Jump to content

Comrad_Pravda

Members
  • Content Сount

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    9712
  • Clan

    [BSSE]

Community Reputation

36 Neutral

About Comrad_Pravda

Recent Profile Visitors

603 profile views
  1. Comrad_Pravda

    Developer Bulletin for Update 0.11.4

    Alright. I played submarines a bunch since they were just recently changed. I want to give a review to Wargaming about how Subs feel to a player (me). Wargaming's method of submarine testing: WG shouldn't expecting players to pay WG to reset our captain skills to test submarine captain skills for WG. Let us reset our sub captain points free as much as we want. You want us to test it all out don't you? Ship base stats: 1) "Additional dive capacity depletion" is a dumb stat. Why does it make sense the ship would run out of dive capacity faster because someone can see it? 2) Why would a sub be faster underwater than on the surface? Not only is that not how it works, it actually makes no sense. You should reverse that. Subs should be slower underwater. 3) Homing torpedoes? Were there any homing torpedoes in WW2? I don't know. Maybe. 4) The fact that the ship being pinged by a submarine's sonar is aware that it has been pinged, and can tell which direction the ping came from: Is that a thing a ships being pinged by sonar could actually do in WW2? 5) 82 and 89 knot torpedoes? Underwater rockets? Is that really ok? 6) The stats suggested in terms of how the submarine operates according to the "depth level" indicator on your screen or if you press "H" are completely inaccurate at periscope depth level in terms of detect-ability range by sea. Also the following stats listed are incorrect at the first maximum depth level: Detectibility range by sea. Spotting range. Maybe the other stats are wrong at this depth level too. I didn't check them because I didn't care enough. At actual maximum depth level: Detectivility range by sea. Spotting range. The fact that the sub cannot be detected by hydroaccoustic search is not listed, but it should be. Maybe the other stats are wrong at this depth level too. I didn't check them because I didn't care enough. 7) According to the gauge, you have 4 depth levels, but 2 of them are labeled "maximum depth." You should probably change the 3rd deepest one to be called something else. It doesn't make sense to have 2 "maximum depths" that are different depths. 8) The dumb fire torpedoes that do more damage, but are not homing are next to worthless by comparison to the homing ones. They either need to be buffed, or changed in some way. I see no reason to use them unless maybe they are being used to shotgun a ship charging the Sub at short range. Even in that case, the homing torpedoes actually arm at a shorter distance, so even using the non-homing torpedoes in that scenario is questionable unless you really really need that extra damage, AND can ensure you can hit with those torps. Captain skills: 1) "Enlarged propeller shaft" is dumb. Somehow your propeller gets bigger, but only if you are running out of dive capacity? How does that make sense? 2) Captain skills that are only active if detected, or if you are low on dive capacity are dumb. Change them to be skills that are active all the time. If you feel that makes them too powerful, then reduce the % benefit, but have them be active all the time instead of just while the sub is detected or low on dive capacity. 3) "Enhanced impulse generator" is dumb. Yes, 15% sonar ping velocity is nice, but if you get used to it being slow, and then, suddenly, it is 15% faster, you now have to get used to it being faster, which actually makes you less proficient with it. Just change it to a static increased percentage. 4) "Incoming fire alert" for subs is bad considering the detection radius of a sub, the skill is far less valuable than on a surface ship. The sub probably won't be detected until the sub is within 6km or less. What use is it to tell the sub that someone is shooting at it from 5 km away? There isn't enough reaction time to do anything about it. 5) "Improved battery capacity" is bad. +10% dive capacity is nice, but 20% increased dive capacity depletion makes the skill even out in value. Why is the skill worth 2 captain skill points if it doesn't make the ship better, and is only neutral in usefulness? All captain skills should actually make the ship better, not just be a choice that is neutral in value. You have to consider that captain skill points have value. Why would anyone invest 2 captain skill points into a skill that doesn't actually make the ship better in total net performance? 6) "Sonarman" is a bad skill for the same reason as I said in #5. All captain skills should actually make the ship better, not just be a choice that is neutral in value. If the skill offers a trade off, the thing gained should be worth more than the thing lost, or the skill isn't worth ANY captain points. 7) "Improved battery efficiency" is bad. Why would a battery drain at one speed while detected, but a different speed while not detected? The battery gets nervous when people are looking over its shoulder? Why would it drain slower while detected if the battery happens to be below 25%? That isn't how batteries work! Just remove the whole concept of "additional dive capacity depletion." It makes no logical sense. Then replace this skill with something entirely new. Upgrades: "Torpedo Tubes Modification 1" is actually a downgrade because the torpedoes have a certain predetermined turning circle radius. Faster torpedoes means they are easier to dodge. Slower torpedoes means they can turn more nimbly, making them harder to dodge, which actually makes them better. On top of that, faster torpedoes means they will be further away from the sub by the time they arm, making it harder to fight off ships at close range since the torpedoes won't arm until a further distance away. This upgrade should be changed to something else since it actually makes the ship worse in my opinion or is neutral at best. It isn't an "upgrade." Overall gameplay: 1) The concept of a submarine not being able to see the enemy ship while at periscope depth makes absolutely no sense. The whole point of using the periscope is to reduce the enemy's ability to see the sub while the sub can see the enemy! A sub can see a ship if it is completely on the surface, but if it goes to periscope depth it reduces the sub's detect-ability by sea, but also significantly blinds the sub by reducing its own spotting range. The whole point of a periscope is so that a submarine can see the opposing ship without being seen itself. What you have in world of warships is submarines that effectively don't have periscopes. The sub can go underwater to avoid being seen, but also mostly blinds itself. I'll point out again that the "depth level" indicator stats listed are incorrect. I could understand if the sub loses a little bit of spotting range just because it has a lower profile now with the periscope being closer to the surface of the water, but the sub should not lose as much spotting range as it does at periscope depth. Then at the next depth level, it could lose more spotting range. Then at maximum depth level 2 (actual maximum depth), it could lose even more spotting range or be totally blind. 2) Subs are too extreme: Either the sub is caught out of place, and is going to be killed with next to nothing the sub can do... OR... The sub is in the correct position, and, if the sub is played correctly, the enemy ships have next to zero counter play. The sub is going to sink the other ship and there is next to nothing the surface ship can do about it. There isn't much back-and-forth when it comes to submarine gamplay. It is just, "I win extremely, or I lose extremely" depending on the situation with not much either side can do about it. Subs are very much an "all or nothing" class of ship. I don't know if that is good. 3) Subs and their ability to see destroyers: A DD can basically just sail right up to a sub, and the sub won't see the destroyer until it is too late. If the sub is surfaced, the DD sees the sub about the same time the sub sees the DD, and the sub's location is given away. The DD also opens fire, AND oil leaks to the surface. The sub is in a lot of trouble. Therefore, the sub should be at periscope depth and not caught on the surface right? Well... no: It is absurd that a sub can't see a destroyer until about 2.7 km to 3.0 km away while the sub is at periscope depth. A sub can see a cruiser at 10km or more, but it can't see a dd till 2.9km? How does that make sense? By the time the sub can see the destroyer, it is too late to do anything about it because the sub has to change position to point its torpedo tubes at the DD, but at 3 km, the sub doesn't have time to do that because the sub isn't maneuverable enough. Keep in mind that the arming distance on the sub's torpedoes is going to be about 0.6 km. This means the DD only has to close a distance of about 2.4 km before there is nothing the sub can do about the DD anymore. Can a sub turn that fast? No, not unless the sub already happens to be aimed that way. Destroyers are about 4-5 stories tall. You are trying to tell me that a sub at periscope depth can't see a 4-5 story tall building on a flat, open plane, that is hiding behind absolutely nothing at 3km? That makes no sense. Add in that DDs can close 2.6km of distance pretty fast and it brings me back to my point about how subs are sort of an all-or-nothing class. There isn't really a lot of back-and-forth counter play. Either the sub is in the right position, and there is nothing the enemy can do, or the sub is in the wrong position and there is nothing the sub can do. I don't know if that is good for either side. The bottom line is that the game is supposed to be "fun." That is the point of a game. Is that gameplay "fun?" I can only speak for myself, but, personally, I don't really think so. That means that if subs are put into the game like this, I think it would be a downgrade for the overall enjoyment of gameplay for World of Warships. Thus, this is not a good configuration for the way subs should work. 4) Subs take forever to do any damage if they get any at all. I blame map design. Here is how it works: a) Sub spots enemy ship. b) Sonar. Sonar pings the enemy ship. c) Sub goes for second hit with sonar. Takes a couple shots. Got the second target lock. Torps will home in better. d) Sub fires 3 torps. Waits. e) Enemy ship uses damage control party to pull the sonar lock off. Torps miss. f) Sub waits till the enemy ship's damage control party runs out. Sonar again. Hit. g) Sonar again to get double target lock a second time. A couple shots later... hit. Double target lock. h) Sub fires 3 more torps. Waits. i) Enemy ship darts behind island. Torps hit island. j) Sub moves to fire around island. Sub sees enemy ship. k) Repeat this entire process again. l) The game is over. The sub did next to nothing. What causes this? A) The process of a sub actually doing damage takes too long to set everything up properly, OR B) Map design is completely unrealistic in this game compared to real life, and that design neutralizes torpedoes in a highly unrealistic way because the torpedoes are slow enough. The islands are there to provide cover in a highly unrealistic way. Think about it. Islands don't just jut nearly straight up out of the ocean floor like that. Islands aren't actually all over the place so close together that ships might accidentally run into them if they stop paying attention for a minute. Islands aren't actually only about 2-3 times wider than a warship. Now compare the islands to a 1st person shooter rocket arena. What are the pillars for? You dart behind them to avoid the slower moving rockets because you have time to do so. The rockets are slow enough. It is a lot harder to do that with bullets though because the bullets are much faster. The subs have no other option though. All a sub has is torps. Well in an arena full of pillars to hide behind, rockets (torpedoes) don't really work super well. What would be the solution to this? Redesign the maps? No. That isn't reasonable. What else could be done? Well the problem here is caused by map design giving the opponent too much time to dart behind an island. How to solve this? Less reaction time for the opponent. How to do that in a reasonable way? Faster torpedoes? No. That's silly. They are already very fast. What is really giving the opponent the extreme reaction time? The fact that they know they are pinged by sonar! Therefore, to reduce the opponent's reaction time, don't notify the opponent that they have been pinged by sonar. Then the enemy ship will get the normal reaction time that they get for all other torpedoes in the game. To tweak this, perhaps consider giving sub torps a really big torp detection radius like... 3.5 km (even more detectable than the Shimakaze 20km torps) or something if you want to give the enemy ship more reaction time. Less if you want less reaction time. Maybe only specifically submarine torps can be spotted by defensive fighter consumables, spotter planes, CV planes, etc like planes used to be able to do? Another solution would be to get rid of sonar, but allow subs to fire off giant waves of torps like DDs can, but that seems silly too. 5) Currently, CVs have zero answer to submarines except to run away. Now I don't really want to say "buff CVs" because they are annoying, but honestly, there shouldn't be a ship class that simply cannot do anything to kill another ship class. How does it make sense that a battleship can launch plane dropped depth charges, but a CV can't despite the CV having bombers? That makes no sense. 6) What do I have to say about subs that is good? They look good, and so does your underwater world. *claps for the art department*
  2. Comrad_Pravda

    Superships in the Tech Tree

    The economy of the superships is pretty much what I was worried about. I didn't want to say too much before it was made official, but now that I have seen it confirmed I will talk about it. https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/general-news/superships-in-the-tech-tree/ Tier 10 ships are about 20 million each. Super ships are 45-57 million each. That's absurd. How about 25-30 million each? That is more in line with the current cost curve. WG won't do that though. They have already made their decision. They won't change it now, and after they put them in the game, they almost certainly won't change the price because what about all the people who paid for the ships back when they were 45-57 million? Do those players get a refund? WG could do that, but will they? Probably not. Even worse: The ships cost 360,000 credits to play per game, but they only make as much as a tier 10 ship. Every tier makes more than the previous tier. Not super ships though. On top of that, even if you buy a camo for the ship it will not reduce the service cost of the ship post battle. On top of that the camo will not boost your earnings in the ship. Super ships are going to bleed you dry of credits to play them. That is by design. WG wants it that way. Think about it. Why would WG want it that way? What is this going to do? Let me explain: Do you like playing tier 8 ships? Do you want to buy a tier 8 premium ship? No? Why not? Is it because no matter how good it is, you are going to be outclassed by tier 10 ships where you are one of 1 to 3 tier 8 ships in the battle 85% of the time? You want a level playing field where the odds aren't stacked against you inherently? Yeah? Ok well... Did you pay a lot of money for a tier 9 ship? Did you put a lot of effort into earning one? Hmm. Well... now it is going to be like a tier 8 ship from now on. You paid all that money... and now you are going to be outclassed 2 tiers by ships that are going to overmatch you with 20 inch guns and obliterate you. This is the treatment you get for spending your money on World of Warships. Yep. This is how WG treats you. You get punished for giving them your money as they betray you later. Your tier 10 ships are now like tier 9s. That's ok though, because you will just play super ships right?! Well... no. See, you can't afford to play super ships. They are too expensive because they cost over 1/3 of a million credits EVERY game. You can't cut that down with camos either. That's ok though, because that means no one else will be able to play super ships either right? Well... no. There are people who will pay whatever it takes to have an advantage. You'll see plenty of super ships. You'll have to fight against them. You won't be able to afford to be in one very often though. What does that mean? It means you are going to play at a disadvantage. That's right. No level playing field for you! Unless you'd like to ... pay Wargaming money of course. THEN you could have the credits to play super ships all the time. This is by design of course. Don't think Wargaming is too stupid to know this. There is no "mistake" here. This is greed. They designed it this way on purpose. This is "working as intended." No, it isn't the way YOU want it. Wargaming knows that, but they don't care. It is working the way Wargaming wants it. It is Wargaming's game, not your game. They are in charge, not you. Create a problem. Sell the solution. That is what is going on here. They are intentionally making the game worse, and less fun while masking it as adding desirable content. They are betting that you will pay them, or be willing to tolerate playing at a disadvantage. They are betting you won't quit. If too many people quit though, Wargaming will have to change the economy of the super ships so that we can play them more reasonably to avoid having to play at a disadvantage. If they don't, their matchmaker will quit working because there won't be enough players left to make teams reliably, and the company will be losing money on WoWs. CONCLUSION I know I only represent one member of the player base. I can't say what someone else will do, but, just for example, I'll tell you what my plan is, Wargming (If a lot of people do this, it is going to be a problem for you.): I'll probably buy a super ship or... several. Then I will play them till I run out of credits. Then I will quit, and uninstall the game. You're not going to get me to pay for this. You aren't going to get me to play tier 10s against super ships either. I refuse to be at a disadvantage. You either fix the super ship economy so I can play super ships (able to play the game without being at an inherent disadvantage at the hands of people who are willing to pay money to keep playing the super ships for a competitive advantage) or I'll just quit. I hope that is clear enough for you. I think a lot of players are going to do this. That would be bad for me because I want a fun game to play, and I'd be losing one. It would be bad for the game itself because it will lose players. It is bad for the players who leave because they lose a game. It is bad for the players who stay because the matchmaker gets worse due to less players. It is bad for the company because it will cause the total player population to decrease, which will cost WG money. I don't want to see that stuff happen, but I think that is what is going to happen. I think this is a very bad decision Wargaming is making, and I encourage them to change the super ship economy.
  3. Comrad_Pravda

    PTS 0.10.11 pt.2

    " Please leave feedback below! " Why? Look at the community contributors who left. Wargaming obviously doesn't do what we say when we give feedback, so why give it? You want feedback? Here's your feedback: Don't put superships in the game as a permanent part in random battles. Now watch WG go and do it anyway now, proving me right. Look, I know people like tier 10 battles, and playing them is actually sustainable without spending money regularly. I know WG doesn't like that because WG is greedy. I know that WG wants to intentionally, and knowingly diminish the enjoyment and replay-ability of tier 10 gameplay, damaging their own game in exchange for money. I know WG wants to release superships, and make them hard to get or cost money. I know WG is going to make superships lose money every time you play them. I know WG is going to make tier 10 into the new tier 9 by making super ships effectively tier 11 so that you are at a disadvantage against super-ships if you play tier 10 ships. That will make you get frustrated by being outclassed. This is by design. I know WG wants to encourage you to play super ships instead of your tier 10s so that you are not at a disadvantage against other superships. I know playing superships will drain your credits, and twist your arm into spending money, which is exactly what WG wants. I know WG doesn't just nerf the economy at tier 10 because a bunch of people would quit, and they think superships is a way to get you to accept them, which will effectively redesign the end game play of World of Warships into costing more to play, which is the ultimate goal. How about this instead? People actually like tier 10. WG needs to just accept that. Why does WG feel the need to look at what the players like and make it worse as if fun isn't allowed? I don't care that Wargaming is so uninspired that they can't figure out how to make unique ships at tier 10 anymore, and want to power creep the game past tier 10 instead. Don't do it. While advertising superships, WG mentioned something about having difficulty adding more ships that actually play differently than already existing ships. If you want inspiration on how to make new ships, how about if Wargaming actually puts in some ideas that the players have suggested? In other words, if WG runs out of inspiration, the developers have no further to look than to just READ THEIR OWN FORUMS! The customers might want... what they say that they want, and if Wargaming gave them that, the customers might be willing to pay for it? What a novel idea! If the developers still can't figure out what to do, then fire them, and get new developers. WoWs could use some fresh blood, fresh perspective, and change in company culture anyway. Another consideration is that if you ever actually get to the point where you can't think of anything to do that would make the game better, maybe you don't have to. If you have a good game, just sit on it for a while. Take a vacation. You don't have to fix what isn't broke. You don't have to add something new every single month, and it doesn't HAVE to be a ship either if you can keep people playing the game because you've made the game is simply fun to keep playing. That's the magic of "fun." While advertising superships Wargaming said something like, "Super ships are what might have came out if ship development had continued." No. No it isn't. Ship development did actually continue. That's why Cold War ships existed, and you know what? The Superships Wargaming is making up aren't what actually came out. Therefore, no, superships are not what ships would have looked like if ship development had continued. If you break tier 10 for me by releasing superships permenantly in clan battles, ranked and randoms, obsolete all my tier 10s, and ask me to thank you by paying/draining more money, I will probably just quit your game, and uninstall instead. Is that clear enough for you Wargaming?
  4. Comrad_Pravda

    Transformers Return to World of Warships

    This is pretty neat except for a problem: Optimus Prime is the Montana, and Megatron is the Kurfurst. The Kurfurst sucks, so therefore I am not interested in buying Megatron for my Kurfurst BECAUSE the ship it is on is a bad ship. I'd be playing the Kurfurst. Eww... Same goes for the Montana. Gearing and Venezia are ok, but the rest of those ships are pretty, "meh" in terms of in-battle performance. Do you want to buff the Montana or Kurfurst, Wargaming? No? Ok, well then I am not going to pay you for this. Do you want to put the camos on ships that are actually reasonable like the Vermont instead of Montana or the Kremlin instead of the Kurfurst? No? Why not? Could it be because those ships are newer, not as many people have them, so you'd lose sales if you put the camos on those ships due to the potential customer base being smaller? Yes? Hmm! It seems like your power creep and refusal to keep old ships equally as good as the newer ships has ended up with you stabbing yourselves in the back eh Wargaming? It is unfortunate because this is actually a pretty neat promotion. I also think that we should be able to get 3 to 5 Japanese ships together, and they turn into a giant robot. The really big transformers work that way. It works that way in anime too!
  5. Comrad_Pravda

    Savage Nerf of German Secondary Guns Not Funny

    I can see your point, but I was talking mainly about German secondary builds as my primary example because I needed an example to point at and... well... if you want to talk about secondary BB builds, German BBs are the stereotype/archetype right? Therefore it is natural to use them as the example. They are the ones that are made for it, and yet they were heavily altered in this last patch. Then when you consider that the secondary builds work better at tier 8 than at 10, that causes us to sort of zero in on the problem being that secondary builds are not as viable at tier 10. Since I was using the German BBs as the example while also pointing out why it works better at 8 than 10, that means using the Kurfurst as the example of why secondary builds don't work well. You can apply similar logic to any nation that would be interested in having a secondary BB build though. I actually did mean for it to be about secondary BB builds overall though because I'd like to see them be viable for all nations not just Germany because just because I used them as an example. For example, I'd love to see a secondary Yamato build that is actually competitive compared to the normal build, and after all, alternate builds that are still just as viable is what Wargaming "CLAIMS" was the one of their reasons they did this captain skill rework. Sorry that it wasn't more comprehensive. You have a fair point there, but it was already getting super long just to explain it for the Archetype secondary BB build nation's main ship as an example.
  6. Comrad_Pravda

    Savage Nerf of German Secondary Guns Not Funny

    I was going to make my own thread, but since this one is the same topic I'll just post this here. I want to talk about secondary builds for BBs. I am going to talk mainly about German secondary builds as my primary example because... well... they are the secondary build stereotype/archetype right? They are the ones that are made for it, and yet they were heavily altered in this last patch. You can apply similar logic to any nation that would be interested in having a secondary BB build though! The secondaries are for show. The secondaries are ineffective. It is a waste of captain skill points. Sure you might get a game where your secondaries do really well for you here and there, but that is the exception, not the rule. I want to talk about WHY though. I find it interesting that the secondary build worked fine at tier 8 for the Bismarck in the past, but not at tier 10 for the Kurfurst. Now this is an important point though. That means the secondary builds were ok at one tier, but not another. WHY did it work at tier 8, but not at tier 10 though? Understanding that will help fix it. Well, there are several reasons. 1) At tier 8, the average distance between opposing ships is less. Combat takes place at shorter range. A secondary build for the Kurfurst reaches 12.5 km. A secondary build for the Bismarck reaches 11.5 km. That is only a 1 km difference. Now consider that bbs are firing at stuff 22+ km away at tier 10, but combat takes place at more like 15km - 18km for a tier 8 bb. Percentage-wise, the secondaries fire farther in comparison to where the enemies will actually be relative to your ship in the Bismarck. 2) If you want to use the secondaries on your BB, you are going to have to get in closer than is comfortable. This is problematic because if you have to enemy ships at 18km, their position forms an angle to your ship. You can keep them reasonably "directly in front of you" as long as they are further away, but as you get closer and closer, the angle that they can shoot you from keeps getting wider and wider until you push a little too close, and it gets really really hard to prevent at least one of them from being able to shoot your broadside. 4) At tier 8 the difference between 18km and 11.5 km is 6.5km of distance that you have to close before your secondaries kick in. At tier 10 when people are shooting at you from 24 km away, the distance you have to close to use your secondaries is 24km-12.5km = 11.5 km. The distance at which combat takes place at tier 10 is too far for the secondaries to still be as useful as they are at tier 8 even though they can fire farther at tier 10 than they can at tier 8. 5) On top of that, if you push in close enough to use your secondaries, you run the risk of getting torpedoed to death by destroyers or a CV. That is ok though because German battleships have hydro acoustic search, so they can see the torpedoes coming and avoid them right? Well... for the Bismarck yes, because at tier 8, the rudder shift time and turning circle radius on battleships is still small enough that you can actually potentially thread the torps. For tier 10 battleships though, the rudder is very slow, and the turning circle is very large, which makes it so that it is very very difficult to avoid a well aimed torpedo wave even if you see it coming and react to it instantly. Even if you use Franz von Jutland with his improved Vigilance skill (+35% torpedo detection range) and run hydro to give yourself a torpedo detection range of 5.4 km, it doesn't matter. If the torp wave is well aimed, you are going to get hit by them even if you see them and start reacting instantly in your Kurfurst. 6) The Kurfurst only has 25% torpedo damage reduction even though it is sort of designed to push. I guess they think you are supposed to use the hydro to avoid the torps, but... that doesn't actually work as well as you'd like it to. 7) Torpedo damage reduction does NOT apply to the nose or aft armor of the ship. Pull open the armor model of the ship and turn on and off the torpedo bulge armor plate displays. You see how the torp bulge doesn't protect the front or back or the ship? Yeah. If you take a torp in the teeth, you still eat the full damage. You have to take the torp in the side if you want to get the benefit of the torp damage reduction, but if you do that, you are probably going to have to eat 2 or more toprs, which even with the torp damage reduction would actually be even more damage, so it is probably better to just let 1 hit you on the nose eh? That means you have basically 0% torp damage reduction if you play that way though. 8) If you push up so that you can actually use your secondaries, you get less support from your team because they don't have the guts to push with you. German BBs might actually work pretty ok if your team would actually push with you, but that isn't going to happen unless maybe you are in Clan battle, and you can all coordinate properly. 9) Because the Kurfurst was designed to push, which is a strategy that isn't going to work well in WoWs (I'm just being real here), it is inaccurate even by comparison to other BBs of the same tier. 10) The Kurfurst's 50mm thick armor was SUPPOSED to protect you from getting HE spammed to death, which worked in the past, but the Kurfurst has been power crept into oblivion. Now we have 4-6 Thunderer / Conqueror ships in every game, and also cruisers used to not be able to penetrate 50mm thick deck armor even with Intertia Fuse for HE Shells captain skill, but then they introduced the "Battle cruisers, or Super Cruisers," which have a 305mm or higher caliber gun on them. The penetration of an HE round = whatever the caliber of the gun it came out of is divided by 6. Ok, so what is 305/6? 50.83 mm. How thick is the Kurfurst's deck armor? 50mm. 50.83>50, so now there are a bunch of cruisers in the game that can penetrated the Kurfurst's armor even though not getting HEd to death was SUPPOSED to be the point of the Kurfurst's thick deck armor. Note that the Kremlin works though because it has 60mm thick deck armor and 60>50.83. So the ship that was supposed to have the all around protection... doesn't anymore, but the Russian ship is fine. 11) The Kurfurst's secondary guns cannot fire straight forward. If your target is straight in front of you, your secondary guns will not shoot the enemy even if they are within range. This is because the firing arcs on the Kurfurst's secondary guns is terrible. You have to turn to the side to use them. However... the Kurfurst has a hard nose that can bounce even Yamato rounds. It would be nice to be able to use that WHILE using the secondaries, but nope! You have to angle the ship far enough to the side to use the secondaries that you can either use the Icebreaker bow to reduce the damage you take OR you can use the secondaries. Welcome to the magic or "OR," not "AND." You can have nice armor OR you can use secondaries, not both at the same time. 12) The secondaries are incredibly inaccurate now since they nerfed the captain skill "Improved Secondary Battery Aiming." 12) The Kurfurst's main guns have terrible firing arcs. The Kurfurst has 12 guns. Pretty good right? Except that in order to bring all 12 guns to bear, you have to give the enemy literally more than a 45 degree angle to shoot your broadside with. That means that in order to use all 12 guns you basically just have to say to the enemy, "Here you go. Here is my broadside. Would you like to shoot it?" 13) Add on top of #12 that the Kurfurst's side armor is particularly weak at 380mm of thickness compared to other BBs side belt thickness like 410mm (Yamato), and 430mm (Kremlin) for example, and you have a recipe for disaster. Not only are you giving them lots of broadside, but your broadside is particularly weak to boot! This means you take a lot of damage. Now I'll point out that you tend to not get citadeled, because the Kremlin does have turtleback armor, but... 14) The Kurfurst's turtleback armor doesn't actually work very well. Yeah, it works ok at preventing you from getting citadeled, but that doesn't mean that you can't still eat 30,000 in one volley just from normal penetrations. 15) Even the Kurfurst's bigger guns (the 420mm ones) cannot overmatch 30mm armor. This means that there are a lot of cruisers that the Kurfurst will bounce off of, so it doesn't do much damage to cruisers while firing AP if they are angled well if the cruiser has a lot of 30 mm armor on it, which is a common armor thickness for a lot of cruisers in the game. As far as armor thresholds go, this means that the Kurfurst isn't really any better than a 406mm gun that you see on tons of battleships with regard to what it can overmatch. 16) At tier 10, a lot of ships have the survivability to close the distance and ram the Kurfurst if you are using your secondaries well, which makes you beg the question, "Why did I want to use the secondary build again?" What are some ideas for Wargaming that could be done to fix all this power creep that has hurt the German BBs and specifically try to make the secondary build viable? (You wouldn't have to do ALL of these of course. These are just some potential ideas.) A) Increase the German Secondary range at tier 10. Maybe 18km. At LEAST 15km. Basically it needs to be able to use the secondaries on cruisers, and if DDs are within torp range then they need to be within secondary range. Considering how popular the European DDs are, the Halland, the Kurfurst's peer can throw torps 15km, so yeah. At least 15km. Think that is ridiculous? No it's not. The German secondary guns are 128 mm guns. The guns on German destroyers are also 128mm, so the secondary guns on the Kurfurst are basically secondary guns. How far can German DD guns be made to fire? Well the Z-52 has a base range of 12.1 km. With Equipment Upgrade Gun Fire Control System Modification 2 (+16% range) and Captain Skill: Main Battery and AA expert (+20% range), you can get the Z-52's 128mm guns up to 16.8 km range. Therefore, on the Kurfurst, if you take Equipment Upgrade Secondary Battery Modification 1 (+20% range), and Captain Skill Long Range Secondary Battery Shells (+20% range), and you treat the Kurfurst's secondary batteries like DD guns (since they are), then why wouldn't you be able to get the Kurfurst's secondary battery range up to 17.4km? (12.1km base range x 1.2 x 1.2). I mean... that IS what a 128mm German gun can do at tier 10 according to the Z-52, and it would still cost the player an equipment upgrade slot and a 3 point captain skill just like on the DD to do that, AND that would be about what the range would nee to be to make the secondary build good at tier 10, so I don't really see a problem with doing that. It would make the secondary battleship build actually good? Yeah. That's kinda the point. Haha! B) Give the Kurfurst a dramatically improved rudder shift time, and/or maybe a reduction to the turning circle radius so that, if a Kurfurst is using Hydro, they can reasonably dodge torps, or at least only get hit by one. That will allow them to push better like they were designed to. I feel like if your captain is Franz von Jutland, and you are using the Captain Skill Vigilance (+35% torp detection range), AND you are running Hydro acoustic search (this gives you the highest torp detection range in the game), AND you are paying attention, and see a well aimed wave of torps coming at you in the Kurfurst, AND you react to it instantly, AND your skill and knowledge of what to do is ok... then you SHOULD be able to avoid the torps! That is a lot of prerequisites just to avoid some torps. C) Since the German BBs were designed with an Incremental / All-around / Turtleback armor scheme instead of an All-or-nothing armor scheme, AND the Kurfurst has heavy frontal nose armor, and aft plates, it would make sense to give the Kurfurst's torpedo damage reduction to the entire ship rather than just the sides. This would help it push in closer. If it eats a torp or 2 on the nose, that would hurt less then. D) Increase the Kurfurst's torp protection % value. E) Make the Kurfurst more accurate by increasing sigma or reducing base dispersion. F) Maybe make the Kurfurst's rounds like American heavy cruisers in that they don't ricochet until more steep angles. G) Increase the Kurfurst's surface armor to 54mm thick, up from 50. This will cause super cruisers HE spam to still be able to light the Kurfurst on fire, but the base HE explosion damage would be ignored due to shatters similar to how the Kremlin works. Worried that the Kurfurst would be invincible because it would be immune to AP and HE? Is the Kurfurst immune? No? Ok, well then neither would be the Kurfurst because the Kremlin has 60 mm thick armor. I am not even asking for the armor to be as thick as the Kremlin! It just needs to be 4 mm thicker. C'mon. That's not that big of a deal. Even the Yamato has 57 mm thick deck armor. The super cruisers could still take IFHE if they want to penetrate with HE anyway, just like they can for the Kremlin. Even if Wargaming did this, the ship would STILL be underpowered compared to when it was designed because there are still going to be 4-6 Thunderers / Conquerors in every game. Those ships didn't exist when the Kurfurst came out. See? It is still balanced. It would just let the Kurfurst's thick all-around armor actually work the way it was originally designed to when the ship came out. F) Let the Kufurst's secondary guns or at least some of them fire straight forward so that the thing can use its frontal nose armor AND secondaries at the same time. G) Make the secondaries actually accurate enough to burn down a destroyer in shorter order if they are spotted within secondary range? As it is right now, a dd can be spotted at 6.5km away from the Kurfurst, and the secondaries STILL have trouble hitting him consistently. H) The Kurfurst has a lot of 128mm caliber secondary guns. Those are basically destroyer guns. If I am firing a destroyer gun, I am highly accurate when trying to hit other DDs. Why are my secondary gunners inaccurate when firing the same guns? How about we change the captain skill "Improved Secondary Battery Aiming" to let the player themself take direct control of the secondaries and fire them yourself! That'd be neat eh? It wouldn't change your view or anything. It would just be that if you hold down the left click, your secondaries would fire in addition to your main batteries (if the main batteries are on target of course). Then we can't complain because the secondaries are as accurate as we are. Just have their aiming be like the 128mm German destroyer guns. I) The Kremlin can bring all of its front and back guns to bear by showing only 30 degrees of broadside. The Yamato only has to show 32 degrees of broadside to bring all its guns to bear while the Kurfurst has to show 46 degrees of broadside. Change the Kurfurst to where it only has to show as much broadside as the Kremlin or Yamato. This would increase the survivability of the Kurfurst for those who are skillful enough to play it correctly. J) If you wanted to make it really weird and different, make it so that the Kurfurst can bring all 12 guns to bear showing only 28 degrees of broadside if it is aiming backwards, but has to show 46 degrees of broadside if aiming forwards. This would mean that you basically have to play the ship "backwards," and use those back armor plates on the butt of the thing. That could be interesting. K) Change the Kurfurst's 420mm guns to 430mm guns to overmatch 30mm thick cruiser armor. This would make it more threatening to cruisers. L) Give the Kurfurst short range torpedoes so that people stop trying to ram the thing whenever it gets close enough to actually use the secondaries. M) Give the Kurfurst a different gun configuration option. To be honest the triple barrel turret design is not very "German." Consider giving it the same 4 turret, 2 barrel per turret design that all the other German BBs get, but make them really big. Yes they would be bigger than the Yamato. Yes, Wargaming already said that they wouldn't make guns bigger than the Yamato, but Yamato has 460mm guns and... Shikishima has 510mm guns, and that is in the game RIGHT NOW, so... they have already broken that rule. N) If you don't like the idea of making guns even bigger in WoWs, instead of giving the Kurfurst a really really big 8 barrel gun layout, give it 8 x 430mm guns (Not even as big as the 457 mm ones common in the game) in a 4x2 "German" design (Still 8 barrels), but make them reload 50% faster, giving them the equivalent of 12 guns worth of firing power even though it is only 8 barrels. If you want to go the extra mile and have the game actually show how it can do that, you could fire 1 barrel, have it show the recoil back into the turret. At the same time, the gun uses the force of the recoil to partially auto-reload the second barrel. This means that 1 turret has 2 barrels, but it fires the 2 barrels independently. Firing one, offers a brief pause. Then it allows the second barrel to fire. This causes the gun barrels to alternate; part of the recoil of 1 barrel is helping to load the other faster. The excuse for this? Superior German Engineering! : A couple examples of how that could work: You have 4 turrets with 2 barrels in each turret, but the BB cannot fire all 8 barrels at once. It can only fire 1 barrel from each turret at a time. (4 rounds total per salvo). Then there is a 10 second reload before the other barrel in the turret can fire (assuming you bring all 4 turrets to bear at the same time). You have 4 barrels firing every 10 seconds, which is certainly weird and different for a BB, and gives 8 barrels the same amount of shots per minute as a 12 barrel bb with a 30 sec reload time. The benefit is that because there are fewer guns, they can be bigger, thus the 430mm size, which allows for the overmatching of 30 mm cruiser armor. If you wanted to go with smaller calliber, you could have them reload in 7.5 seconds, which would give an 8 barrel BB battleship caliber guns the equivalent of a 16 barrel battleship kind of like the tier 7 French Lyon.
  7. I feel like the system doesn't reward "Damage upon your spotting" heavily enough because of the way the system calculates it. When you think about "damage upon your spotting" that is damage that would probably not have been possible, and, thus, would not have been done were it not for you spotting. Obviously one of the main ways you win in WoWs is to damage the other team to the point where they can't fight back. Therefore, the value of spotting that results in "damage upon your spotting" is very valuable since enough of it can heavily help lead to a victory condition for your team. In the case of destroyers and aircraft carriers, in many battles, they COULD rack up a lot of "damage upon your spotting," but frequently they don't. Why not? Well simply put, the game doesn't reward you very heavily for performing this role. You don't get much XP or credits for "damage upon your spotting." You get paid WAY better for being greedy and taking a little bit of damage for yourself rather than assisting your team to do damage, which would actually probably increase your team's chances of winning more than you personally doing damage with your own ship. I think this is a mistake in game-design, and request that Wargaming consider changing it. It would be better to encourage people to perform this role of trying to max out "damage upon your spotting" by rewarding it more heavily since it is so valuable to the team. Example scenario: Consider a CV with some planes. The CV spots an opposing cruiser. The CV COULD keep an enemy cruiser spotted, and allow the CV's team to kill the cruiser. The CV could also attack the cruiser with the planes, but then the planes leave, and stop spotting the cruiser. The cruiser would then disappear, preventing the CV's team from continuing to shoot the cruiser. The cruiser might take longer to kill, or might even get away by doing it this way. The cruiser could actually be killed faster by the CV keeping the cruiser spotted instead of trying to kill the cruiser with planes with repeated attacks. HOWEVER, the CV is probably going to try to kill the cruiser himself with planes anyway. Why? Well, because the system isn't going to reward the CV as heavily for doing the more efficient thing: racking up "damage upon your spotting." Rather, the system will pay the CV better if the CV tries to do damage themself, and so that is what the CV is going to do a lot of the times even though that is actually less efficient in terms of insuring the CV's team winning. Therefore, it could be said that the system actually encourages the CV to "play worse" because that results in the CV getting paid better. Also, if a CV keeps a dd or a cruiser spotted, and the cruiser or dd realizes what the CV is doing, the cruiser or dd tends to simply open fire, and keep firing. Why? They figure, "Well that CV is going to keep me spotted, so I might as well be firing. I have nothing to lose." The problem with this is that now the CV isn't getting credit for "damage upon your spotting" anymore because the cruiser or destroyer are now spotted by everyone within range of their guns, and if there wasn't anyone within range of their guns, then there would be no point in firing because the DD or Cruiser can't hit anything. It could be said, however, that the DD or Cruiser would NOT be firing if it were not for the CV spotting them continually, and if they weren't firing, then they would not be spotted, and thus damage would not be getting done to the cruiser or DD. Therefore, it IS important that the CV is spotted the DD or Cruiser even though the CV isn't getting credit for the amount of "damage upon your spotting" that they CV should be. (Damage done to the cruiser or DD does not count as "damage upon your spotting" for the CV if the cruiser or DD is firing while being spotted by the CV. This is because the CV isn't counted as being the reason for why the cruiser or dd is spotted even though, logically, they actually are since the DD or cruiser wouldn't be firing were it not for the CV keeping them spotted continually.) On top of that, if the CV leaves, the dd or Cruiser will stop firing, and disappear again 20 seconds later. That means that if the CV doesn't stay, the cruiser probably won't die. If the CV keeps the planes around spotting the DD or cruises though, then the dd or cruiser will keep firing. Therefore, logically, the CV should still be getting credit for "damage upon your spotting," but is NOT getting credit for the amount of "damage upon your spotting" that they should be getting credit for due to the way the system awards "damage upon your spotting." Another scenario: This goes the same for destroyer captains. If a destroyer is keeping a cruiser spotted (for example), the cruiser just starts firing because they have nothing to lose. This prevents the DD from getting the appropriate amount of credit that they SHOULD be getting for "damage upon your assistance." They really should be getting way more when you consider that the cruiser wouldn't be firing if the dd didn't keep them spotted to begin with, and they would stop firing to disappear if the dd leaves. This means that "damage upon your spotting" is a thankless job. It is incredibly important, and, if you know how to do it well, can help your team win a lot... but YOU will be near the bottom of the contribution list. You won't get much XP. You won't get much credits even though you are actually helping a lot! That is because the system doesn't reward you properly for this very valuable task. I feel like it should though to encourage players to do what is actually best for their team by rewarding them for it appropriately. Consider, if you do 200,000 damage in a battle, that is a pretty good battle right? If you have 200,000 "damage upon your spotting," that is 200,000 for your team that would not have happened, were it not for your spotting. That means 200,000 spotting damage is really helpful to your team! If you actually do 200,000 damage, you get paid well post-battle. Shouldn't you then, also get paid at least half that well post battle for 200,000 damage upon your spotting though? Consider this. Do you think you would get paid better for 200,000 "damage upon your spotting," or 100,000 damage that you actually did yourself? You know you would get paid better for doing 100,000 yourself than getting 200,000 spotting damage. You see the problem here? You get more of the behavior that you encourage. Wargaming encourages player to "play worse" by not spotting for their team, opting to be greedy and take a smaller, less efficient amount of damage for themselves even though it is a sub-optimal strategy that increases their likelihood of losing. For this reason, I request that Wargaming endeavor to award "damage upon your spotting" more accurately, and also reward it better in terms or XP and credit compensation at least for DDs and CV's to encourage them to "play better" by performing that task more.
  8. Comrad_Pravda

    Arpeggio: "Fleet of Fog" Flagships

    So quite litterally... Wargaming will sell you a tier 10 Yamato now for 34950 gold, which is equal to $139.80. You earned a tier 10? You are a skilled player? You played the game? That's nice, but I have money so now... who cares about the fact that you earned something in game? You did it the hard way when that was the only way? Who cares about you? I have just as much as you because I paid money! Haha! That's right. I think am a good player. You know what? Hey Wargaming? How much do you want for a Stalingrad? I don't want to have to earn Steel. I am too lazy. All these other people earned it. Yeah? So? They have skill? So? They put a bunch of time and effort in? So? I have money. I want to crapall over their achievement by getting the same ship with a fancier camo just because I am willing to pay WG enough money just like the fact that WG is selling the Yamato now. Why actually go up tech trees? Just pay money you plebs! Don't be a filthy peasant! Getting power in games isn't about skill. It is about money! Right and wrong? Common decency? Not kicking loyal customers? What's that stuff about? Who cares? Don't you understand? I should get one of the most powerful ships in the game without putting forth effort BECAUSE I am willing to pay money! How much do you want for a Stalingrad? Oh! Also, I want a Slava too. $140? Give me a price tag Wargaming! Come on! What do you want? I don't care about the fact that it is bad for the moral of the game. I don't care if people quit! They were probably poor anyway. Poor people are bad people. I want to know the depth of your greed. What is the price of your soul? In fact you know what? That isn't good enough for me. I think we should have tier 11 ships that you can ONLY buy for money. They should do more damage to opposing ships on a sliding scale based on how little money the opposing player's account has paid to WG in the last 90 days! I want to slap poor people for being poor! Don't worry. They won't quit. Sunk Cost Fallacy for the win! HAHAHA! Suckers. Keep playing. I need someone to shoot with my new tier 10 ships that I paid for. I want a flag for my ship that says how much of a good person I am for paying money to WG. Oh! Let's have "how much money you have paid" be a measurable stat in the Hall of Fame when you look up stats, and that is the one that is weighted heaviest when determining who the best player is! I want a patch that other people have to look at that tells them that I paid money when I sink them too!
  9. Comrad_Pravda

    Wow, who said WG will never sell T10 ships?

    So quite litterally... Wargaming will sell you a tier 10 Yamato now for 34950 gold, which is equal to $139.80. You earned a tier 10? You are a skilled player? You played the game? That's nice, but I have money so now... who cares about the fact that you earned something in game? You did it the hard way when that was the only way? Who cares about you? I have just as much as you because I paid money! Haha! That's right. I think am a good player. You know what? Hey Wargaming? How much do you want for a Stalingrad? I don't want to have to earn Steel. I am too lazy. All these other people earned it. Yeah? So? They have skill? So? They put a bunch of time and effort in? So? I have money. I want to crapall over their achievement by getting the same ship with a fancier camo just because I am willing to pay WG enough money just like the fact that WG is selling the Yamato now. Why actually go up tech trees? Just pay money you plebs! Don't be a filthy peasant! Getting power in games isn't about skill. It is about money! Right and wrong? Common decency? Not kicking loyal customers? What's that stuff about? Who cares? Don't you understand? I should get one of the most powerful ships in the game without putting forth effort BECAUSE I am willing to pay money! How much do you want for a Stalingrad? Oh! Also, I want a Slava too. $140? Give me a price tag Wargaming! Come on! What do you want? I don't care about the fact that it is bad for the moral of the game. I don't care if people quit! They were probably poor anyway. Poor people are bad people. I want to know the depth of your greed. What is the price of your soul? In fact you know what? That isn't good enough for me. I think we should have tier 11 ships that you can ONLY buy for money. They should do more damage to opposing ships on a sliding scale based on how little money the opposing player's account has paid to WG in the last 90 days! I want to slap poor people for being poor! They won't quit. Sunk Cost Fallacy for the win! HAHAHA! Suckers. Keep playing. I need someone to shoot with my new tier 10 ships that I paid for. I want a flag for my ship that says how much of a good person I am for paying money to WG. Oh! Let's have "how much money you have paid" be a measurable stat in the Hall of Fame when you look up stats, and that is the one that is weighted heaviest when determining who the best player is! I want a patch that other people have to look at that tells them that I paid money when I sink them too!
  10. Just a question. Actual question. Just wondering: I seem to recall hearing that Wargaming had stated at some point that they wouldn't sell tier 9 premium ships for money, that tier 8 premium ships were the highest they would ever sell, and that the premium ships above tier 8 would only be available for free XP, or coal or steel or whatever that you had to actually earn. I am not finding any hard evidence that WG said they would never sell higher tier premiums though. Obviously, now they are selling Jean Bart, and Georgia for dollars. I see a lot of people mad about that, but my question is whether they outright lied about that or not? Did WG just imply that, or have they actually SAID that they wouldn't sell them? If you have a screen shot of a Wargaming post or official with the authority to say it ever stating that premium ships above tier 8 wouldn't be sold, please post it.
  11. So have you ever considered that when you shoot down planes, there is NEVER a parachute. Hehe... ALL of the pilots die every single time apparently. I know. I know. Wargaming doesn't show actual people in the machines if you look closely. It is just the vehicle. Wouldn't it make sense for there to be a parachute with a backpack with no guy attached though? Just something mildly entertaining I thought of.
  12. Already did that, but how many rockets/bombs/torpedoes in payload? Maximum damage of each rockets? Penetration values for those rockets/bombs? Fire chance of each rocket/bomb? Aircraft restoration time? Are there multiple types of rockets/bombs/torps to choose from sort of like how the Hakuryu can choose between two types of torp loadouts and the Midway can choose between two types of rocket plane loadouts? If so, a different screen shot of the stats of the planes equipped with each different loadout? The reason I ask is because I am considering going for a Midway, but before I dump a ton of effort into that I feel it would be intelligent to at least see the stats on the Audacious first even if it is a work-in-progress ship just to get a general feel for the direction they are trying to go with it compared to the midway.
  13. Ohhhh. Is that how it works? I see videos on you tube of the Audacious playing, but I never see the port view screen shots of stats. I see the commentators talking about the stats, but never all of the stats. You are suggesting that maybe one is ok, but the other violates non-disclosure? Perhaps so. I haven't read it since I am not in it. Heh.
  14. May I have pictures of the stats for the Audacious planes please anyone? This is the screen shot I am looking for right here since the carrier nerf patch recently (except for all 3 types of planes and... for the Audacious clearly instead of the Hakuryu).
×