Jump to content

Special_Kay

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    5,633
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    8669
  • Clan

    [-K-]

Community Reputation

1,303 Superb

About Special_Kay

  • Rank
    Captain
  • Insignia
    [-K-]

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

5,408 profile views
  1. Special_Kay

    How about a bank for intra-player loans?

    Enabling inter-player transfers gives a reason to steal accounts. Right now you can't clean out my account even if you were able to log into it, so it doesn't happen here on the level it does in player-economy MMOs. Also, "intra" doesn't mean what you think it means.
  2. Special_Kay

    AA Rework: A Proposal

    How much T10 carrier are you playing that you think this? Yeah, if I'm coming right at a Minotaur with strike planes, the flak is just the appetizer. But that will get me deplaned in short order, so that Minotaur isn't getting a direct strike unless the strategic picture demands it. Outside of that one case, Minotaur flak is perhaps the worst to contend with of all surface ships. As soon as you drift within ~6km of one, the flak will follow you all the way out to 7km, sometimes even 7.4km or so. I know what the rated AA ranges are, but the ranges reported on the UI when you're under fire are 7km+; perhaps it's showing 3D distance while AA fires in a column extending up from a 2D radius, rather than a hemisphere defined by a 3D radius, but I don't really know. At any rate, in my experience no other ship is capable of springing a surprise of that magnitude on you with such little warning. Anecdotally, even Worcester isn't quite so bad, but perhaps that's only because Minotaur is uniquely responsive when AA cruiser players attempt to push their ship into planes to increase their AA contact time. If Minotaur flak was a non-issue, I'd be striking them carefully but regularly. Their manoeuvrability already makes an alert one impossible to torpedo; the flak guarantees you aren't getting rockets or bombs on them without losing an entire squadron. The purpose is not to provide a placebo against helplessness, nor would this require several seconds to aim beyond perhaps a player's first match using it. It seems as though you're arguing against an idea you haven't fully understood and visualized. A couple issues here. Firstly, cart before the horse thinking: this is an idea, not a full list of detailed numbers changes—how can you possibly know whether this will be a nerf or buff to AA, when it can't be balance-tested until it's prototyped? It does not take great wisdom to understand that for any half-reasonable new mechanic, balance is achievable through adjusting numbers as opposed to being a property inherent to the mechanic itself. Secondly, and I believe this to be the main issue: you seem to be trying to have a different conversation than the one this thread is about. In light of your latest response it seems your position is essentially "making players pay attention to planes is bad." The problem is that this is appropriate for a discussion about whether carriers should be properly integrated with the gameplay. Such a conversation has only three real choices: status quo (non-CV players have little recourse), integrate them properly in the game (non-CV players actually have to pay attention to planes attacking them, just like they have to pay attention to a surface ship attacking them), or remove them from the game (queue much sunk cost fallacy/white elephant hand wringing). That's a worthy conversation to have, and I can 100% respect it if your position on it is option three. But this discussion is operating under the implicit constraint of "assume only options one and two are available." I would argue that option one is shortsighted in the extreme; if carriers are here and they're capable of assailing gunships, surface ships must have more than a token tool to respond. Less implicitly, the background info for this thread is "three big things were wrong about the CV rework, and here are the things a viable solution needs to accomplish." Showing up to that with the answer of "we shouldn't be solving it" is a legitimate response; disguising that in a pile of half-baked criticisms of the example solution is intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps I've wrongly interpreted your position, in which case my last paragraph does not apply to you.
  3. Special_Kay

    AA Rework: A Proposal

    Quibbles about what RTS means (and what baggage you can wedge into this mechanic's consideration by making the conflation) aside, the reason carrier players fly around flak right now is because they are aimed by an extremely consistent predictive algorithm which was designed to give average-skilled players an opportunity to avoid them. Properly aimed manual flak barrages won't give you any room to fly around them—they'll be on top of your planes, the way the weapon was actually used. In other words, it sounds like you've internalized the Wargaming fiction of flak puffs remaining dangerous after the instant of their detonation, and that's skewing your perspective here. If your manual flak barrages are being flown around, you are leading too much. I agree that whatever "default" mode of automatic AA would exist along side this mechanic should provide acceptable results for strong AA ships, despite this mechanic necessitating a migration of AA DPS from aura to flak (and frankly, Atlanta has already survived exactly that). You have leapt from "never worthless" to "good" and that's just a big ol' straw man. Even if that's true, they can certainly be more balanced/enjoyable than they are now. I do hope your assailable criticisms aren't simply borne of a resistance to any improvement in these categories because you suspect ultimate success is impossible.
  4. Special_Kay

    AA Rework: A Proposal

    Looking at the timing involved for a strike squadron attacking a surface ship, I have several thoughts. First, a simple observation: given that aircraft can travel the radius of a ship's AAA range within the time it takes to fire a manual flak barrage in your proposed mechanic, a clearer UI indication of an incoming strike sortie is likely needed, with sufficient prominence/implied urgency so the player isn't only reacting by the time the aircraft are within AAA range. The torpedo warning system comes to mind as an appropriate level of urgency. Next, a bit of a complicated concern, if you will: In attempting to rectify CV-gunship interactions you have proposed changes solely to ship-borne AA. You gave particularly salient reasons for this, and I do greatly prefer approaches that change only one interdependent thing at a time. However, I worry that you are not proposing a good solution but rather the best possible solution attainable without further altering extant aircraft mechanics. This worry comes from the fact that an aerial attack essentially only allows for one response from the targetted ship (you may call this concept defensive actions per strike, if you prefer easily acronymized terms), or two if you count the fly-out (I do not). Now, the only means of adjusting this without violating the APM restriction or greatly increasing AAA range (which I find unacceptably detrimental) is thus: by adjusting the speed scaling of strike planes. This carries its own set of knock-on effects by directly scaling strikes per game, as well as further reducing the spotting capabilities of aircraft carriers; the former can be mostly compensated for by restoring previously-nerfed payloads and damage values, while the latter is arguably a tolerable result (and may even obviate some of the need for the impending match-start readying delay). When I sit back and look at those effects, I can't help but think it would be better for the game as a whole, and may even go a ways towards making carriers less balance-breaking in smaller teams by reducing their ability to attack from unexpected vectors and their responsiveness in exploiting mistakes. Admittedly, this last point may be directly sapping some of the true value of carriers, which raises a question too large to address here of whether it's justifiable to gut the pleasures of carriers to preserve their existence in the game while neither fundamentally changing what the game is nor violating plausibility. At any rate, my questions are: With a surface ship effectively having only one opportunity to defend itself from each individual strike, do you think this is an ideal outcome, or have you merely accepted this as satisfactory given it is still a major improvement over the previous system? Have you already considered reducing effective aircraft speed to allow for more opportunities for a surface ship to defend itself from each strike? If so, why did you set the notion aside, and if not, what do you think of it? Were there any (other) ideas in the brainstorming phase for your mechanic which would have provided more defensive actions per strike without violating APM limitations, and which did not require queuing commands for future execution? And honestly, in considering all this, I'm no longer even sure that I'm asking the right questions. However, given that a select few carriers have planes so fast they may even be able transition from undetected to too-close-to-flak before a single manual flak barrage can occur, and that some low-tier planes may already allow the longest-ranged AAA ships to fire two barrages against an efficient strike approach path, it seems to be an important facet with unexplored complexities. Perhaps in the end, a modest measure of both effective airspeed reduction and AAA range increases will be necessary to ensure this mechanic can be balanced so as to preclude excessively unfair CV-AA interactions in those edge cases.
  5. I would like to rebut the folks dissenting on point #1 (punishing isolation → punishing good positioning): "It's better for players to play as a cohesive team and manoeuvre as a fleet." I will grant you that this is a reasonable expectation in a naval warfare game. But they are not designing a new game. Rather, they are adjusting one that has existed for years. The tactics space has been deeply investigated and has turned out to be rich and rewarding. Free/mium PvP games all compete with each other for enough bodies to make the game fun, and risking that by turning the tactics space on its head is a bad decision. Why, four years in, would you invert the entire paradigm of what constitutes good play in your successful game? "Let's take that chance anyways, because I don't like the kind of tactics that are most effective." The problem here is it has been shown in high-level competition to collapse the tactics space and lead to less dynamic play. The top level players are virtually unanimous in saying this; it's not a matter of "let's chance it, maybe it'll work" but rather "we know where this leads, and we know it's boring." It's not going to work without also attempting some other radical change to the game which reinflates the viable tactics space which individuals and small groups of players within a team have to choose from, which would be about as wise as betting your rent at the casino to try to recover the disposable income you've lost. "I don't want good players to have so much advantage over the rest; it's better that the best players are reduced to the level of everyone else, falling in line and taking the same low-percentage shots at the red ship ball as the rest of us." Players need to be able to influence the outcome of a match, and it's inescapable that the people who are better are going to succeed more often. Tuning skill gaps is important, but stagnation is not the lever to pull for it.
  6. Special_Kay

    Can you add cross region playing

    Yeah. I'm kinda surprised you could even think something on that level of complexity should be easy, fast, and risk-free to do just because it's been done before to a different system on a different infrastructure. It requires infrastructure changes. That's not something you unleash one database programmer on and have it finished in a week. It's possible, and it's not a huge change if you were planning for it from the start, but we're talking about changes to a mature system which spans multiple independent entities, some of which may have needed to have contracts renegotiated. I would be amazed if they came out with regional account unification. I would even be surprised if they came out with inter-regional random battles.
  7. Special_Kay

    Can you add cross region playing

    They're working on cross-region clan battles. It's a major ordeal that has taken months to get to a point where it works (sometimes badly) and negatively impacts intra-region clan battles too. There is no way "someone in the dev team" can "just do this." That is a gross misunderstanding of how big a thing it is you are asking for.
  8. Special_Kay

    Midway DBs and other CV issues

    I would contend the ideal play is to delay smoking for as long as possible. Keep your AA off until you're spotted, and force the carrier to come spot you (unless they're Midway DBs, then smoke before they see you, and for the love of Poseidon don't be in the middle of your white circles when the bombs are falling). If you're smoking early you're conceding too much; make the planes spot you, then smoke and alter one or both of your position/bearing to defeat the blind attack attempt.
  9. Special_Kay

    Midway DBs and other CV issues

    Basically. Which is pretty match tilting if the green CV isn't also a Midway who is willing to hassle the red destroyers. Outside of getting a little done in the short window between when their CV gives up on stalking you because you're in the AA pocket and when the CV realizes you're no longer safe, your only real usefulness is smoke/sonar slave or distracting the red CV from bombing your more useful teammates. Sneaking into an empty red cap, smoking up so the planes go away, getting the cap without non-CV interference, then slinking back to AA cover before the carrier returns to you is pretty much an ideal outcome. And that sucks, without even mentioning standard battles. That's the opposite of what a game is supposed to do for its players. Your best bet is really just waiting for the next battle to be a significant part of your team, because it's not too likely (yet) that the next game will also have a red Midway who knows what they can do to you with divebombers.
  10. Special_Kay

    Midway DBs and other CV issues

    I was there too! But yeah, @Toxie2725: what Edgecase said. You can't leave a completely lopsided interaction intact just because it has a barrier to entry. The requisite knowledge is little, albeit not ubiquitous yet. The requisite skill is significant, but not remarkably uncommon. Frankly the largest barrier is probably the practice, because most folks just aren't going to spend the 20 minutes to learn to do it in a training room after watching a 20 second video on how to do it. These barriers to entry do not constitute a reason to leave USN DBs in a state where some folks can completely dominate destroyers. The only real questions are (1) how to fix it properly, and (2) what to do before a full and permanent solution can be deployed: hotfix it so that bad Midway players can't hurt DDs but good Midway players can't dominate DDs, or keep it so that all Midway players can mangle DDs and the good ones can end them the moment they leave their team's deathball. Introducing the straw man of selfish DD advocates wanting CVs neutered is not a contribution towards answering these questions. At a higher level, saying "it's fine at the skill level I operate at" is a valid perspective, right up until you start using it to discourage the discussion of "it's not fine at the skill level we operate at, so how can we make it fine at all levels?" Please mind the difference.
  11. Sounds like it may be an issue between your monitor and graphics card which occurs when switching modes. Are you using true fullscreen for ships, or windowed/windowed fullscreen? Speaking from personal experience, DisplayPort monitor connections continuously provide the computer with information about which mode it is supporting at that instant, such that when I turn off my 4k monitor my windows all get resized to fit the minimum default resolution (something like 640x480 or some other equally absurd resolution). Since changing to 4k and needing to use DP instead of HDMI or DVI, I have noticed this kind of problem. Perhaps yours is a similar problem, occurring whenever you enter full screen?
  12. I can agree with most of that. Though not with Akatsuki as spotter, and not that Haida is the only ship which can bully caps. Jervis is close enough to what Haida does that the differences only matter in a context where every player is high skill and bottomless wallet; until we get clan battles or a big tourney at T7, meh. In the mean time, the extra torpedoes and smoke that doesn't give away your position for a minute longer than you want it to are both boons to Jervis' random performance c.f. Haida. But my subjective personal sentiment is that Haida is best T7 DD.
  13. Special_Kay

    How many lines should you limit yourself to?

    I advise pursuing flexibility. Early on that means getting into every main ship type. Then it's getting into every tier. Once you have a good idea of how to play each type of ship at every tier (past four, anyways) then you will have removed all of the biggest obstacles to your continuing improving as player. After that, work on whatever you please. I like having at least two types of ship worth working on at every tier (be they grinds, credit earners, spots where I'm earning elite commander XP, campaign tasks, and so on), and more than that ready to go if I want to do fancy division composition things.
  14. Of course it's tied with Gadjah Mada: they're the same class. It's 90% of the DPM of a Haida or Mahan, even closer to that of Sims, and you're also firing less frequently than the USN options which leaves you more time to pay attention to incoming fire. And that's talking broadside. Mahan and Sims are only going to out-DPM a Jervis in practice against destroyers if it's a drop-anchor-and-broadside contest. There's also superior fire-starting to the USN 127s, even with IFHE selected. So it's not best-in-tier but it's certainly still staggering, and close enough to best that in practice the other differences are more significant. It's a whole other dynamic when uptiered, but that goes for any T7 DD and isn't a failing of the RN line or Jervis in particular. The torpedoes aren't where the ship's greatness comes from, so I'm not really interested in discussing exactly how good they are—they can stealth fire into red ship clusters, they have enough alpha to make ambushes a strength instead of vulnerability; good enough. They're not so great as to make Jervis a favourite for torpedo boat. 6.3km concealment isn't bad, nor is it good. You're out ahead of other notable gunships like Blyskawica and Leningrad/Minsk, while being outspotted by USN DDs (incl. and Haida, of course, which is best in tier). It's pretty solidly in the middle of the pack, and perfectly workable. Are you suggesting that without two of best- or near-best-in-tier concealment, within 4% of best-in-tier DPM, or excellent long-range torpedoes, a destroyer is a miserable experience? Because I will readily concede the matter of whether Jervis is the best overall destroyer in tier, but this is really about whether it makes any sense to call it an objectively miserable experience.
  15. Special_Kay

    WV for ST in today's update?

    Vanguard was already out for supertesting.
×