Jump to content

Jakob_Knight

Beta Testers
  • Content count

    1,308
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5521
  • Clan

    [BWC]

Community Reputation

601 Excellent

About Jakob_Knight

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

506 profile views
  1. What is the Point of Bridges?

    Actually, at the time they were constructed, they were. Portholes allowed spaces below decks to receive light from outside, but more importantly, they provided ventilation. Ships are basically big metal boxes. Any place inside them that doesn't have forced air movement becomes stagnant, and crews quarters were even worse. Add to that the effect of tropical sun on the deck, and the simplest solution when you don't have efficient ventilation for every compartment are portholes. Finally, remember portholes also had battle shutters, so they weren't completely open during combat.
  2. What is the Point of Bridges?

    Yup. Different decks, but the same Conning Tower structure. I don't have a pic of the actual hatchway, but here is the door to the Bridge level Conning Tower: Here is what it looks like inside that portion of the Conning Tower: Sorry it only shows a little of the compartment, but we were not allowed to go past the hatch, so this was the best I could get. Still, it shows how small an area it was in there, and why commanders probably stayed out of there more than they should have during battle. Edit: Now, imagine trying to command a squadron during battle, maybe at night, in that compartment and through those battle ports. Another reason why Captains were willing to risk themselves to see the area around them instead of staying safe in the Conning Tower.
  3. What is the Point of Bridges?

    That is indeed the New Jersey. However, I believe the top area there is actually for gun direction and spotting (note the brass-capped periscopes). The command crew area was below, with a similar armored door seen in this picture opening to the Bridge. When I get home, I'll try to post pictures of that. It's important to realize that navigating the ship was just as important in battle as when not sailing under fire. Ship collisions often did more damage than enemy fire, and to two ships. For that reason, it was important to keep awareness of what was going on around the ship, and windows were the only reliable way to do that. It is not unusual to hear the Bridge of a ship referred to as the Navigation Bridge to distinguish it from battle command areas or the Flag Bridge, giving clear indication as to the function of this part of the ship.
  4. CV Rework Feedback

    While I can see some of what you are saying, the above needs to be changed to "...and CV players who don't understand Carriers and want unimpeded ability to just sink ships without worrying about the other CV have been asking for this for a long time." as quite a few of us never expressed a desire for fighters to be removed (indeed, I was quite disgusted at the changes to USN CVs that eliminated the AS loadouts ). I think all true CV players know the purpose of a CV is control of the air. Anything else is just trying to make a CV into a BB. If you make them only surface action units, they might as well just be removed from the game, as they fill no other role that can't be done already in the game by other surface units.
  5. This is the strongest reason why it was likely unworkable for CVs. Carriers have the ability to switch vantage points from one unit to the next, with the player controlling both. The codework to have it work under those conditions isn't worth it as Carriers spend the majority of their gameplay in an overhead map where there is no place for the indicator. As well, having that ability on a plane would either allow pinpoint positioning due to plane speed and agility, or uselessly having the indicator bouncing wildly and giving no benefit. From a balance perspective, CVs already have more tools to spot enemy ships and direct their team to them than any other unit. As well, if a CV player would ever get any use from this skill, it would also mean they are someplace they shouldn't be, and should not complain if they let any enemy ship get that close without spotting them. A CV does not have the maneuverability to make use of it either. Lastly, there are already plenty of skills for CVs to take, and they don't need another skill they can't use effectively, don't want to be in a position where it could be used, and would only be beneficial to those CV captains who have messed up so badly that they deserve to be sunk instead of given a crutch to rely upon. My two cents.
  6. CV Rework Feedback

    A player's win rate is not an indication of how valid their insights onto a problem are. They require completely different aspects of activity, and many players who are team-oriented will have low win rates because the majority of players in the game are not ( so a player who sacrifices their ship to provide support to the other players all too often just ends up watching their efforts be wasted because those they are fighting alongside aren't fighting with the mindset of team gameplay). Instead, you should base your comments on their reasoning rather than on stat-shaming which is no basis at all. And please note that WOWS is not an e-sport game. The considerations of an e-sport game are not relevant to the discussion.
  7. CV Rework Feedback

    I can only speak for myself, but I would be playing CVs at least as much as my other three ship types if not for two things. First and foremost being the interface. There are only two options on the map when controlling your planes...too zoomed in to see what's going on around you or too far out to be able to control your planes in combat. If they had simply added in the ability to have variable zoom level, or at least an intermediate zoom level where we could see the situation and still have tactical control, I think at least a large portion of the players who don't like the interface would work with it. The second was the imbalance between the two CV lines. The IJN is given loadouts capable of locking out their USN counterpart while being largely free to operate themselves, considerably lower concealment ratings (hello Kaga), and flexible loadout options, where the USN's larger fighter flight groups are hampered by artificial nerfs to avoid allowing them to be the superior plane groups the balancing of the CVs assumes will be the case. I for one didn't need a complete change to the entire CV game in order to want to play CVs, but this is what we're getting. It remains to be seen if this change will result in any more long term CV players than are already playing them, and I believe that will more depend on how overpowered the devs make CVs.
  8. CV Rework Feedback

    Problem with increased AAA for CVs is that planes are the only real threat a CV will face, so it has to remain open to attack by them. Also, other units in the game are designated as having superior AAA, requiring that any AA that can make a CV nearly immune from attack would render those units truly immune from attack. I have a strong suspicion WG will not do that. The problem with a permanent CAP over a CV is that it would also provide an almost perfect defense against the only other realistic threat they face by spotting DDs and torpedoes before either would be a threat. Make no mistake, every aspect of the game is going to be impacted by this, not just AAA ratings. Ships were put into the game with how vulnerable or immune to air attack they were factored into their tier and against other ships they were matched against. Now, that calculation will be radically changed across the board. Ships may very well all be re-tiered by this, or ships may end up underperforming when they no longer serve their intended roles in the game. We'll have to wait and see, but if CVs have guaranteed strike capability, they will be overpowered. If they can be stopped by AAA, the CV players will claim they are not able to fight. The current gameplay, for all its faults, has balance in this, at least, but it's all being thrown in the garbage can to start from scratch. At the moment, I don't see how WG can make their plans work without inherent imbalances that will alienate either CV players or other ship drivers pretty strongly.
  9. CV Rework Feedback

    I suspect what they will eventually come up with will be similar to what we have now, with the CV player able to fight the Carrier when they have no planes in the air, and a 'return to base' button to allow a player in the cockpit to immediately force a return of his current planes and jump back into the Carrier. This will, of course, completely eliminate the idea of autopilot control as some kind of balance mechanic, but I think that's already a very weak counter for all the strengths they are giving CVs with this planned change.
  10. CV Rework Feedback

    To be fair, the most likely scenario under the current proposals will be that the CVs first action in the game will be to snipe the enemy CVs, as that will eliminate the only enemy capable of attacking the CV (which no longer has any reason to be near any enemy units), and the attack will have no chance of interception. Whichever CV survives will then simply damage farm the enemy until the last ship on their side is dead and the enemy can actually reach them. As for the autopilot, most CV players already use the autopilot as they are too busy managing their planes to be able to control their ship from the Bridge (with the sole exceptions of groundings and when faced with the need to dodge torpedoes). This change really isn't much more than what ninety percent of current gameplay is for CVs in regards to controlling the ship, so no real sacrifice in most situations.
  11. CV Rework Feedback

    Of course. Especially since so many CV players feel their ships should do the same damage as battleships without being at risk (note the post I quoted previously) or worrying about anything but attacking other units. The simple fact is that CVs are changing from a combat unit to a support unit whose gameplay consists of constant attacks on enemy players without consideration for defense or running out of planes. This means they cannot do the same damage numbers as actual combatant because they have no real risk involved in their combat compared to other ship types launching their attacks, and their attacks are being engineered with the capability to be unstoppable if the attacker performs the correct sequence of button pushes on the controller at the right times. Of course, this could change, but this is the current trajectory of the devs work, so that is what we have to consider as will be the final result they will consider acceptable outcome to their work. Based on this, CVs cannot be anywhere near the damage capabilities of even the lightest combatant of other types that run far greater risks to do their tasks in the same battle.
  12. CV Rework Feedback

    Actually, for their abilities of infinite weapons range, pinpoint precision, fire through blocking terrain, superior spotting ability without risk, and generally unopposed attacks, I don't at all see it as unfair if CVs be restricted to only the lightest damage potentials in the game (say about 500 damage max per torpedo, bomb, or group of rockets from a single plane at T10 and dropping off as you go lower). This assumes, of course, that average AAA ends up being unable to stop any plane attack in its tracks if the CV simply pushes the right finishing move combo on the controller, as they are currently planning.
  13. Armed Forces players Acknowledgement

    On the internet, people can claim whatever they want to. From being a vet to posting fake news stories. It's up to the reader to decide how much credibility to give them, and usually their actions will tell the truth of things more than what they say. So, if someone who never served wants to call themselves MarineForever, that's on them and those who believe them to deal with. It won't change anything about how good or bad they are at the game, and vets will pick up on a fake in their own way. I also don't think adding something that could be a dividing line in the community is needed. I believe those of us who served don't play this game for recognition, and don't need it to enjoy the game. It's appreciated, but not needed. My two cents.
  14. CV Rework Feedback

    As an observation, the only way they can really adjust AAA effectiveness and still have a form of balance is to increase it. The reason for this is the removal of the opposing CV as a resistance to air attacks and the repurposing of fighters to make all CVs strike CVs. With those changes, the AAA of ships becomes the sole counter to CV damage capabilities, and so must increase from the current state where a CV must face opposing fighters as well as AA fire. Any other outcome would be handing CVs automatic success on any attack they make by removing any effective resistance. Granted this is all work in progress, but certain facts remain undeniable. One such is that removal of the opposing CV to resist air attacks cannot also include a reduction in any AAA capabilities without inducing a very obvious game imbalance in favor of the CV, even without the proposed additional advantages in accuracy of attack and infinite planes.
  15. So, based on the comments of people calling me an idiot, that the above information is a lie? I don't go onto Reddit, and not one person called this in any way wrong, so I took it as good information. In my opinion, the idiots are gaming companies who depend on Facebook and Reddit to put out information rather than their own websites. Many of us don't go onto those gossip websites, so we don't see those points. We simply assume that if someone says something was posted on those sites and the community doesn't dispute it ( which they do with just about anything even remotely in question on a regular basis ) that it must have been so. So, yeah. Maybe I was an idiot for taking the word of the people in this thread as so?
×