randomly getting worse and better at the game? Or maybe is it that I have fits of bad luck in team draw that regardless of how good I can play, drags me down? Earlier yesterday I was at 58% for the day with the matches, near 100k kraken in Edi, averaging 1000 base xp in Minsk, 150k damage loss in the Shokaku. Match or two after that Edi match you get that Shokaku loss, a loss after a det to the first salvo and other crazy stuff resulting in games I barely did damage. Or really, just my average day. Sometimes, unless you have a 100% absolute guarantee it's right, every statistic can be wrong, some in fact are. Then again, nothing is a statistic til it happens to begin with.
  15. This actually sums up the German BB play style. Yes, especially at lower tiers, they can engage enemy BB's and higher tiers with the bigger gun upgrades can again, but really, at their core, these things punish cruisers and even DD's, especially with the caliber/4 HE pen - much as it may be heresy have a captain that I'm testing with IFHE in some lower tier stuff. Few quick notes for Scharn, and some that tie to the German BB's as a whole - Do not rely on the torps, at 6km, they have limited use and get knocked out quite a bit. Angled ship or thin target at close range (UK cruisers) HE is your friend, AP being smaller at some tiers is more likely to fail at penning and at close range thinner targets you WILL over pen the citadel with HE. Did that too many times against Leanders that then torped me. DO.NOT.SNIPE. These ships are brawlers, try to find where your allies are going so you have some support to go in. Their guns are not dialed in for long range accuracy, nor is their armour which while at close range, Citadel's against German BB's are at best rare, at long range, plunging fire will wreck them it comes down through the deck. AFT/BFT/Secondary armament mod in slot 2 - this is the strength of German BB, especially after the range buffs they just got. Scharnhorst gained about .5 km, maybe a little more out to 8km fully built and flagged, Bismarck out to 11.3, and these guns can whittle down opponents fairly effectively. Most would suggest manual secondaries as well, especially at tier 8 for the accuracy boost, but depends a little who you are and how you play, I'd rathe when I hae a target on each side of my ship hit both, but the accuracy boost can be nice.