Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

40 Neutral

About RISC_V

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

745 profile views
  1. Did I miss a memo that was telling that ranks were reseting? I left last night at rank 2 in bronze, and now I just logged in, go to rank just to see I am rank 10 again, Thx for any clarifications.
  2. RISC_V

    Chat Ban abused

    This is starting to become redundant. I play with my message disable, but I still get chat ban for 'harrasment' & 'abuse'. I don't know if I am alone in this situation, but either remove the chat completely of stop with the 'script kiddies' who abuse the system (mostly from people who 'time drop' together. But what's worse is, if you play ranks and sometimes can't talk to your team to relay important information, you become a liability to your team because bozos flagged you just for pissing you off. So you are not "punishing me", but the team I play with. Think about this for a minute WG.
  3. Maybe WoWS should use the damage system of WoT where if a shell pens, its does a random about of dmg -/+ 25%. Shells can still bounces or riccochet, but at least when it pens, it does something more representative then what we have now. Overpens just nullify the main dmg of the battleships or heavy cruisers. If 8 shells overpens, can you still imagine the gaping hole in the other ships hull? It woud probably dmg the ship beyond repair and even sink it because it is flooding (another thing that overpens should do: a chance of flooding). Maybe instead of what I proposed above, they should compound the dmg by the number of shells that overpens and augment that strict 10% per shell dmg. So if I retake my example, if you get some sort of compound-overpen mechanics that add +5% dmg per shells that overpens we could have something like this: 1 overpen : 10% of AP dmg 2 overpens : 15% of AP dmg per shell 3 : 25% 4 : 40% 5+ overpens : 60% So for 8 overpens, instead of a meager 8k dmg (from a base 10k dmg AP shell) that doesn't even do anything to the target, it would do 48k dmg which is a little better for the caliber of the shell. It's still far away from 80k, but at least it doesn't completely negate the damage like it does now.
  4. It was cool and all a few years back to 'give a chance' to lesser armored ship (aka DDs), but come on. If a shell makes a hole in your hull the size of a Dodge RAM, don't you think that it will amper your ship a little more than "10% of the AP shell damage" ? I don't know, but I imagine that if the same Dodge RAM would run through you house and exit at the other end, it would pretty much wreck anything on its path, not just put dirt on the floor. So how about tuning that mechanic so it is based on the distance instead the shell travelled instead? For example, a shot at more than 80% of max gun range, if the shell overpens it does only 10% of the AP shell dmg (actual mechanic). A shot between 80% and 40% would yield 45% of AP shell dmg, and anything below 25% would do 75% of the AP shell dmg instead. So if a ships max gun range is 20km, and it's AP shells does 10k, these would be the numbers: Shots at 16km or more would yield 1k dmg. Shot between 8km and 16km would yield 4.5k dmg Shots on targets below 8km range would yield 7.5k dmg This will prevent stupid RNG rolls (when hitting ships near you with 8 shells hits for example) to "go all in" and give you all overpens (or 8k dmg) when you should have nuked the hell out of your target, and then being killed by 80k dmg worth of torpedoes because the survivor could now launched them, and surprise there are no dud torpedoes in this game so they will all do their 50%+ dmg on you. This happens too often and swing the balance of the game. At max distance, if you roll all overpens, it's not dramatic and far less game changing. But at close range, the impact of overpens is too high for BBs and their long reloads. Some will argue that an overpen is an overpen disregarding the distance, but then again, overpen is just a term used by WG to say "minimal dmg" with no consequences and that is the problem. An overpen has and should have consequences in reality. In the game there is none and it is game changing when it occurs. If overpen exists, I want to see dud torpedoes exist like they did in reality. An AP shell that doesn't detonates because its mechanism wasn't activated on the hit would still break the inside of a ship: engine, pumps, fuel line, kill crew, flood, etc and they create lasting consequences. Overpens at 10% is like a kick in the butt: it surprised you but didn't really hurt you. Edit: typos
  5. RISC_V

    Fix AA please

    It wasn't flawed. Don't know where you get that. You probably watched to many US movies that depicts the event like you said. The plan was sound, and it almost worked even with all the bad tactics of the lesser commanders based on wrong intel upon which decisions were made. The only thing going for USN was the decryption of radio signal and thus better intel. With bad intel, you make bad decisions and it has nothing to do with the original plan. You are confusing strategy/plan with tactics. The IJN 4 carriers were more than enough to wrech the entire USN Pacific fleet due to superior aircrafts & pilots. Again, I will enphasize it: bad intel was what lost it for IJN, not a bad plan.
  6. RISC_V

    Fix AA please

    Yamamoto plan's was good, it's those who were doing it that didn't deliver. And again, bad intel is was lost it for IJN, not USN superiority.
  7. RISC_V

    Fix AA please

    Yes they were as early as 1941, CV were already the center piece of any task force. Yamato never engaged any other ships because only 2 of them existed and the were more like a 'proud' symbol than anything else. What saved the US in the war was bad intel from IJN spotters most of the time.
  8. RISC_V

    How Good is the Puerto Rico?

    Got the PR a few days ago - reached stage 6 and then took her for 15k gold - and I must say I don't like how she plays after a dozen games. Reload is WAYYYY too long at 22s (compared to all other heavy cruisers sitting at 18s), and since you need to be kind of far of any engagements because she isn't nibble, you can't really use those 12 guns with AP to show your presence - and when you do you'll either bounce/ricochet or over-pen and maybe 1 cit if you're lucky. So you fall back to use HE 95% of the time which doesn't really produce good damage since (BB) dispersion nullifies anything the 12 guns should bring you. AP rounds are mostly useless unless you're under 15km but then, everyone and their dogs will put you on fire for the rest of the game. In randoms, she needs a lot of support - just like the Moskva - but when supported she can be a game changer. I am really wondering why this ship was introduced with those specs. Besides having a lot of customization to help in specific roles, if your team turns on you and leave you dry (in randoms), you're almost as good as dead.
  9. So I see all threads concerning or ranting against fire damage (aka HE spamming or excessive fire damage) have been deleted like they never existed or like it wasn't a problem? Or the search engine isn't able to returns the threads that are actually pertinent to the searched key words? Anyway, I think the game isn't what it was and is too much catering or focused on HE dmg from every ships (even BBs shoot HE now because of the assured damage it will produce). Cruisers that do 12k+ dmg from 'special' HE, gets 2 fires going and then repeat the next salvo? Italian ships anyone? And this has passed testing and flagged 'ok' ? In the mean while, we see tons of perfect waterline AP shells hit with "penetration" but with no damage (???) or no indication that it hit something else (torpedo protection for example) or even 'overpen' (at waterline vs BBs really??). On a 9/12 full AP salvo volley where 7/10 shells hits, 1 pens and the others either overpens or ricochet resulting in mediocre damage salvo after salvo. Then, out of the blue, blind firing or not even aiming and boom 2-3 cit on an angled ship. You switch to HE and voila, problem solved. So why are we even firing AP if its so useless now? Only on the rare occasion where the ships are still and broadside to our guns? WW2 era naval warfare wasn't about setting ships on fire like when ships were all made of wood you know. If I wanted to sail the sea as a pirate in a wooden galeon, I would play another game. I know this will fall on deaf ears, but who knows, maybe someone at WG might read ths (before the thread is deleted) and re-think some of the fire mechanic.
  10. When are you going to understand that no single ship - EVER - can wipe an entire squadron by itself? To 'nuke' planes, you need OTHER planes, not shells (not WW2 shells). Ships like the Wooster that can nuke squadron at 7km exist only in movies and in your dreams. Shells that travel 7km under 1 sec DON'T EXIST... except in your game WG. Why other gun's shell travel their distance normally (with normal game time compression) but not AA shells ? Since when WW2 era ships are equipped with Railguns? You don't how to balance your game - CVs and DDs are just fodders for the other ships - so that it is fun not only for BBs or Cruisers like it is, nor how a good 'cloud of war' is done or detection range works.
  11. RISC_V

    AA shell speed is too fast

    Yes it does. When a shell from a ship at 5km reach your plane only 1 sec after, there is a problem as you can't dodged that.
  12. RISC_V

    AA shell speed is too fast

    Those were unguided surface-to-surface rockets - and thus way too big for planes.
  13. The reason CV players are hating AA is not that AA itself is broken (it is but not for the same reason) is because the velocity of the shell speed is more then 5000m/sec. That's why full squadron of planes get ripped in a matter of seconds from almost any ships now and that doesn't 'enhanced' game play. As soon as you enter any AA space, you can see AA shells fly out and reach the planes under 1s when the planes are at 5-6km range from the guns. Hello? Who decided this at WG? Your shell physic is ok for main guns and secondaries, why is it so broken for AA ? Apply the same formula and the game will be way better. That's why the No 1 counter from Torp/AP/HE bombers in WW2 were fighter planes and not AA. AA wasn't a major factor vs fast and small planes and it shouldn't be as effective as it is on all ships but a few. Also, while here, rockets in WW2 were attached on planes AFTER the war has ended and after German's functional rocket designs were discovered - no before. There is no instance of any navy planes 'rocketing' ships in any sea battles of WW2 so I don't know who again decided this. They carpet HE bomb yes, but those aren't rockets.
  14. I am finding AA a bit too strong as I mentioned already, but something, it is too weak. So after 50 of so games in Tier X cvs, I think I found was is wrong with it. Besides the 'sector reenforcement' that imo should be removed, the problem is that AA shells travel near instantly up to 6km and this causes a problem. Regular shells travel up to 1000m/s (that's why we have to lead target when they are far), but AA shell could travel up to 2000m/s (half the time to reach the same target distance). So when planes are at 5-6km, why does AA instantly hit them? That's not how the other shells works and coupled that with flaks and DD like gearing or Grozo can tear up 11 out 12 planes in 1 burst with is imo a complete non-sense too. Another point too, AA is very inacurate in nature but that's not what we are seeing either. So set AA shell speed are they should, and AA could become more predictable for everyone. Last point concerning AA, ships that are barely hanging to life at 1k hp or less but that are still able to fully shoot planes is not fun. If hp represent a pletora of things on a ship, it also represent manpower and when a ship is that low, manpower is low too and AA can't be wielded at 100%. Maybe we should have 3-4 health bars for each ship that represent different aspect of it: Healthbar 1: Manpower pool (maning guns (turning, loading) AA, time to change speed, time to steer, visibility, detection, radar, sonar, etc) - the lower you are a % penalty is applied to stuff on the ship Healthbar 2: Physical structure integrity of the ship (flood) Healthbar 3: Inflammable structure integrity (fire) (max 30% of the ship total hp - you don't burn down a warship) Healthbar 4: Weapons integrity pool Anyway, that's just my thoughts of what could be enhanced for a better playing time.
  15. -AA Sector is too strong: it gives any ship the ability to obliterate 7-10 planes in 1 flak burst just because "we're attacking on the wrong side -Damage from torpedo bombers is just pathetic and useless : 2k damage from 1 torp hit at Tier X ? When rockets and bombs do 6k+ almost all the time on all hits and are easier to aim? -I wanted to play subs when I heard about WoWs in 2014. No subs, so I thought CV will be great them. They were ok until that straffing mechanic detroyed the play. So instead of removing that, the entire CV reworks now let me fly planes instead of sailing a ship and coordonnating attacks with many squadrons. What was the problem with that approch? -Single specialized AA ship can obliterated any squadron in a heart beat: on what real war scenario was this taken from? No single ships could wipe a squadron in 1 flak burst EVER Then, on the other side, CV can harash lonely ships over and over and over, with the exception of, you got it, AA ships. All in all, what is missing with this reworks is give us the ability to shoot the machine guns from any flight and the World of Warplanes immersion will be total... P.S: Midway went from King of the Game to kind of nohing, thx to this 'great' reworks. Will try the IJN Tier X cv now and will comment back.\ EDIT: The CV selling doesn't work. I sold back all 4 USN CVs and only got the XP for the Midway... another 'well tested' feature. EDIT2: It was the first time I sold back my CVs so I thought I would get full free XP from them, but instead that's not what happened. The patch note says: " Aircraft carriers can be exchanged more than once. But all subsequent operations will convert the XP used for researching the ship and its modules across to the associated XP of the ship one Tier below. If you exchange Tier IV carrier, starting with the second operation of this kind, the associated XP will be transferred to Tier I ship. ", so I shouldn't be subject to this. Then you have this line: Any associated XP earned by a ship that is to be converted will be transferred to a Tier I ship of the relevant nation. So which one is applied? Well, I didnt had the Erie in my port, but I purchased it just to find all my XP was there. So WG is screwed us in using gold if we want to get back our XP that we already used gold from previously. What a scam they are. EDIT3: Hakuryu CV is night and day compared to the Midway. Now that is a fun carrier that actually can impact the game.