Jump to content


Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

1,321 Superb

About Special_Kay

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

5,760 profile views
  1. Special_Kay

    47 Million Potential Damage they say

    Well, losses are better than wins for certain grinds. Top damage contests/credit grinds most notably, and potential damage would probably be another. Anything where you care about maximizing your contact with the enemy and not about XP, really. Now obviously a quick match is worse than a long one win or lose. but generally you don't want to be in a position where the better you do, the shorter your match gets. Hence hard carries and drawn-out losses are ideal for the purpose.
  2. The worst part is how the boosts have time value, so you're pressured to spend at least $25 up front just to keep the option open to grind out the ship, before you know your work schedule or family schedule or any of that. That's where this crosses the line from over-priced into exploitative.
  3. Frankly I'm happy with subs being unable to secure caps, if that's the case. It makes little sense with the reality of the force projection of submarines versus surface ships, and there is no compelling gameplay argument for such an elusive ship to be granted the ability for gameplay reasons. I'd hoped that surface/submerged speed differences could have been employed thus maintaining some semblance of plausibility, and as far as I'm concerned playing a submarine in WoWS at all should be satisfaction enough for the person playing the ship, but I can accept that the gameplay may be harmful enough to warrant that change.
  4. If base concealment is 11.2km and full concealment build is 9.7km, does that mean Bedford cannot mount the concealment module despite meeting the tier requirement for slot 5?
  5. Special_Kay

    First Look: Tier VII British Cruiser HMS Surrey

    Bridge sits on a literal castle Hardest to spot CA at-tier As far as enormous ninjas go, at least Vladivostok can arguably be mistaken for a small island at first sight. Seems like an obvious way to cram a T6 cruiser into T7 so as to require less paper ship at the top of the tree. But I suppose that's better than tossing in gimmick shells/smoke.
  6. Special_Kay

    Clan Battle missions are gone!

    All was well in the end, thanks for the care and attention.
  7. Continually reversing into the corner may be an aggravating but effective means to control drift, at the expense of a consistent heading.
  8. Special_Kay

    Free Commander XP

    Behold! 'Tis I, the anti-Zath!
  9. Special_Kay

    Arc idea: What's old is new again

    I'm conflicted. How dare you keep coming up with great ideas that we'll never get? You're making us live with the knowledge that the game could be so much better.
  10. Some of them, absolutely. Do note I never implied every destroyer player does it or that it's the only way destroyers can be played. But look at @sendit2me30 earlier in the thread; s/he takes pride in honing skill at the most risk-free and least impactful means of doing damage. It's a refuge of not-really-PvP-just-PK gameplay in a PvP game that shouldn't have existed in the first place, where they think having only one counter, and a soft counter at that, is a perfectly fine thing. I was going to go on at length about why you're wrong here, but I think the bigger issue is that you're talking primarly about tier 4-6 and I'm not. Smaller maps and short torpedo ranges means you're not really capable of the problematic tactics I'm talking about at those tiers—if you're staying within 8km I don't really consider that skulking. Suffice to say that sonar and other destroyers are a pretty soft counter to long-range (12km and up) "Silent Hunter-style" destroyering, and the real counter (carriers notwithstanding) is to just let that DD be mostly-useless so you have a 12v11 against its teammates. That is what the game is better off without.
  11. Special_Kay

    Salem vs Jean Bart

    Salem is strong, Jean Bart is unique. Of course, if you haven't played Des Moines yet, then Salem is unique to you also. Neither is a bad choice, but unless you're not a cruiser person, I would suggest Salem first.
  12. I agree with you almost entirely here. Carrier vision control, especially in 4CV matches, still needs adjusting. For that and other reasons you highlight, if they were to stop addressing carrier balance now things would not be okay. As I said earlier, Shimakaze is not one of the problem ships. And you're doing some dishonest accounting if you expect to compare average damage numbers of DDs against maximum theoretical hit points for BBs—that's not a silliness I'm going to be baited into. I do believe destroyer torpedoes can still be effective when the weapon platform's approximate position is known to the enemy team in the majority of cases. Just as with Montana AP, for instance—neither Montana AP nor Shimakaze torpedoes are going to do a lot of damage to a battleship who knows where they are and has no other incoming threats to worry about. But add a second vector of attack, and they both become extremely potent threats despite their position being known. Obviously perfect vision of destroyers is another matter, and not one I am advocating for.
  13. That's a non-argument. There is water, ships, fire, and so on; these are all elements of reality. The game is founded on it. How much of it we use is open to discussion. A thing not being from reality is not reason enough to advocate its removal. But you can't simply dismiss the legitimacy or lack thereof because the game is not a faithful recreation of reality. I'm not really with you on your other sentiments either, especially the advocacy for keeping destroyer talent depressed by keeping their uniquely safe and low-influence means of skulking for damage. But I do respect your diverging opinion, and I agree that a binary distribution of carrier skill is a problem—one which is only helped by a larger carrier player population. Not really sure I take kindly to your closing remark, though. I hardly expect to win every game, and that's certainly not the motivation for my arguments here.
  14. You illustrate one of my points perfectly. Letting a destroyer play Silent Hunter against everyone else playing an arcade shooter was never good for the game, and it should cease to exist. That easy fun came at someone else's expense because for reasons contrary to reality, you could participate in a pitched battle without being detected, with serious alpha strike capability, and with the least risk to your own survival of anyone else on your team. None of those are sensible. I'm not saying we should completely remake WoWS destroyers as a concept, I'm saying snapping them a little bit back towards reality is only going to be a good thing in the long run. Shimakaze, at least, remains effective even if the enemy team has a good idea where you are all match long, and has poor long-term performance when used exclusively as a submarine. Ships the likes of Isokaze and Kamikaze, however, are exactly the sort problem the game is healthier without. I agree 100%, and from what I can tell, that's one of the things WG's balance team is examining right now. Yes, counters to every attack vector and player role are important parts of a balanced PvP game. But I would caution against normalizing the situation where several ships are only counterable by one enemy player; it is a problem of a different sort if we accept the notion that the CV player's whims should be deciding whether and which of an enemy team's destroyers can be countered. Taking it a step further, I assert this is reason enough that vision denial should not be a necessary element of a destroyer's efficiency or survival.