Jump to content

GhostSwordsman

Members
  • Content Сount

    4,731
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5464

Community Reputation

1,338 Superb

About GhostSwordsman

  • Rank
    Captain
  • Birthday June 10
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,990 profile views
  1. GhostSwordsman

    Azur Lane discussion thread!

    I already have twice. 250 total at the moment.
  2. GhostSwordsman

    Azur Lane discussion thread!

    I would if I could. Since I tend to use duplicates before bulins, I'm now at a point where I'm probably going to start trading in the purple ones for medals. They're taking up too much dock space.
  3. GhostSwordsman

    Azur Lane discussion thread!

    Meanwhile, in Ghost's dock:
  4. GhostSwordsman

    Help on Baltimore

    PT, EM, SE(personal preference) or DE, CE to start. Now that Baltimore is T8 and no longer possesses a heal, SI isn't necessary in the first 10 captain points. At 14 points I'd go with AR as the 5th selected skill and either grind up to a 3 pointer or if you don't feel that AR is helping at all, go with vigilance.
  5. It's pretty much the same for me. I've been on the receiving end of IFHE CLs in BBs before, it's not a particularly pleasant experience. On the other hand, I've also been in games as a CL where IFHE allowed me to do more than just find an island or a way to block LoS, lob shells and pray for fires that stick. I'm wondering how interesting it might be if IFHE were changed so it trades the increased penetration for a slightly lower HE alpha and reduced fire chance. I'm thinking that it sounds reasonable to lose 200-400 HE alpha and the fire chance reduction in exchange for less rounds failing to penetrate armor in the first place. At least in the case of cruiser caliber guns, since they have the higher fire chance penalty. A reduced alpha on HE would also likely help cruisers when they have to face Kitakaze, Harugumo, and Akizuki, since the over-buffed 100mm guns didn't actually make IFHE non-mandatory.
  6. Lol. I seriously have to laugh at WG's reasoning here for rejecting LoS. This was literally the entire idea behind LoS for radar. If they want to use it effectively, then they shouldn't be able to sit in an invulnerable position able to zone out ships from a cap area with no easy way to pry them out from their hole.
  7. GhostSwordsman

    Azur Lane discussion thread!

    I fail to see how this is a problem.
  8. Well, technically LoS would fix the main issues with radar, except WG probably went about it the wrong way. Radar is tied to the proxy spot mechanic. It simply extends that range from 2/3km out to the value on the radar consumable for X seconds. My bet is the issue WG ran into(if they even seriously tested this) was that introducing LoS broke radar's ability to spot stuff in smoke and/or behind smoke. If radar's vision were removed from the proxy spot mechanic, then this probably wouldn't have been an issue. I've seen a few others suggest introducing collision detection to radar, which probably would work(and maybe even without removing radar from proxy spotting) as smoke doesn't have collision, whereas islands do.
  9. GhostSwordsman

    So...Tier 8?

    Well, it's not just an idea to be limited to T10s or T10 MM, as that would just push the issue down one tier. I'd want it to be applied to all tiers, that way T5s and T6s can benefit from it as well (granted that being only one of 2-6 bottom tier ships isn't as large an issue in mid tiers as it is for T8s) by not being pulled up +2 as often, which would most certainly happen if T8 were suddenly getting more top tier games. I believe WG introduced a parameter to the MM algorithm that looks at a ship types nationality. I don't recall exactly when this was introduced or proposed, but it's purpose was to prevent lopsided matches where, for example, one team had 3-4 torpedo boats(IJN DDs that struggle to defend themselves against other DDs, mainly) and the other team be stacked with gunboats (RU and USN mainly). This technically also helps the radar issue a bit since if there are more than one USN/RU/RN cruisers in queue, then MM tries to distribute them evenly between the teams.
  10. GhostSwordsman

    So...Tier 8?

    This is exactly the problem I have with T8 MM. I personally don't mind being uptiered. I welcome the challenges it brings. What gets me more than the perceived frequency of facing T10s is the fact that just about every time the T10 ships outnumber the T8 ships, and by a rather large margin. People say that being bottom tier is an opportunity because you're generally ignored as a non-threat. That's just simply not true in my experience. Usually the (fewer in number) T8s are singled out first because they're seen as an easy kill for a combination of reasons. It's not even that. If MM simply wasn't seemingly hard coded to make random battles 12v12 unless one ship goes over the 5 minute wait time limit, then the pic both you and I quoted could have been an 11v11 with T10s only, and the two T8s would have either sat in queue, been in a T9 game, been top tier, or been matched with less overall T10s in whatever match it put them in. I'm personally an advocate of allowing MM to form 9v9s, 10v10s and 11v11s just so T8s, T6s, and T5s don't have to be pulled up as often into a +2 MM.
  11. GhostSwordsman

    Azur Lane discussion thread!

    Hype. Nov. 15th.
  12. GhostSwordsman

    Azur Lane discussion thread!

    YES! The Illustrious skin I've been waiting for is coming soon! Along with skins for Ikazuchi and Inazuma that actually make them look more like Ram and Rem(now if only I had the two of them. The back to back events prevented me from getting to chapter 8 to farm for them) shutupandtakemygems.jpeg
  13. GhostSwordsman

    Dev Blog Changes - Japanese Cruisers

    Yes, these are great changes. Now, in my opinion, the only other change that needs to be looked at for IJN CAs is to go back over their firing angles. Myoko is notoriously bad, but there are other ships (most notably Mogami for me as I've been playing her more often recently with the 155s) where the firing angles appear to still be restricted by an AA mount or two. All the more recent ships don't seem to have this restriction, and I think it's a holdover from when the game only consisted of the two nations, USN and IJN. For example, Helena's X or Y-turret traverses right over top of quad bofors mounts, whereas I think (I'm not 100% certain as I haven't looked into it in detail yet) Mogami's Y-turret appears to be blocked or restricted due to a single or dual 25mm AA gun.
  14. While giving Ibuki access to the 12km torpedoes, like the destroyers get at T9, is good. I don't think changes for Ibuki should stop there. In my mind, in order to make Ibuki better, and differentiate her from 203 Mogami more, I'd also give her the same guns as Zao, just in the 5x2 layout. This would allow players to start to acclimate to Zao's guns before actually getting Zao. It differentiates Ibuki from Mogami, in the sense that her guns handle differently despite being on a nearly identical hull. And it makes Ibuki a proper progression step from Mogami to Zao. Was 155 Mogami truly that powerful at T7? With the Brooklyn-class and St. Louis sub-class of CLs fitting snugly into T7, I'm figuring that 155 Mogami would work better there as well, considering that the Brooklyn-class itself was built in response to the USN learning of the Mogami's as-built configuration.
  15. GhostSwordsman

    Azur Lane discussion thread!

    How exactly do you do this? I sort of recall seeing something like that but I don't remember where it was. That will be useful once I get most of the Eagles dorm items and feel like swapping out to that without losing the effort I put into what I posted above, lol.
×