Jump to content

Vaidency

Members
  • Content Сount

    1,412
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    8793

Community Reputation

776 Excellent

About Vaidency

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,315 profile views
  1. Vaidency

    The outrage over subs. Why?

    Oh yeah, what could be better than a slow, fragile ship with virtually no AA that relies heavily on concealment and ambush tactics to hunt the best scout in the game that never has to go near the front lines?
  2. These suggestions would dramatically weaken destroyers compared to their current state, turning them into super specialized support vessels that are only really useful against submarines, which you say should be capped at 2 per team. So if you're playing a DD, I guess you just try to kill the 1 enemy sub that's on your flank of the map, then you fire your one set of torpedoes (which will be far easier to dodge) and then you just...what, exactly? Go afk and hope your team wins? Changing all the DD's in the game to fit this new design paradigm would rightfully be seen as a tremendous nerf, and many thousands of customers who paid money for premium destroyers over the last five years would be outraged. And then you just decided to go ahead and nerf all the cruiser torpedoes too. And all for what? To clear DD's and cruisers out of the "torpedo ambusher" role so that submarines can then take over that job? I've got a better idea: let's not break foundational parts of the game that have been keeping players around for years just to make room for something new. That's very counterproductive. If the new thing is so disruptive it's going to necessitate tearing the existing game down then the new thing needs to be seriously reconsidered.
  3. This doesn't look very promising. How on earth is a DD supposed to survive this kind of lengthy ASW process while spotted in the midst of a random game with half the enemy team shooting at them? I think if these mechanics go live DD's will actively avoid subs and just leave them free to hunt their teammates because it would be suicide to try and counter them.
  4. Vaidency

    A Gentle Reminder From Your Neighborhood CV

    You can protect your teammates from frustrating airstrikes by not playing a CV. Then you won't be prompting the matchmaker to bring in an enemy CV that you can't really do anything about.
  5. Vaidency

    CV Counterplay Explained

    Yeah, they got a lot easier to kill after WG made them essentially immune to being set on fire. Wait a minute...
  6. Vaidency

    buff cv dive bombers plz

    Looks like your attack was every bit as successful as any other ship would get while hiding behind an island at the back of the map. I see no problem.
  7. Even with the various anime collaborations, I'd be pretty surprised if a large portion of this game's player base is school-aged children.
  8. Vaidency

    AA / CV Balance Changes Inbound for 8.7

    Well of course players feel that way. It's because there is no other defense against a CV attacking you. You can't disengage from them because they're far faster than you. You can't use terrain to block their attacks because they fly over it. You can't use concealment to hide from them because they're the best scouts in the game. You can't trade attacks with them and try to sink them faster than they can sink you because they're almost certainly attacking you from a position where you can't even see them, let alone shoot back. What's that leave as a possible defense against a CV persistently trying to sink you? AA. There is nothing else. CV's completely negate all other forms of defensive play. So yeah, players want AA to be effective. If it's not, CV's just rule the game and kill people for free with no recourse, which is kind of frustrating in a PvP environment.
  9. Vaidency

    CV Rework - Was it Worth it?

    I think pretty much everyone should agree that using the live servers as a beta testing environment was a huge mistake. Players who had spent thousands of hours, and in some cases thousands of dollars, on the game were absolutely not pleased when 8.0 suddenly brought in super-powered CV's that radically altered the experience. It created tremendous hostility and tension in the customer base. The live-server patch cycle was way too slow to take urgently needed action and the void in communication was largely filled by forum trolls telling frustrated customers that this was just the way things are now and it's time to adapt or quit. WG also added to the PR catastrophe by restarting sales of premium CV's while major changes were still ongoing. After months of trying to create a paradigm with CV's as a popular and very powerful ship type (even allowing them to significantly overperform in several metrics) WG abruptly switched gears and started buffing AA heavily instead. I see that as an outright admission that revenue was falling. Sales of premium CV's are not making up for lost sales of other ships. CV players can condescend all they want about "resistance to change" or the "'stale meta" but I think the writing is on the wall. The rework has failed. CV's will remain in the game but WG is pretty much done with trying to get large numbers of people to play them regularly. It's time to just leave CV's in the most benign state they can get to and move on.
  10. Vaidency

    CV Rework - Was it Worth it?

    CV's remain by far the least popular ship type and problematic outliers in some performance stats. AA builds remain unpopular and are no longer even good for protecting teammates. The current model seems impossible to balance because if enough planes consistently get through AA to cause good damage, surface ships feel defenseless and frustrated but if planes can't consistently get through AA to cause damage then carriers feel worthless. It's a no-win. The entire experience has been six months of angry vitriol and negative feedback from every quarter only to run into a dead end. It's a total failure.
  11. Vaidency

    Degeneration of the game

    "They use no skill and no tactics except for ones that give them an advantage over me! They should be forced to make easier targets of themselves by playing to the advantages of my ship instead!" We all know that realistically a battleship would have absolutely crushed a cruiser in a surface engagement. This game is not designed to simulate that.
  12. I'm just shaking my head in befuddlement that you are so completely convinced the ship types were intended to line up with fantasy RPG classes and that any inconsistencies with this model are just mistakes from WG. Would you seriously tell a friend who's thinking about picking up WOWS "You like playing melee berserkers, right? Then you'll love light cruisers!" Because nothing invokes a savage close-in powerhouse like a ship that typically does everything it can to stay behind cover or at maximum range. And heavy cruisers as "snipers?" Seriously? Because the archetypical sniper is someone who wears targets down over several minutes? No, a sniper is someone who headshots targets to instantly kill them from long range, but only battleships can somewhat consistently do that in this game and you just wrote a full-length essay trying to convince us battleships are supposed to be the "tank" class. You are just desperate to cram a whole lot of square pegs into round holes in service of your argument and it's really not convincing no matter how much you tell us about Team Fortress 2.
  13. Hey, speaking of "way too many baked-in advantages seen in no other game," how about you turn that game design PHD you apparently have on one of the other WOWS classes. Specifically, what does your vast experience critiquing game balance tell you about a class that had the highest hitpoints, best armor, best regeneration, longest range and nearly the best spike damage? To put it in typical fantasy RPG terms, a self-healing tank mage? That's pretty crazy overpowered, right? You'd never want to see a character with the abilities of the battleship class in most games. But it works ok here, doesn't it? So maybe your conclusion that the destroyer class is badly designed because it would be overpowered in Team Fortress 2 or League of Legends has some holes in it.
  14. Are you being serious here? The ship type with the lowest survival rate at every tier has no counter? And your reasoning for this is a huge rambling post about how stealth works in a dozen other games? Stop lecturing me on Team Fortress 2; I've never even played it. I've played thousands of rounds of WOWS in every surface ship type, though, and it sure looks to me like DD's have effective counters. (In fact, I think Cv's counter them too effectively.) All your expounding on game design just seems like it's leading you to look past the actual performance metrics of this individual game. And there are many situations where a BB is fairly safe from DD's. Chasing torpedoes have a near-zero hit rate, so simply sailing away from their last known position is often quite effective until a screening DD or a cruiser with radar or sonar or a plane squadron can go find them. It's not like he's going to race around and get in front of you since he's probably at best only 10 kts faster than you.
  15. Can you tell me which other games' "rogue" class have their primary attack in the form of a low-speed projectile that is very easy to dodge if you even suspect it's coming? Or have about one quarter the hitpoints of other playable characters and cannot be healed? Or whose main job is to be at the front line between their team and the enemy? WOWS is not a fantasy RPG. It has numerous major mechanical differences. If destroyers really had a "HUGE leg up" they wouldn't consistently have had the lowest average damage and survival rates at nearly every tier in nearly every patch for the entire history of the game, but they do. That's definitely not what you'd expect if they're as fundamentally overpowered as you claim, so what's the deal?
×