Jump to content

Jakob_Knight

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    1,437
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6161
  • Clan

    [BWC]

Community Reputation

691 Excellent

1 Follower

About Jakob_Knight

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

672 profile views
  1. I think the main point here is that there is a 4-point Captain's Skill that was put out as something to boost low-damage AA ships, but the reality is that it doesn't do much except on a high-damage AA ship, and even then, it's hard to say it's better than just regular Priority Sector use. And yet, it's costing you the same points as Concealment Expert, RPF, Manual Secondary, and IFHE, all of which give very obvious advantages.
  2. From what I am understanding and observed, this is how it breaks down... For this, I will be using a constant AA DPS of 100. While this will go up as you get closer, the numbers will still be roughly the same amount of increase.... Normal Priority Sector. You hit it, it does an immediate 100 damage. Over the next five seconds, it will do 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150 damage to the aircraft. Then, it will do 5 more 150 damage hits to the aircraft over the next 5 seconds, before returning to 100 points on the 11th second after activation. Total maximum damage = 1500 points to facing side aircraft. Normal cooldown, and only 700 damage to planes on the non-facing side of the ship. Massive AA Fire Priority Sector. You hit it, it does an immediate 200 damage. Over the next 10 seconds, it will do 1000 damage in 10 100-point strikes. Total damage to facing side = 1200 damage, with an increased cooldown. 1100 damage to planes on the non-facing side of the ship. Non-Sector Reinforced AA: The ship will do about 1000 damage to planes on both sides of the ship in the same 10-second period. So, you will do -more- damage to a squadron without Massive AA and standard Sector Reinforce if you can keep the squadron on the right side of your ship, and you'll get your Priority Sector back sooner. You will do more damage to a squadron with Massive AA Fire if it spends time in both sides of your ship, but you'll have a longer cooldown on Priority Sector. You will do similar damage if you don't reinforce with Priority Sector as you will if you take Massive AA fire, minus the instantaneous one-time double damage hit. So, based on this, I don't see why Massive AA Fire is a 4-point skill. It doesn't seem to be much, if any, of an advantage, and weak AA ships will still have a weak AA damage output either way. I don't understand why this skill was put in. Edit: Actually, I can think of one case this will help. Massive AA Fire will help those ships with -large- AA numbers, because they will be able to do a massive one-shot hit at their best range if they time it right. Ships with weak AA will get no benefit from this skill because the one-time damage isn't a big enough increase to matter much compared to the damage they do without it. So, this is a skill only captains on high-AA ships should even consider taking. Even then, it's debatable.
  3. Jakob_Knight

    New information about how Submarines will work.

    I don't understand why there is so much debate on what WG intends. From everything we have seen, it's pretty clear they want to put them into the regular PVP game, and are developing systems and strategies that only come into play when interacting with live players. That's their end goal. However, they are saying it won't start that way, and that for the initial testing it will go from PVE only to PVP special mode only to full introduction into all game modes. If at any point they decide that subs can't be introduced into the regular game modes, then they halt where they are and keep subs at the last development level of play without progressing further towards full gameplay. So, they are simply telling us that the introduction of subs into normal Random, Ranked, and Clan battles is not a certainty, nor even in most PVE scenarios. All that is certain is that they are going to attempt to put them in in special modes and work with them to see if they can progress in introducing them into more modes of play as they come to believe it is possible. They are just covering themselves by doing things incrementally. The end goal they -want- is to have them in normal gameplay, because they don't want to put in all that time and development on something that won't be part of the main game, but they know from the ongoing CV rework fiasco that not having subs in normal play would be better than having them be introduced and destroy what 'balance' remains in the game. What most concerns me are the guided torpedoes. What controls torpedo effectiveness right now is the need to predict target movement over a period of time and the ability of a target to evade fairly easily. If the guidance on these torpedoes is such that only a DD has a reasonable chance of evading them (and even then, might easily get caught by a last-minute course change), then I foresee this being the biggest problem subs will bring to the game. As with most pre-development announcements, we'll have to see what subs actually look like as they get closer to implementation, but I don't like the fast speeds and homing torpedoes that currently seem to be the hallmark of these versions of subs. If they limited subs to no more than 20 knts and regular unguided torps, I think it would go a long way to controlling them. But we will see how things play out. My two cents. Edit: And, of course, I think we all know why the initial introduction will include USN, KM, and -USSR- subs, leaving out IJN subs for later.
  4. Jakob_Knight

    Tell Tale Signs of Good Player

    A player's opinions and ideas are all they can accurately state as theirs. You have yours, and I have mine. I have yet to see game data that measures how often a player puts themselves at risk for their teammates or supports their teammates, so what data are you referring to that would provide that? If no such data exists, then how can it be used to prove or disprove anything stated here? Especially since this thread is about what each player thinks defines a 'good player'? That in and of itself is defined as a discussion of opinions and ideas, not facts and figures. I also do not believe I ever used win rate as a definition of a good player or a team player. I used their actions and primary values to determine those. I believe win rate is your own injection into this discussion, not mine. As for taking on your team, if I find a group of players who I believe are the kind of 'team players' I speak of, perhaps we will see how your own 'good players' do. Assuming of course that your Clan are the definition of a 'good player' I used in contrast to 'good teammate' and do not support or coordinate with each other. Do they? Regardless, I think we will simply agree to disagree here. I sense you will continue to inject things I have not said to support your conclusions about my opinion on this issue, so there seems little point in continuing this. Let us both play the game and let it decide which way is true.
  5. Jakob_Knight

    Tell Tale Signs of Good Player

    I've also seen players who use this as an excuse to avoid hazarding their ships. Let me give an example that happens quite often.... A Destroyer around an island sees a friendly Battleship being savaged by a Yamato and a Worchester on the other side of the island. The Destroyer can pull around the island and launch a point-blank torpedo salvo at the Yamato, certainly sinking it. However, this will result in the Worchester certainly sinking the Destroyer. It will result in the friendly Battleship being able to engage the Worchester. By your definition, the Destroyer should not make this attack and let the friendly Battleship die in order to avoid being sunk itself and 'throwing good after bad'. Would you agree with this? Another situation, a Destroyer has the option to cover a friendly Worchester with its last smoke screen, allowing it to bombard a pair of enemy Battleships and saving it from their return fire. However, this will open the Destroyer to destruction by the enemy Carrier's planes. Do you feel the Destroyer should hold its smoke for its own defense and allow the Worchester to die? Finally, you are commanding your Yamato. You are safe behind an island at range. A friendly Zao is attempting to engage an enemy Destroyer that is capping a zone under smoke, but a pair of enemy Des Moines are waiting for it. Do you stay hidden and safe from damage and let the Zao die, or do you pull out and risk being burned down to give the Zao the chance to complete its attack run? In all of these cases, a friendly ship is risking 'throwing their ship away' to help another, and will likely lead to their sinking. Would you call them a bad player who is trying to excuse an inability to recognize good, or good players who recognize when it is necessary to risk their ships for the team?
  6. Jakob_Knight

    Tell Tale Signs of Good Player

    Let's ask instead if you are doing what it takes to win the game if you do not help out your team? Given what I have seen, the answer is almost always no. You may act alone, allowing your team to die off so that you can make that big run around the edge of the map to the enemy cap zone, only to find the enemy fleet capping faster than you or able to intercept you when you are alone. You did what you thought would give you victory, but by not aiding your team, you ended up alone and unsupported. Another situation where you allow a teammate to die rather than use your smoke screen to save them because you are convinced you will need that smoke screen yourself. Do you think that having one less ship because you were concerned for your own ship's survival is what it takes to win the game? This is a decision each player makes, and the conditions of being randomly thrown together with a team of strangers you can't control only heightens the tendency to only look to your own performance and survival as of primary importance. I don't believe that is a winning strategy for a team, however, as I will bet on a team that is composed of those willing to put supporting their teammates ahead of themselves over one that is composed of those who place their own ship's survival and performance over supporting their teammates. My own opinion, of course.
  7. Jakob_Knight

    Tell Tale Signs of Good Player

    Or perhaps it is the player who is not willing to sacrifice themselves for other players who did not make a mistake who is being selfish. Or the player who knows their team is depending on them to support other ships on their team and disregards that to concentrate only on their own performance and gameplay. Such is a defining line within the game. And I agree. A good player trying to win is not going to throw away their ship to save another ship if the good player thinks they are more capable of influencing the game. A good teammate, however, will throw away their ship to save another ship if the good teammate understands that their role within the team requires that of them, and that just because they believe they are more capable of influencing the game does not necessarily mean it is so. Such is the defining difference between a good player and a good teammate.
  8. Jakob_Knight

    Tell Tale Signs of Good Player

    I don't believe many such players throw games, though I've seen examples of players taking actions when they believe a game will be lost. That's not a player skill question, as it happens among players of all skill quality. However, the problem with using win rate is that the outcome of a battle is a team effort. A player who is very, very good at their ship and doing a lot of damage to the enemy will definitely help their team win, but there are those such players who put such a premium on maintaining such stats that they fail to do other things their team needs them to do, or do that damage to the right targets. In such cases, other teammates have to cover for them, if they can. Hence my distinction between a good player and a good teammate. A player can be very, very good at running their ship and that contributes to the outcome, but they can also do so in such ways that their teammates have to cover the holes they leave in their team while pursuing their own ship's strengths. A player can be very, very good at recognizing what their team needs them to do and moving to do it, but end up paying the price for that and find their team doesn't know how to use what they've been given. My own experience is that when there is a crunch time in a battle, a player will consistently choose to be one or the other, depending on their outlook on the game.
  9. Jakob_Knight

    Tell Tale Signs of Good Player

    Hey Kami, In general (and I did say it was usually the case...exceptions happen), I find that a player will choose either their own goals in a match or those of the team. These are often exclusive, and the choices players make reflect where their priorities are. This is as much a reflection of the game design as player personality and goals. Ships are designed to fight in certain ways and certain situations, and those often are not the situations required of them on the team they find themselves on. I will give a recent example from a Ranked game I was in (I am doing this from memory so the exact composition of forces might be off, but the relevant points are correct). In this battle, the sides consisted of 3 Battleships, 2 Destroyers, a 1 Cruiser apiece, the mode Epicenter. Our Cruiser turned out to be an Ibuki. In the course of the battle, our DDs moved to contest and expose enemy targets while our Battleships moved to engage as best they could. Our Ibuki ran to the outside of the map, and proceeded to lay down extreme range fire. As a result of this, however, our DDs did not have the on-time fire support of the Ibuki on the other DDs, and were destroyed with the loss of only one of the enemy DDs. That in turn resulted in the eventual loss of our Battleships from combined torpedo and gunfire. At the end, the Ibuki fell facing four enemy ships. The Ibuki player ended up the top scoring player on the losing side due to damage done. In this battle, the Ibuki player was a very good player, because they used their ship in the best way it could be used to produce damage and survive the longest (and ensure their best personal performance on the team). This is how the ship was designed to fight. However, had they stayed with the team, they would have died, yes, but they would have had the ability to bring their weapons to bear on the enemy DDs that were exposing themselves to our own DDs, reversing the outcome of the DD-on-DD matches (the surviving DD on the enemy side was down to a small enough HPs that one or two salvos from the Ibuki would have killed it). That in turn would have likely turned the battle in our favor, or so close that it would have been decided in a much closer battle. So, the Ibuki player was very good at playing their ship, but a poor teammate because they were not looking at what the place of a Cruiser needed to be in their team (which their ship was not designed to be optimal at but could have done to some extent). There are variations on this across most battles, and it comes down to simply that players will, in large numbers, select to either play for their own goals ahead of the team, or the team's goals ahead of their own, and these are very often exclusive. A player who sees a situation where they have to accept damage so the team will benefit will choose either to preserve their ship and let their team fend for themselves, or take the damage and maybe loose their chance to participate more in the battle in order to give their team that benefit, and there is no middle ground. This is, of course, my own opinion and based on my on experiences in the years playing this game. Others may disagree as they wish.
  10. Jakob_Knight

    Tell Tale Signs of Good Player

    There are good players, and there are good teammates. Usually, those are exclusive. A good player will play to the strengths of their ship, positioning themselves to do maximum damage in the round and ensuring the others on their team tank for them. They will not engage enemies unless at advantage, and will move independent of their team or the progress of the battle, and -always- do what is best for themselves. If they must engage an enemy in a disadvantageous way, it's obviously because the rest of the team has failed to do their jobs and only justifies that you can only play the game with your own gain and stats in mind. A good teammate will play to the strengths of the ships with them, moving to where their team needs them to be and working to give their teammates the advantage. They will engage the enemy at disadvantage if that's what their team needs, and will move in such a way that they are supporting their team first and foremost. Always, they work to secure victory for the team and will even sacrifice themselves to get a teammate out of a bad spot or open a chance for a decisive strike on the enemy. Above all, they don't care about their own gain or stats, only on if they were doing their jobs on the team and working for the victory. So the question is....do you want a good player, or a good teammate?
  11. Jakob_Knight

    ST, Submarines

    The quote for this picture should be "No, Commander. No ships in sight. We should be able to surface with complete safety!" On the subject, I think this was something we all knew was coming. I will wait to see the details before I give any feedback (not that such feedback from players was listened to with the CV rework, but it's what those players who care about the game will do anyway).
  12. Jakob_Knight

    Military Flag

    You know, for someone who has claimed to have Served, you seem to have an unusual inability to show respect towards those who have shown you respect in return. You may not agree with what they are saying, but taking such a disrespectful tone is uncalled for.
  13. Jakob_Knight

    Military Flag

    Indeed. I don't understand where the idea this was a flag for veterans came up. It was a flag given as part of a contribution -to- a veteran's support charity, but it in no way designates the user as a veteran, nor was restricted to veterans. To imply otherwise would seem to indicate some misconception or misinformation on the part of the claimer. Thank you again for your response Femennenly, and Kami before you, and for your respect towards veterans of all nations!
  14. Jakob_Knight

    Military Flag

    I've never understood this argument. The benefits are minor (especially when compared to the bonuses one can get from signal flags and camo), completely economic (meaning they don't affect gameplay but only progression for the individual player alone), and it takes the space of other flags that might want to be flown ( a Jolly Roger, a commemorative flag, ect). Further, the demand for it to be removed is not grounded in anything like fairness, as the use or not of it does not affect gameplay or the outcome of a battle for other players. Similar to those who want the 'CBT' flag who were not in Closed Beta testing, it is simply rooted in the 'I want it, and if I can't get it, I want it destroyed' mentality...something not becoming of someone who wants to pull out their vet card. This is aside from what would happen if they did remove it. As a reward for a task accomplished, it would be like WG removing the Benham from all the players who earned it through the recent event in order to be 'fair' to those who couldn't be here and didn't participate in it. That would be a much greater and obvious unfair act, so how is it remotely justified as the right course of action? No, I don't get these demands. No matter how you look at them, they are the wrong thing to ask for, unless the only way you are looking at them is purely from a 'me first' mentality. My two cents.
  15. Jakob_Knight

    Developer Bulletin 0.8.7

    I'm a little confused with the new AA Priority system. Engaging Priority Sector Reinforcement now is an instant activation that does immediate damage and then ramps up the continuous damage before falling back to normal damage until the cooldown is done. I get that. However, with the requirement that the player doing so now take their view of other aspects of the battle away and look towards the sector they wish to activate on, does that also carry with it a requirement that they -maintain- the camera on the planes for the duration of the Reinforcement period, or can they immediately return their camera back to running their ship upon initial activation? As well, the writeup for the Manual AA skill states that it nullifies both the positive and negative effects of the AA Priority system. This makes taking the Manual AA skill actually a bad idea for someone who is going to use the Priority Sector mechanic, as it eliminates the damage increase that is supposedly the reason one would Sector Reinforce instead of just leaving everything alone. Is this truly what WG sees as a good 4-point Captain's Skill? Because right now, it seems you can have equally (or greater) effective AA capabilities by -not- taking the Manual AA skill than by taking it. Lastly, why is WG so determined to bring in a progression reset ability that will make players who do not choose to reset their lines feel they are being shut out of game content? The reset system was something those players who are progression/achievement-centered wanted, because they want to be able to say they are making progress up a grind system when they play. Well and fine....I'm in favor of giving these players that option if they can't find enjoyment in just playing the game. However, putting in anything to the game that those who do not so choose to partake in such activities cannot obtain as well only sends the signal that progression/achievement players are more important to WG than those who genuinely enjoy the gameplay and tactics of their products. I think that is a very wrong way to change this game, and I don't understand why WG would view the players who do not want to regrind their lines (or who don't have the time to do so that they might have had before) as less than those who do. My two cents.
×