Jump to content

WanderingGhost

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    5,281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    12191

Community Reputation

2,361 Superb

5 Followers

About WanderingGhost

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

4,676 profile views
  1. WanderingGhost

    Neutral poll on subs in 0.10.8

    I'm willing to be patient both for getting it right, and maybe getting proper tech trees. What we had during the Halloween event when they made their first appearance, was great fun - much as it needed some serious balance tweaks to be random battle ready. I can't stand the pseudo nuclear submarines that you guy shave been trying to make them the last year+. Keep the 'dive capacity' with lower tiers having less and higher tiers having more, maybe some national differences (like how Germany did develop submarines that could dive longer and longer than others) but get rid of this goofy 'depletes faster when other subs are near' and whatever stuff and just have it be on the surface it replenishes 1-1 and if you submerge with say 2:30 seconds of time, even to periscope depth - you have 150 seconds before you need to surface. Which outside of top tiers they should be, given time compression, fairly short times and especially if we take it down to tier 5 (because there should really be some submarines around there unless the tree is shifted in adding more to have the UB III type for Germany that more or less evolved to be the infamous Type VII and similar in other nations) where much like the historical counterparts - they ran on the surface most of the time, unless attacking or evading. Just because you guys made that DD's things when 'Subs were never gonna happen' doesn't mean that you should muck with Submarines, if anything DD's need something of an overhaul or have them two parts of the same coin - with Submarines more torpedo based and DD's more gun based, with some of the DD's being something of a middle ground as there aren't that many really gun based submarines the way there are torpedo based DD's. You make them historical in that fashion - that solves a lot of balance issues with them. They need somewhat lower detection on the surface, giving them a better chance at seeing the enemy first and if need be 'crash diving', and if they don't have AA active (what testing I've done there hasn't seem to be any planes around) it needs to be active, and be balanced to actually function - by which I mean this is a case of game balance > history so a couple 20 mm and a 37 mm gun actually being able to shoot down a couple planes and defend a sub to a degree from aerial attack. Go back to the Halloween torps where they could be fired individually, had a faster reload, with it redone to be more like ship ammo that one is your standard straight runner, and that either A: Germany gets the ones from Halloween battles that knock out propulsion and didn't really track till near the end and even then - headed toward the engine so would sometimes steer it into protection but that were not nearly guaranteed hits and still required actual skill to aim like a normal torp but with decreased damage (cause hey -the historical passive homer it's based on had less explosives too and balance) while USN's is much like the one they had operational at the same time, an anti-sub torp that is slower and less powerful but more effective to attack a sub with those, maybe, a DD or B: Germany as above but give USN a straight runner that is say, able to citadel a cruiser but not DD's (which it misses) or capital ships (where it hits like normal). And while I'm fine with on the surface a submarine goes faster than history cause balance, periscope depth should be historical speed for submerged, and cause yeah they need some speed to get away (albeit effort should be made to make it that DD's and depth charge equipped units have a 'sonar screen' type HUD piece to look at that gives a relative direction and range that if a submarine slows enough so it 'goes quiet' lets it drop off - but has to measure it vs the air supply because a DD could just sit nearby till it's forced to come up though if it sits still the DD will likely be a target) lets call it 3/4 the surface speed underwater unless it's a more unique one - like the current German top tier or a refit of the Gato's or the like that was actually designed to be faster underwater than on the surface - to which then those speeds are reversed. This is one of those cases making them more historical, with certain obvious changes for the game mechanics, honestly is better for gameplay and balance than coming up with all these goofy gimmicks and trying to make them modern day SSN's. Cause they were boats that could submerge back then - unlike now where it's something very different that spends most of it's time submerged, which proper WWI and II and early post War submarines fit in to this game well, they have fit well for 6 years because you basically made DD's in to submarines. More modern nuclear type submarines have no place in this game, and sure as hell active homing doesn't have one other than MAYBE tier 10 and even then, requires a ton of work and a proper countermeasure not tied to DCP.
  2. WanderingGhost

    Update 0.10.8: World of Warships Anniversary

    Yeah - there's a lot more you need to do to subs than that to make them actually good and fun. Like removing battery for O2 that maybe has a lower supply but recharges faster on the surface, remove active homing torpedoes if you want homes that badly just like in the Halloween event have them be passives that still require aim, allow us to fire tubes individually like the Halloween event so we can control the spread, pretty sure AA needs work for the sake of balance, lower surface spotting range (lets sat 4.5 is the minimum it can get) and if your going to insist that USN must have homing torpedo's too than at the very least since they were anti-sub torpedoes make them anti-sub torpedoes that are more effective against them than CL and BB with DD's being something of a grey area. As a very brief summary. Because as is - these are still boring as hell pseudo nuclear submarines overly reliant on sonar guided active homing torpedoes. If your going to give me WWII submarines - give me WWII submarines.
  3. WanderingGhost

    Russian Time tunnel

    I think I understand the point he is trying to make - or at the very least it's not too dissimilar to my own so I'll elaborate. We understand your 'filling in the blanks' - the issue, is more which blanks and how. Case in point - Germany. You say it's your using designs and plans for ships that were never built and what not 'based on available sources'. Now - I knew from day one, as a supporter of a German CV line, that at the very least, tier 10, if not 9 and 10, would need to be created from scratch based on the previous tiers of ships. Why I went as far as to write up how to actually build them in my old line suggestions. Now, my disdain for these evens only lines aside - the level of pardon my language 'WTAF' in that line is staggering. To a point I have gone after your research team in posts. For starters 'Rhein', after a ton of searching, finally found a design that matches - that is what translates from German as 'Flight Deck Cruiser'. Which is distinctively named differently from an Aircraft Carrier because they function differently. To simplify - what Rhein appears to be based off is more in line with the 'Ise' Hybrid ships you introduced than the ship that comes after it. Guns for commerce raiding first, a handful of aircraft for scouting and attacks as needed/available. It's just less obvious looking than Ise. The tier 8 - despite a number of possible designs - including the Graf Zeppelin's later proposed changes - that were only scrapped as they would have had to tear the ship apart to implement them (and they had canceled the second ship by then) that saw the removal of the 15 cm guns for additional 10.5's - I can't ID what the heck you guys added. And THEN you have the airplanes used. The tier 6 is mostly planes Germany built purely for export and the like - to push the Fi 167 - a 30's biplane, to tier 7 when as an example the USN has the Grumman Avenger and what should be a later version of the SBD (though the SBD's tiering is somewhat debatable itself). When the Ar 197 - designed to go with the 167, is tier 5 as well. From tiers 6-8, you have the 109E, T and G, then the 190 A-8 as the throwaway on the 10 before the 155G. Except not even diligent just basic research would have told them that the 109 E and T ARE THE SAME EXACT PLANE JUST ONE HAS BEEN NAVALIZED. The 109 G and 155G are again - basically the same plane (or more the 155 used almost nothing but components from it), with the 155 meant to be a replacement of the T variant (which is the navalized E variant). And then using the 190 A-8 - which is a somewhat lower altitude version compared to the D series and a bit more on the armour for a line your team, for some reason beyond my fathoming, decided would be 'fast and fragile' when the planes it should be moving to are actually more durable especially using radial engines over liquid cooled like UK (who would better fit the faster but more vulnerable for a number of reasons depending on what plane were talking). And then randomly inserting Bf 110c's on the tier 8 - a twin engine heavy fighter, that never carried torpedoes, other than maybe, a field modification I'm forgetting, only to go back to single engine planes - including the second variant of ground attack, of the 190, that is at 8 as a fighter as the 9. Big and heavy yeah but given the fictional nature of the tier 10 why not use the Ju 88 or even 188 on it and shift the single engines down? Why is the Ju-87 completely removed from the equation of the line in both the DB and literally designed for these TB role? Why not use the Ju-187 which while canceled, could live up to it's potential had it been further refined to be a higher tier attack aircraft replacement. Sorting out the planes, to something that makes sense, even though with their lack of real development and all TB's should have been bypassed for the German CV line and more effort put in to a way that allows AP and HE bombs to be carried - and if needed a more clear indicator what type of DB is attacking you and all, it should look more like this, using the information and data I've gathered over the last 20+ years omitting tier 4 aqs it's the only one that's okay enough - Tier Strike TB DB 5 Ar 197 or Bf-109B Ar 195 Ar 195 6 Bf-109T Fi 167 Fi 167 7 Me 155 Ju 87c Ju 87c 8 Fw-190 F-8 Fw 190 F-8 Fw 190 F-8 9 Fw 190 A-8 Ju 187 Ju 187 10 Me 410 Me 410 B5 Me 410 (B5) With the 197/195 you have effectively what was going to be GZ's original possible compliment in the early stages as the tier 5, tier 6 is what it would have had around the beginning of the war, and 7 early-mid war planes planned for GZ. Tier 8 unifies to the single model of the F8 as it honestly makes no sense to go to the A8 just yet given the time frame of the F8 and the ability to unify the production - which Germany was all about when it came to the CV's at a point. The A8 is 9 as it makes sense to go to a somewhat higher performance variant that was more a fighter but could still pack rockets, with the 187 - having a similar engine, able to better keep pace with them and more durable than it's predecessor the 87, able to fill the TB and DB roles, as a single engine plane. Without going in to the Ta 152, fantasy land, or going 'screw it, Ju 88's' - much as with some of the insane designs and ideas Germany had a massive tier 10 with navalized Ju 88's would be fitting, and hilarious, the Me 410 as a twin engine does advance from the 190 nicely, with the B5 variant specifically a torpedo bomber variant - though there is room to rename them as the C variant, which was intended to have a universal mounting that would allow the usage of the BMW radials the 190's and the 187 use for higher durability than just saying the liquid cooled ones are more durable cause magic gameplay rules. I could also rewrite a CV line, including odd tiers - though that would take more time to regather the info I used to use. I could also go in to all the issues within UK, IJN and USN planes (like how with the AP IJN should have level bombing as UK did not use it's DB's in the fashion you have them doing so while IJN did use level bombers - as none of the DB's could carry the AP bomb and dive safely) but that might as well be another thread - or within any of the other 100 tines I've gone over them. My German CV rant relating to that statement out of the way and covering the 'how' - and getting more in to 'which blanks are filled' - there were some unhappy that Germany entered in after UK instead of France. Which while I disagree with the view of some of those players - as Germany had started work converting several ships to CV's, others did have a point that France had more natively built operational CV's than Germany. And while I am not nearly as well educated on French aircraft as I would like, even I was able to put together both evens only and full ship lines for it sans the aircraft. And with that said, while I could get behind an argument for Germany before France - I can't get behind one that Russia, with it's 0 carriers even started to my knowledge, at the very least not even progressed as far as GZ, comes before at least France, if not them and Italy. Using full CV lines/branches with odd tiers - I could while still having at least 1 physically built ship if not more in it, make 2 USN lines plus an evens only sub hunter, 2 UK lines with a medium branch that's evens only, 2 IJN lines, a full German line, a full French line, and maybe even an Italian line - as well as with evens only stretch some Pan American and Commonwealth lines. To say nothing of how many lines I could make if were really going to be saddled with these horrid half lines that poorly represent the real developments cause that'd basically double how many lines. Before I ever get to a completely paper/fictional Russian line. Which - your adding a 100% fictional line, with a new gimmick - when the CV's we have are still not balanced well and in need of serious work because those 'average stats' I see on damage and WR are all skewed by the nature of the balance combined with the newer MM that sees the CV's against +2 less than before, but depending on tier and ship even +1 can be an issue where planes are shredded for low damage - while when the CV gets top tier MM it can run the board untouched in cases. And I say this as a CV player - yeah, some ships need an AA nerf and CV's need a buff or two - but there are a ton more ships that need AA buffs and things like HVAR/FFAR/RP-3 rockets that need a straight up 40-60% damage nerf on alpha and that all is just for starters. If other nations that actually had CV's, like France, had theirs in game, and CV's were actually balanced well, you'd likely not see much in the way of complaints, other than the diehard 'all ships must have existed as metal' crowd.
  4. WanderingGhost

    Oklahoma and California, do they need buffs?

    Oh if I had my way - which is unlikely I'd put Nevada in the tech tree with it's full war time upgrades as the tier 6 of the second line, followed by a similar tier 7 Pennsylvania. With Nevada having it's full 20.5 knots instead of 19.7. Not even sure where they got the 19.7 number as everything I've ever found listed the speed as 20.5 before the 40's, if anything I'd expect that slower speed of the rebuilt Nevada. But the way the game has evolved - generally even with some of the early-mid 30's revisions and more so with CV's packing basically early war aircraft in that tier range, the older BB's without some other changes really don't fit the way they used to in tier 4 and 5.
  5. WanderingGhost

    Oklahoma and California, do they need buffs?

    Same reason the German BB's are some of my most played. But yeah if her plating were upped from 19 to even 21 mm (127 mm inch shells would still go through) or maybe a bit higher (but not above 25 allowing cruisers to pen with no issues with HE) would go a long, long way. Maybe a tweak to DCP or Repair to a lower number (though at this point BB's as a whole kinda need that anyway other than Mass and Gas), but that's possibly dicey. Then do what could be an immediate post Pearl upgrade to it had it survived based on Nevada and get rid of the /51's and the /25's for the 8x2 /38's, then have the 4x per side with either 3.4 seconds (with all the upgrades and all) or with those upgrades down to 2.7/8 seconds with 1/5 pen which would give it ability to pen cruisers but I think keep tier 7 and 6 BB's mostly immune (I forget where I think it's now 26 mm bow armour off the top of my head for BB's) so they aren't just flashy pop guns. With 6x4 40 mm and 12x 20 mm to bolster the AA to be a bit more secure vs tier 6 CV's. If they leave DCP/repair alone and just bump the plating up and tweak the secondary loadout/AA - especially with a pen increase, then 36 seconds with the bad AP and the slowest BB that isn't the first tier of BB's would be more than fair cause it can shrug some hits and dish them out with secondary guns - meaning getting close to use the bigger guns still makes sense.
  6. WanderingGhost

    Oklahoma and California, do they need buffs?

    Honestly - the normal PC version could confuse me that it has that gimmick. Then again the only reason secondary's work on Germany is the fact they have a large caliber (that even without enhanced pen could use IFHE at least) and the fact they have the enhanced pen that they can be sued against pretty much any ship and do damage. But they have speed, armour, and RoF even if they have the smaller main battery at high tiers and are at least on average and still some speed and all at lower tier. Mass works because other than the extra 32 mm plates that cover the hull and shorter MB range - it's almost a straight improvement over NC or the exact same in categories so the drawbacks of the 127 mm guns it uses are somewhat irrelevant, it just sets bigger ships on fire and can wreck a careless DD with it's 11.3 km range and 3.4 second reloads maxed out. Also it's immune to some HE rounds and has the improved consumables. Even the new branch of USN BB slugs they may be are protected enough that people have to take IFHE to autopen or are unable to in general as well as the AA to back it up. Oklahoma has 9 guns per side as opposed to Mass's 10, which of those guns, 4 can get down to 3.8, the other 5 at 6 seconds at a max range of 8.3 km (and that's putting my high level Halsey and all from Mass on it), but can't even make 20 knots, bad main battery, AA isn't great, etc. Secondary ships are pointless unless either the ship is fast (German) or durable (Mass/Kansas branch) and the guns have the right size (Germany), Pen (Germany and IJN 100 mm that has /4 pen), or at least sheer volume (Mass) unless similar to Mass - they're just an add on to an already solid ship. Even at it's best with a high point captain - Oklahoma doesn't have what it takes to really warrant her secondary battery impacting any other area of the ship. IF they went the route I'd like to see of the still slow but between protection and better than current secondary battery I'd be fine with the lackluster AP and a 36 second reload since it should have the ability to creep toward the cap and just wreck things with secondary guns that get close. Sort of like Warspite except better secondary guns and more designed as a brawler, and slower. We have enough mid-long range premium USN BB's - lets have something different at low tiers and have a brawler for a change so there's something besides Mass (which is still arguably more midrange).
  7. Fair enough - Given the length and all the other things to respond to I didn't anticipate any full response immediately - especially when I brought up how Carriers have been handled and Oklahoma. But I've studied WWII aviation since I was 4-5 (even if I had to have my mom read the books as I learned) and went to school initially for Game Design - so CV's have a somewhat special place for me as do many of the aircraft, and I tend to look at things from a balance perspective. So seeing the German CV line as the shambles it is with a plane tech tree that makes me want to scream - especially when what your saying with some of it is 'yeah this 1938 biplane is on par with the latest mid war planes' really grinds my gears. Or that the F8F stays as an attacker, with misplaced rockets that shouldn't be there in the first place, when there are several option that could hold 10+. But a historically based arcade game is right up my alley, back in the day - when Wargaming paid better attention to historic details like planes, and juggled history and arcade gameplay better - this game was fun, it was what I wanted - not what the competing game gives me. And I'm glad that while you may not be a balancer designer - when you quoted stats to the other player - you still asked what was uncomfortable which it feels like other times other Dev's and the like have come here - they haven't they have had the attitude 'stats are fine, it's fine, your the problem'. As someone that studied WWII from a young age, who has taken courses in game design (and seen Wargaming make mistakes literally taught in my 101 class to not do) and international business (again, seen Wargaming make mistakes literally taught not to do in 101) I want this game to succeed, I want the company to succeed so the game can last as long as it can. But some of the business practices, the game design, in cases outright disregard for history and for players - there's no way to sum all that needs to be said up and remain civil.
  8. WanderingGhost

    Oklahoma and California, do they need buffs?

    To try and simplify the wall that ended up in the other thread, as far as Oklahoma as I have the ship and have at least played it a little - It's more that it needs a 'Playability Buff' in my opinion. Which is more that it needs to be more comfortable to be played generally by people, which in it's case would include obvious buffs like RoF but also possibly some nerfs to account for other changes. Which is in line with a lot of Wargaming premiums and some newer lines mainly post MM rework where the logic seems to have been 'it mostly sees this tier, balance it for that'. Because while it is good enough vs tier 4 and 5 it's lacking vs 6 and 7, which is a problem. And not lacking in the way a tier 5 normally does. The 19 mm armour means anything 114 mm or bigger auto pens it with HE which is almost every ship, it's incredibly slow making it target practice for those ships add in slow RoF, Traverse, the fact secondary guns post skill rework are just above trash and a lack of meaningful AA vs Tier 6 CV's - as I said in the other thread it's not insurmountable, but it's uncomfortable to play. It feels like a ship in need of an identity of 'what does it actually do'. If it were adjusted to what the Second line should and could be for USN, the slow USN Juggernaut equivalent to German BB's that given the use more of 127 mm guns are maybe more DD focused than the cruiser of Germany. While slow either exceptional protection (buffs to the outer plating), Damage Control (like Mass where DCP and Repair party are on faster CD), accurate long range secondary guns, or some combination of any of those is basically a floating fortress. Which would still have the draw backs of speed and all, still maybe a slower reload than Texas but not as bad as now but something that rolls it's way to a cap and can soak the hits if it somehow is in front of the team, or basically follows up and holds the cap from anyone trying to flank. As is it feels like the ship was designed to be both sniper and brawler - but not given the proper tools to do either. Longer range than normal secondary guns - but a speed and armour combo that means it's eaten alive by DD's even without IFHE, bit more on the main battery range but the reload is abysmal and overall just not great guns. And not even in a manner that makes it a 'mid range' ship like basically the entire main line at this point. I find a lot of Wargaming's ships since a little before, and very much including, the CV rework lack a clear purpose and role. Which tends to lead to weird ships that can do well, but end up played by a very niche set or type of player, which as we see with the still fairly early stats of Oklahoma (as it's not even to 100k battles yet, which seems surprising and not at the same time) where it looks good on paper, but it's actually not that good to play for more general players. It's the same problem CV's have long encountered - people see the paper stats and go 'this is good' or 'this is OP' - but having not played them themselves don't realize that it's the ever dwindling as wrong changes are made forcing out the lesser players causing it to be reduced to niche/specialist players who make the CV's look like they are an unmitigated menace with no counter when the truth is that while yes they are in some cases they also aren't in others. To make a sports analogy cause tis the season - It's like if you went from your 'standard' football team where you have the couple star starters and good ones, with a decent to okay second string and the third string that's passable that through the season looks pretty good but maybe needs some work, and replacing say your second and third string QB's with clones of Patrick Mahomes, your Saftey's with clones of Brian Dawkins in his prime, on down the list where yeah, the team would still be beatable - but your talking a full depth chart that's basically the top tier of players.
  9. WanderingGhost

    Important message for the community

    It's been a few months since I played it - but there's a lot, even as someone who is 'fine' with the ship will find painful. When you get a tier 4 and 5 match, or a 6 match with no CV's and certain team matchups, it's fine - and this is a problematic running trend with a number of your premiums especially the last couple years, but once you introduce CV's, namely tier 6 with what is woefully inadequate for the tier, what doesn't even pass for armour on a ship that slow at it's tier, abysmal turret traverse paired with Rof (when Texas gets at least a higher RoF also packing 10x 356 mm guns at least - and better AA even if it needs to be tweaked to be back closer to it's previous levels - 76.2 mm guns really need to be moved to the 'long range' category and added to flak bursts at least on ships that aren't using DP main batteries like Worcester -which is a whole other animal), etc. To further elaborate AA - one of the few times I felt I was listened to recently - and only because I literally found a copy of the damned blue prints and posted it here going 'look see it had 3 inch AA guns', but that said - against the 1930's planes of tier 4 - let alone the early-mid war planes most nations use other than Germany (separate issue I've complained about for months and before those CV's ever even went live), it would take one hell of a numbers adjustment to even come close. Truthfully while I can appreciate having a 'pre-Pearl Harbor' version - the truth is that the current state of the game, unless it has some very specific advantages, that Oklahoma and pretty much all BB's in game lack at this point, outside of the very low tiers, and I'm talking maybe 3 at the highest, ships with that little AA have almost no place in the game unless they are a DD or a Submarine and even then - some serious caveats. It would at minimum need the upgrade Nevada initially got post Pearl or a variation of it. Nevada (which should be in the tech tree as part of the second line, with the maximum AA) initially was given 8x2 5/38's, 8x4 bofors, and 16x1 20 mm's. Much as I'd like the historical, Oklahoma never got it, and it may be a bit much for tier 5 especially as a premium when NY needs an overhaul closer to Texas, so lets call it 8x1 5/38's, 6x4 or 8x2 40 mm's and 12x 20 mm guns. Armour - if the numbers I've pulled up online (can't enter the game while it downloads months of updates) are correct and as I recall, are - the ship is covered in 19 mm of armour. That means any gun 114 mm or larger - which is all but a couple select DD's at very low tiers, auto pens the armour even without IFHE. And some of those guns, especially on DD's, have very high rates of fire. The accuracy isn't enough to bullseye them, it lacks the speed to out run them, it has to use HE because of the AP overnerf vs DD's, most will stay out of secondary range if they can - not that the secondary build is particularly viable, and while IFHE/auto pen cruisers are still an issue at high tiers - it's still a worse one at low tiers especially around tier 5 where you have or rather don't have access to certain things to help further mitigate the constant barrage that eats away your health - of which only 50% can be fixed from the pens, a fire at best eats up one whole charge of repair - which has an 80 second cooldown, and you can't exactly run for cover. I have been trying to stress this for years as an overall issue with IFHE and in cases like this, normal HE that it is way too easy to overwhelm DCP and Repair - I play all the classes, and especially as BB's are generally a counter to cruisers for this game and other BB's, with torpedo armed DD's being the counter to BB's other than other BB's and in cases CV's - I'm sorry but no cruiser or DD should be able to fire 15-20 RPM per gun at the bow of a BB and just auto pen - superstructure yes, but not bow - and I say that as someone that plays cruisers and DD's, with several tier 10's of them and in most older lines tier 8 and 9 of them. If it's not going to have the armour - it needs the repair/DCP mitigation to compensate. Or it needs to at least have enough to force some of the DD's and maybe the cruisers to take IFHE to auto pen it and even then were just back to the IFHE issue. And because people love to throw it out as an example I'll cut it off now - even Kongo - the 'lighter armoured' BB of tier 5 - is significantly faster, has better AA low bar that may be, and more importantly - has 2 76 mm strips and 38/152 mm center section immune to most HE and IFHE from cruisers/DD's that make up for it's 19 mm armour sections. Gunnery/speed/agility - Like I said - Texas has better RoF on it's guns - that are basically the same, but has better AA, better speed, etc. Trying to swing on target is a pain, and it takes ages to reload. It has better secondary range - which could be something if it could get to some of the very long range secondary gunnery, and secondary builds weren't an absolute joke at this point because they seriously need better accuracy or something. Are these things insurmountable - no, they aren't. But the problem you run in to is the problem Wargaming has had for years with CV's - it gets reduced quickly to 'specialists' who excel at that playstyle or can compensate and are essentially better than the average player in that ship, that make something that is actually somewhat problematic look fine. If it's going to be the 'immovable object' of tier 5 similar to the higher tier USN branch - that's fine, I'm more than cool with it - but it's need the sheer tanking power to go with that similar to what German BB's once had, just less speed. For red players to keep hammering it and like a horror movie monster or a zombie immune to headshots it just keeps coming. And it needs a slightly better ability to hit back. Now if that means some compromises elsewhere like maybe the shell damage fine, but it needs some tweaking so it's something playable by most anyone - not just a select few, without discomfort. Would I say it's super high priority to change - no, but it should be on the list.
  10. WanderingGhost

    Important message for the community

    As someone that basically wrote an open letter telling you why I was no longer giving you guys money, and has all but quit this game, over some of these very things - let me start by saying that your company needs 'to put your money where your mouth is' at this point. Cause those familiar with 'South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut' will understand the reference when I say this you've been singing and dancing 'I can change' for years now - and you haven't. After Eugen's release was staggered and you said 'we won't do it again' - and proceeded to after several more tries, after how many times of 'we'll fix communications, interact more, etc' it lasts maybe two weeks. I can speak only for myself obviously - but you want my trust and for me to believe you, your gonna actually have to earn it back at this point cause you guys have more than used up your chances and the good will I had the last let's call it 3 years. On to some of the more specific points: The reason I bolded and highlighted that line is that back in the day, when this first released - you guys were BETTER than the industry standard. The Santa crates were about the only one - and were at a cost range where we, the community, actually organized things to actually give others a little something for the holidays - maybe it was the less valuable things, maybe they got a new ship they really wanted - but those were fine as a seasonal thing. Prices were fairly reasonable, as were the types and how often you had sales. And let's be clear here - you can, like EA that started the entire firestorm, try and call them whatever you like - a loot box is a loot box is a loot box, but the moment everything went sideways with them years ago you should have been backing down on their usage - not doubling down. You've jacked up the prices on ships to a point they are absolutely ridiculous, even before a pandemic that cost a lot of us money, let alone after. You really need to reign in the cost even if that means developing new premiums at a slower rate or something. But you shouldn't be aiming for 'the industry standard' - you should be aiming to be BETTER THAN IT. Cause guess what - we really like it when were not treated like cash cows, or whales, or feel like were constantly held hostage with 'fork over all your money or you can't have anything' type tactics. And when we don't feel like that's the case - we tend to be more willing to hand over money. Want to know how you guys could have avoided all this in the first place? By not lying to us years ago when your company said, when directly asked about how long we would have to earn it 'that it would be available forever so we could grind at our own pace'. You can say 'oh we changed our minds' - but that's very much Vader "I'm altering the deal, pray I don't alter it further' territory. Or made that Nelson and Missouri would stay, as we were told they would, and the rest went on a rotation or that even if these left, an assurance they would be put back in within x time frame. Instead of 'hey, you know that ship we put up for 750k free xp before jacking up the price of them to make more cash that a lot of you wanted but didn't get cause we told you you had forever then said 'you have 3 more months and couldn't get what you still needed - complete this mission chain and give us 100 dollars and it's yours'. Yeah - you guys should have known better, how this ever made it past the first person that even mentioned it is beyond me. Which also as this does tie on to monetization - I did the math years ago - 750k XP is around what it takes to get a tier 9, mainly, a tier 9 BB - there was no reason the costs should have been changed because the 'economics' have not changed anywhere near what you thought they had, beyond the fact game changes like hull removals had gotten some players more free xp, and because of these ships players were trying to hang on to it to get the next one. If anything - the indicators were you needed to lower the price so that players instead of hoarding would more freely spend it where they could. I have to seriously ask this - why weren't these 'checks and approvals' added after the last issue a few months back? Why weren't they added after the 'Puerto Rico Debacle', for any other old codgers still here that remember why weren't they added after 'humblebundle gate' more than 6 years ago? Why has this been allowed to be an issue, constantly, for longer than the game has actually been live? This is one of the areas I'm the most skeptical of you guys changing because I've heard it before, and here we are, 6 years later, with your company apologizing again, for some form of communication/translation/whatever error. This one the wording gives me pause - because you say about the balance of what we say vs data and your 'vision'. Because I remember Graf Zeppelin, I remember myself, and many other players of CV's, who did not have time to purchase it before you yanked it from the store, and even some that did - telling you it was overpowered, I went so far, because of how well I understood the RTS mechanics - to break down the entire problem to it's mathematic core and how to fix it when it came particularly to the fighters - but the feedback you listened to, was the feedback that pointed you back to the old setup that you suddenly changed away from before release - and then said it was OP and wouldn't be released till the rework, and that 'you gave us too much input'. First off - I think were going to need to have a VERY LONG discussion about what your defining as 'interval of normal performance'. Because this actually ties in heavily to the next point, carriers, that if you are basing this all purely off numbers, THE NUMBERS ARE NOT ALWAYS ACCURATE. Some of the number sets, many CV's are a good example, are the product of two extremes that creates what looks like a fine, acceptable average on paper - but is anything but in gameplay. And while expediency would be nice, accuracy is preferred - and there is NO ship that is unfixable if it isn't a premium that can't be nerfed for possible legal reasons. However - instead of rushing to try and fix something - I'd rather you improve the quality of your testing so it's less likely to be an issue in the first place. By which I mean A: listening to the feedback, not just looking at the numbers, B: folding things - such as Midways rockets and others, in to ingame events the way you used to do for live testing, and most importantly C: Stop running back to back to back Dockyard and major events that take people away from any time they might spend on PTS or special events, like Halloween, where many of the things in this game like storms, limited range torpedo tubes, etc were all effectively tested before they came to the game. Give us 2 weeks when PTS is up where there's nothing major going on so we can go 'oh, lets test this out before it hits live'. Give us Halloween off or fold it in to the event. Give us time to test before you - because as an Alpha tester, Beta tester, former Supertester, CV beta tester, and someone who at one time went to school for game design - I WANT TO TEST THINGS. But my current, to put it overly lightly dissatisfaction with the game aside, when I was actually playing - I wasn't going to give up time in the middle of a dockyard that in order to get anywhere close required me to use all of the free time I had to focus specifically on that. CV spotting has been an issue for 6 years now, under two different methods - so I think there needs to be a discussion between you guy sand us players as to what is 'good and acceptable'. Cause I find it hard to believe, that with how much backing some suggestions have from both pro and anti CV players - like CV's only visually spot for themselves and as mini-map only for the rest of the team just like Radar when first used - maybe a qualifier to add that would allow it to spot a target to be shot, that there isn't a good and acceptable solution. Especially as per your own words when you were putting this unnecessary rework together - you wanted CV's to move away from a job as spotters, and to a job of attacking - and this follows that. You've also had 3 years, more than really, for the 'odd tier' CV's - and in that time you have, against all better judgement, released multiple premiums, a UK line, a German line, and have, in the testing phase, a Russian line, when these should have been the first ones after you fixed CV's - which you haven't, and if you are serious about listening to us - I will once again, happily write up how to actually fix the issues with rockets, link the spreadsheet I made years ago, detailing changes to AA for several lines and a basis to standardize gun damage (so in most cases two ships using the same guns do the same damage unless one has more guns, and therefore does more), and because you guys honestly need to scrap this evens only nonsense - write up for all existing lines, what ship, goes where, and how the line should evolve from the early 'training players how best to use the line' phase of tiers 4-6 (or in Germany's case should be 5 and 6 and move the tier 4 and any of the other 'flight deck cruisers - which are more akin to the IJN hybrids recently introduced NOT aircraft carriers - to a new line of hybrids) and in to 7-10 in which yes plane numbers increase (or in some cases, decrease) but also OPTIONS increase for what the plane can carry. As an example the USN line in it's current and previous forms, with the missing ships reintegrated in a manner that won't have us rioting. Tier 4 Langley - TB's and DB's only - there are a number of reasons rockets shouldn't be present at this tier, gameplay wise and historically, to say nothing of players should be getting used to how to use these weapons as they are the bread and butter when it comes to taking out larger ships, and more than sufficient for taking out the smaller ones as well. Tier 5 - (undetermined) - I'd have to go back and recall what I assigned here, as opposed to Bogue, as I recall it was a smaller purpose built CV not a conversion that was unable to get out of it's own way and mainly a subhunter. This however, aside from possible upgrade to plane numbers in the previous 2 groups, is where you introduce rockets for the players to pick up on how they work - as they are going to start seeing targets where a lower damage (because you guys need to undo the strafing/delay mess and straight up lower the damage, like I and others have been saying, since the CV beta) more accurate through sheer volume ordnance is going to be better to hit them with - and a start in application of using them to lessen the AA of other ships in which they can then bring in the more vulnerable due to speed TB's and DB's. Tier 6 Ranger - this one is the only real 'straight numbers upgrade' - it's basically the first 'real' carrier they play, against real opponents and is essentially the 'final test' that they have learned what they needed to in the previous tiers, and really out of the safety zone that tiers 4 and 5 can be. The 'trial by fire' tier that really determines if they need to go back to the lower tiers to more refine their skills because maybe they advanced too fast. Tier 7 Yorktown - This will partially depend on what DB you place on Yorktown, but for the moment for the sake of the example - lets say that tiers 4-6 used a 500 lb HE bomb on the DB. Now you can choose a 1000 lb HE bomb that is less accurate - and so not as well suited to attack lets say DD's, but Cruisers and BB's that are larger and easier to hit and will deal more direct damage to them. Tier 8 Lexington - Once again, the upgrade is to the bombs, this will again, depend on the aircraft (I'll have to at somepoint see what you have in game, and what would have been available that's good for the tier) but again, for the sake of example - the plane can carry 1x 2000 lb bomb, that's better at hitting BB's, 2x 1000 lb bombs - better for cruisers, or 4x 500 lb bombs, better against DD's. Tier 9 Essex - This, is where I would have the upgrade to the 'Tiny Tim' rockets - 12 inches, semi-armour piercing goodness that while less effective vs a DD (because I will actually say we should maybe apply the overpen rule vs DD's on them) a BB will certainly know they have been hit by one - and can potentially devastate some cruisers if it can hit the citadel. This would also be the first tier to go from 6x TB's to carry 6 torpedoes (that have some of the lowest damage in the game as they are balanced around their numbers and being geared to hit smaller ships unlike IJN at 4x geared toward capital ships with high damage but larger gaps to dodge through) to 3 planes to carry 6x torpedoes (2 per plane) that drop in relatively straight lines (not some of the goofy patterns we have). This could also in fact, be another thing that could be more about option if bombs were omitted at 8 for TT or one of the option sets was reserved for a different line - more TB's that give you more options in how you drop (fanned out more for area coverage, tighter for more hits when you know you have them) versus fewer planes that allow more attacks/drain reserves less but because it's 3 planes dropping 2 instead of 6 dropping 1 they don't fan/converge the same that has it's pro's/cons due to pattern. Tier 10 Midway - As is - the F8F needs to go, especially given these are 'attack planes' in game and your using a replacement for the F4F on CVL's and the like. There are numerous attack plane options, that carry the number of rockets you assigned to the F8F properly, if not more, as well as all the other ordnance. As it's tier 10, there are also a number of options to employ for the new 'choice. Aside from possibly new bomb load numbers, new types could be added such as using AP vs HE in the 1000 and/or 2000 lb ranges (500 lb AP has no place in that tier range - 500 lb HE at least has something vs DD's when used properly and in volume). You could add different war head or torpedo types - which at this tier would also see the 2 planes with 3 torps per plane. Another option I know many are skittish about - is the return of jets ONLY in the rocket attack role. Yes - they would have a speed advantage over their piston engine counterparts, which, I might add, is somewhat disadvantageous against the very low spotting range of a DD from the air they would be at their most lethal against this class when they have help from the team, they would also be trading away HP for that speed - meaning that they may well be taking higher losses if they aren't dodging well enough and for the sake of balance and a bit of history - we can even take on a slightly higher time to replenish the jets vs the piston engine planes. Relative damage would be the same - lets call it 12 HVARS per plane that deal the same damage - but do you want something faster but more fragile or tankier but slower? Because by tier 10 maybe you feel you have the AA avoidance skills to make use of a jet to weaken a ships AA before coming in with literally a couple TB's to hit them. The early tiers, and the presence of odd tiers, help teach a CV player the basics, and have a much easier time adjusting to other tier gameplay and far less shock - to say nothing of it being easier to progress in a CV because you can now make progress to a tier 8 CV in a tier 7 as opposed to what we still have now - which is trying to get from Ranger to Lexington, with the same XP it took to do in RTS with the tier 7 if you just bought the ship, but never upgraded it and got xp towards it by playing the 6. And other than what is, effectively the 'beginner tiers' for CV - every tier offers new things to learn, new options to play with, and an ability to customize the ship that CV's lack via captain skills - even with the again very poorly done rework of them, and ship modernizations because taking anything other than certain ones is just completely against how the ships work and doesn't benefit you. Which as a side note, if I had my way - Lexington would move to the second branch that USN can in fact support of CV's that are converted ships - both real ones like Lex and some of the CVL's and paper designs like the Iowa Conversion from 1942, with Essex at tier 8 (as they came directly off Yorktown), Midway to 9 and tier 10 the Original design of the Forrestal Class carriers - which is in compliance with Wargaming's old line of 'no Super carriers' as the original design comes in below the weight classification of what is considered a 'Super Carrier' (because if we simply went by anything called one several in game ships would be removed as they were referred to as such at their times) and did not have angled flight decks (and in fact Forrestal was originally being built without it - it was added later in construction so it's not even a fully paper idea - it was built and altered before launch) therefore free game for use. And if the weight is a little off - like Shinano I think players would be fine allowing the wiggle room to just add it with the HP being off a bit just to have it. To say nothing of the fun what if had the war dragged on and Shinano been employed as a proper carrier and the Forrestal's had been more directly developed after the Midway and put in service without their angled decks. I believe most of us are fine with the fact that things 'can and will change' when it comes to development timelines and all, in fact a big issue I know many of us have had, is the seemingly fixed timelines you've used to shove out the CV rework, that seems to have been applied to Subs as well (again another thing that should not be evens only and needs a hell of a lot of tweaking and a few lessons from history - that will not negatively impact gameplay if anything may enhance it), and numerous other times we practically beg you to change something, or to delay it, and the most we get is days, if not a couple weeks - when it should be weeks or months for way more refinement. All well and good - as long as it actually happens this time. Because we have heard this before, and well, here we are today seeing it again. And it's all well and good you guys want to explain your positions - as long as your willing to actually listen to ours and are not so entrenched as your company has been in the past few years that - to make an analogy that ties in with something that is written after this - we have to go from talks, to storming the trench, to lobbing grenades at the trench, to just out right trying to obliterate it with artillery and bombs (aka very harsh language, mass walk-outs, etc). Like when there was a discussion over plane losses post rework, with a particular Dev involved - and every time we just got answers of basically 'but x, y, and z stat averages are fine so what's the problem?' when a dozen of us have spent several posts telling them that the problem, is how it achieves those numbers, because in scenario A where it is top tier, it is absolutely decimating enemy teams racking up damage with minimal losses, and scenario B in which it is bottom tier - and takes catastrophic losses dealing almost no damage - resulting in averages that look fine but aren't as they are born of 2 extremes. There are a few things to unpack here. When it comes to our own infighting - people get frustrated with each other, especially when people aren't actually reading what is said, or putting words in their mouth, etc. Me personally, I've tried to get better at just outright leaving threads and not responding to things I know are going to tick me off every time I try, have to be trolls, or are just lost causes not worth my time. And while we understand that yes, you guys are people to - and that in cases you may have no say what is going on and are just the basically the intermediary or the ones of the totem pole that has to deal with us - something I understand all too well because I've spent the last 7 years almost as Gameday Guest Services Staff for the Eagles - and am frequently the the 3rd+ person that needs to give them direction or be the bearer of bad news and so have to deal with the rage and years before that a CSR at Domino's on the phones - understand that we too are people. And I know, I myself, have been more hostile and blunt in my tone in more recent posts - even in this one there are some elements most likely. But that is because for years - I have taken the route of reasoned feedback, of what should have been constructive, going as far as to even crunch numbers to come up with exact changes or even better alternatives that generate the same result - such as RTS when instead of nerfing Midway's hanger - which did not help the issues with Hak just made it Midway suffered them too, reworked the math to achieve the same result by buffing Hak's plane count before you guys ever tested the Midway change - which because you guys went too extreme I calculated almost the same number you landed on other than you guys tweaked to keep group numbers even. I wrote up an entire thing on how to fix RTS and avoid the rework - the response I got, from Wargaming was to summarize that it was well researched, well thought out and constructed, - but were doing the rework anyway. Time and time again, me and others have put forth reasoned arguments, have tried to be nicer, tried to be civil, etc - and we see no results, not even an inkling of any suggestion made by those of us taking this approach, or if we do it's at a glacial speed or not till years later. But if there's 1000 people raging with profanities and at best 1 paragraph posts that demonstrate even if they know something is wrong with the game they have no actual clue what the real problem is - they get listened to and it's changed in days/weeks depending on the nature of it and how fast you can implement it - even if it's the wrong fix. If the community as a whole goes nuclear, or we have situations like the current one of revolt - all of a sudden - your company seems to listen. Many of us have seen reasoned, civil, constructive posts and topics seemingly tossed to the wayside while uncivil rage that at times has no reason is listened to. And it came to a point - that like this - which while yes I have had to stop to do other things, I have spent a couple hours typing this response up - I put way more in to a lot of my feedback and line suggestions - much of which was deleted when you removed that one section of forum and needs to be rebuilt and redone now, but it felt like it never went anywhere - even when people more liked by the community and more influential said the same things, just the angry hordes at which point - I felt I might as well join the angry hordes because they spend maybe 5 minutes and get more response and action taken. I want to have civil discussions, I would rather have an exchange, like I did with one of the Dev's that stopped by, over one of the IJN DD's that needs a gun buff because they are way underpowered, while the torps don't make up for it, and actually have a dialogue and try to make this game both fun, and historically accurate where possible - which is possible in way more areas than people think especially when were talking about small things like using the right airplanes. But I've seen a reply from one of your staff, multiple times to the effect of, 'We need the feedback in a way we can actually use it' - and despite multiple times, even @-ing them to make sure they see the ping, pleading with them to give us guidance on how to make it that our feedback could help us, help them, help us, see no response, no pinned post of 'here is the best way to give feedback that the Dev's can use', whatever. It's hard to use reason and construction when all that is left is frustration and disillusion. Other than the need to earn my trust and belief that your company is actually going to follow through this time - and simply force us to all become enraged, again, for the umpteenth time to be listened to aside - give me actual reason to believe that the hours I spend on research and testing are actually worth something more than the 5 minutes of rage typing from lets say 4000 players who have never touched a CV in the rework, let alone RTS who's knowledge of CV's is only 'it kills me so nerf this aspect' that has nothing to with the actual issue of why it's killing them though there needs to be a nerf to CV's - and I will gladly give you reason and constructive feedback. And, to refer back to 'we are people too' - I for one haven't forgotten comments were made, by Wargaming Employees, in various places about us, the players especially during the 'Puerto Rico fiasco' that only added fuel to that fire, and was pretty much when I saw that the last straw for my own civility. You want civility and all in our posts - fine, but then you need to make good on what is being said here, and stop pushing us to points where we become angry and uncivil because that's all that's left to do other than quit entirely.
  11. WanderingGhost

    ST 0.10.7, changes to submarines

    Yeah so how much testing is this actually getting? Or is it that like CV's - you've spent so much capital on dumb ideas, that never even should have been explored, that yet again, your shoving out unbalanced, poorly tested crap that were going to have to deal with for the next lets see - CV rework is what 3 years old now so at least that long. Homing torps at 80 knots - even as someone who the last they managed to play subs felt they needed some buffs in areas this is outright stupid. If your giving me 80 knot torpedoes they better be straight runners. Then again you wouldn't have to give me 80 knot torpedoes to score hits with straight runners cause I actually learned how to use and aim torpedoes so I can get hits at 2/3 that speed. It'd be even easier if you'd drop this 'must fire 2 at a time' garbage and let us fire individually like the UK DD's do to control a spread if them. Which those ones should, as they are unguided, do more damage with guided torps either A: a specialty to a nation like Germany that actually had them (a real torpedo, not the puny 'mine' that USN has that's a anti sup torp that'd barely scratch the paint of most ships) as well as PASSIVE homing like you had in the Halloween event YOU FIRST HAD THEM IN where you still actually have to aim or to the higher tiers (which there should again be full tech trees not this slacker half tech tree garbage like you did with CV's) or B: if your going to give it to all nations for some reason then it's the lower damage option to make up for 'ha ha I have this thing from anti-ship missile testing' seeing as this is literally one of the systems you described when you were talking about testing guided missile destroyers, to which such technology HAS NO PLACE ON A FREAKING TYPE VII U-BOAT. But then again, why am I wasting my time and breath, cause your not gonna listen, you haven't listened for years. But y'know what, that's fine, even if I don't like it that much, at the very least your competitors are keeping me occupied and at times entertained enough to not bother playing your game usually anymore. Though I suppose it helps that I actually don't care about that game to make it easier to be happy.
  12. WanderingGhost

    ST 0.10.8, new ships

    Yes Wargaming - waste one of the ONLY CV's they actually built as a premium instead of any number of unfinished or better yet paper designs they have for a premium instead of PUTTING IT IN THE BLOODY TECH TREE where you know - technology was developed and all. And you can't tell me your team 'didn't know about them'. I wrote a post up that has a full bloody line of French CV's and I'm a freaking novice when it comes to knowledge for that nation and line, people with WAY more knowledge of French CV's have posted FOR YEARS the various ships you could use, real and paper, for you people to go through and should still all be here unless you managed to delete them all when you wiped out that huge chunk of suggestions.
  13. "Transferred to a new source" - yeah and once again Wargaming proving they are terrible with the math if that were true. Those containers are what, 9x12 RNG what type of flag you get per week at the best case, 3x12 at the worst? A best case scenario of 108 flags when I made 70 per week JUST for getting secondary kills in my German BB's, that are one of my biggest users of the flags, reliably. Most of the 'common' ones used for combat you could get mindlessly in numbers that dwarf what the weekly missions give, meaning that unless I was playing some types harder that maybe drained faster than I could get some of those basic achievements you can easily stumble in to, on top of other sources, I could at least stockpile those. I'm sorry - that is a malarkey PR answer trying to smokescreen the truth. It's the same reason they started selling tier 9 ships, the same reason they upped the price of Free XP ships, why they changed the commander levels but didn't change our topped out commanders, changed premium CV's to higher tiers that never should have been let alone adding ones that shouldn't have been and oh, right, made it that all dockyards are impossible to do 100% free - greed. They want to bleed us for more money, ignorant of the fact the more they do this crap, the less inclined we are to spend on the game. They make it more and more about having to whale out, or grind to nothing - people can't afford it financially or in time, so either don't care and do whatever or out right quit. It's the same as every time I see when PT comes up about how they 'want to get more people to play the PTS' - but they always schedule it during a dockyard event or some other chain for a ship or whatever where no one is going to trade time from that grind for the paltry PTS rewards. They want money from players - they need to give players a reason to want to spend money - as far as me personally - I wrote a lengthy open letter/post of what they need to do for me to spend money on this game years ago now, maybe 2-3, albeit I'd likely have to add to it things they need to change both in terms of the game, and the way the company itself handles things or at least the WoWs division. And on the off chance that they are telling the truth, which I highly doubt - well, I have no reason to believe them, they have long since shattered my trust in them and done nothing to really win it back. Too much lying, too many 'communication errors', too much double talk, too much saying 'were listening' and then ignoring anything we say, too many moves that are out right blatant cash grabs that usually, a game only does if it's in financial trouble, in it's death throws, or run by the wrong people. Because if they had 95000 players that were happy, and willing to spend even just the price of monthly premium, it'd make more than 14000 whales buying the new 80 dollar ship released that month. If they could get their act together, focus on actually addressing the gameplay and balance issues, make the game less of an insane back breaking grind, on down the list of stuff they need to fix - they could pretty much cut premium ship prices in half and probably make as much if not more than they do now because A: they'd be more affordable and B: happy players are more likely to spend cash they can spare because they wanna keep the game going and aren't sitting about waiting for it's demise.
  14. WanderingGhost

    CV rockets

    It has for many - just look at how they've been handling Submarines where they are basically modern SSN with how they attack targets. But the thing is that this is supposed to be a 'historically based arcade game' - keywords being 'historically based'. Now don't get me wrong, if they are going to make us fly the planes - I'd prefer we also have to use rockets PROPERLY and instead of this goofy level fire nonsense dive in at the target as was actually done for easier aiming and all. But we don't need sim level aiming realism cause otherwise - no one is hitting anything in this game and battles are taking hours. Plus we'd be able to adjust up to the last second before we fired - like how it was pre-nerf so if you want more 'historical' then that'd actually mean you'd be pro-nerf reversal for us to have control of the planes and adjust till the last second before we fire as that is the more historically accurate option. They could make that more 'realistic' by adding an ability to use the guns as well to help line our shots up - however that would really only work with HVAR and RP-3 as they are the only ones that really followed the same ballistic drop as rounds fired by aircraft using them beyond knowing how different the drop is from the guns. The current change is only good short term, and goes against several elements of what the rework was supposed to accomplish (reducing skill gap, easier for newer players to pick up, etc) because long term, it doesn't cover the real issue which is that much like reality - FFAR, HVAR, and RP-3 were fired in a volume to help ensure a hit, and in this game the damage is way too high on them for the HP a DD has and how many we can land. It's going to take time for us to adjust, but at least some of us are going to learn how to cope with the change to varying degrees - and it'll be buisness as usual chunking health off DD's again, and they'll whine, again, and Wargaming will likely come up with yet another ill-advised, nonsensical nerf that in no way addresses the problem, again. Because people who play CV, like me, have been saying since the rework's beta testing that the damage on HVAR/FFAR's (as UK CV's weren't a thing yet) were too high vs DD's. And they have not addressed it, ever, since then.
  15. I'm 100% for reversing the rocket change, but in doing so nerfing the damage on the FFAR/HVAR/RP-3 rockets. It's not often I see massive hits out of the IJN rockets, and Tiny Tim's your flinging a BB shell at them basically it's going to hurt a DD, but it's the FFAR, HVAR, and RP-3 rockets that when I'm playing CV, I absolutely rip apart DD's in no time, and when playing a DD - do not want to see head for me. Because when I botch a dodge or find a CV player who's a step or two ahead of me and figured how I would dodge (because I had 0 issues trying to dodge before the change other than mistakes or outplayed) getting hit by 7-10 rockets, if not more, at 726 damage per rocket (that is the actual pen damage an HVAR off Lexington), is a lot for a DD even when damage saturation starts lowering the number and because sheer volume covers the area you may take hits regardless. And rocket damage has been an issue since the reworks beta testing, they just have ignored us saying it's one since for some insane reason. I see the poll skewing towards 'yeah it's better' - maybe in regards to the fact some people are probably abandoning CV's in port, but frankly it's too soon to say they're better because players like me, let alone the ones better than me - are still adapting to the changes. It's going to take time but yet again less skilled players are going to either be weeded out because of this leaving the talent pool at a higher base line or there will be a massive gap between those of us that are making the rockets work and still killing the crap out of DD's and a player who can't. Even half asleep and on medication that doesn't help at times while I adjust I'm still managing to get those moments where I land a large salvo on target and rip away 25-40% of a DD's HP in a single pass, while I laugh at the pop guns it calls AA that can't shoot my planes down. The only ones I even struggle a little against, are the ones with super short AA ranges or turn their AA off because I lose sight of them and therefore am guessing where they are - but then again it wasn't that much different without the delay. High volume rockets need lower damage, DD's need better AA and better module HP so I don't disable them basically every pass. It's not nearly as complicated a fix as adding this strafing nonsense. That unless they reduce the delay to 1-2 seconds and give it the ability to knockout unarmoured modules (aa guns, torpedo tubes, some secondary/main battery mounts) just needs to go away cause all it's doing is either increasing the skill gap - which the rework was supposed to reduce, make the type more complex to play which the rework was supposed to make it easier (and before I hear about how ships need to use a lead ships have things that tell them flight time of their ordnance and the markers in gun view that help use that to score hits as well as the torpedo lead indicator - CV players have to eyeball everything and know how long it takes a rocket to hit after launch even before the delay to hit the right areas, how long it takes the bombs to fall, and how fast that ship can turn in to the torpedoes and what angle you need to drop at to hit), and not fixing the real problems, as usual.
×