Jump to content

Vaidency

Members
  • Content Сount

    1,438
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    8824

Community Reputation

839 Excellent

About Vaidency

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,446 profile views
  1. Vaidency

    Submarine PT video

    The ability to drop down below 6 meters and become totally immune to everything except depth charges and torpedoes from other subs looks problematic. He shows it at about 7:15 in the video, where he's cruising around at 5.9 meters depth and dives immediately if anyone shoots at him. That's got to be fixed or these things will not be an enjoyable addition to the game for anyone playing surface ships.
  2. Vaidency

    CVs are OP???

    You're using a very silly definition of the word "work." Shooting down planes during a strike does not reduce the damage you take because they are instantly replaced from the rest of the squadron, and the losses inflicted by normal AA is not enough to make the CV run out of planes before the end of the game, so as long as they don't fly through flak the losses are irrelevant. So AA neither protects your ship nor shuts down the carrier. Hence, it doesn't "work" as a defense. It only "works" against inexperienced carrier players who don't know how to misdirect or avoid flak, but once they learn that, it no longer impedes their ability to constantly strike targets for the entire game, and it never will again. Every day, a few more CV players master avoiding flak, and AA gets just a little bit more useless. Yamato's AA guns shot down at least two planes during Operation Ten-Go. Absolutely nobody would say Yamato's AA "worked" during that mission.
  3. Vaidency

    CVs are OP???

    But you absolutely can negate damage from every other ship by playing properly with terrain, concealment, speed, maneuvering and angling. Those things don't work against CV's, which is exactly why they're broken. That's why players wish AA was more effective. Since CV's negate every other defensive skill in a player's toolkit, we would kind of like it if the one thing they can't negate actually worked.
  4. Vaidency

    CVs are OP???

    In every one of those screenshots he's on the top of the scoreboard, so his plane losses were obviously not impeding his performance at all. Hence, AA doesn't "work." The strike damage always gets through. The CV is always left unharmed. Their plane reserves and regeneration rate are designed to allow them to continually attack targets throughout the entire game without running out of planes as long as they don't fly into flak too often. Losing a few dozens planes means nothing if they've still got a full squadron or two on hand at the end of the game, and any decent CV player typically does.
  5. Vaidency

    BB's and CV Divisions has to stop

    It's not like having CV's spot targets for their division mates to shoot is some new tactic that was just invented this week.
  6. Ok, so now we've come full circle to my original post in this thread where I asked if a DD is just supposed to go afk for 5 minutes at the start of the game. That's basically what you're suggesting. Thanks for the tip. Are you playing this game through a time warp to two years ago or something? How are cruisers and battleships supposed to provide AA cover over a cap when AFT no longer increases AA range and long-range AA damage has basically been neutered? You have to be within about 4 km of a friendly ship to get much assistance from their AA, and many maps simply don't even allow your teammates to provide AA support for you while staying in a safe position. Also, "wait it out?" Wait for what? Is the CV going to run out of planes halfway through the game so I can actually start playing my DD? Why are you trying to split hairs in such a way as to claim DD's have "zero risk" gameplay under some specific set of circumstances? We can clearly see years worth of statistics that demonstrate conclusively they have the lowest survival rate of any ship type. Seriously, just stop with this line of argument. It's ridiculous. The ship type that has gotten sunk the most often throughout the entire history of the game including the present clearly, obviously, undeniably, irrefutably does not have the lowest risk playstyle. Sheesh.
  7. No it doesn't. DD's have plenty of risk. This is extremely obvious in their very low survival rates, including pre-rework when CV's were very rare. Other DD's, radar and the inherent risks of short range forcing them to the forefront of their teams where they're most likely to get spotted and attacked do enough to keep them in check. Rocket planes are too much.
  8. What is "reasonably close support" when you're talking about CV attacks? Even if a cruiser with strong AA is just 4 km away from you a CV can still easily strike you with rocket planes. Ok, so I watch where the enemy CV is sending his planes. What if he's smart enough to realize an enemy DD spawns right across the map from his own DD's so he sends rocket planes toward my spawn location right at the start of the game? Even if I'm nearly parked on the deck of a friendly Minotaur he could still probably blow a large chunk of my health off with a single pass. And I can't just stay in the Minotaur's pocket for the whole game or there's no way I'll be useful in a DD. Then you just give some more advice about not trying to cap alone. That's fine advice and all, but it mostly applies to surface ships. Once again, how are my teammates supposed to help me cap against rocket planes? The only one who can is the CV, who might be able to put fighters over me to help out, but none of my surface ship teammates can help keep me safe unless they charge into the cap with me, which is not always practical. You also suggest I could team up with my own team's CV to take out the enemy DD's. Definitely. That's a very powerful tactic. But what do I do if it's the enemy team doing that to me? Your "imagination" basically seems to be, "I play against bad carriers who don't specifically come hunting for my DD's and as a result I usually do fine." Hey, I also usually do fine when the enemy CV is either ignoring me or not very good. I just don't mistake that for acceptable game balance.
  9. Ok, that was my question and I don't think you answered it. Like I said, most DD's have an effective engagement range of no more than 10 km. Where are these non-obvious places you go on the maps that are within 10 km of enemy ships? There simply aren't many places you can be while still being useful and it doesn't take very long to scout them with rocket planes. Sure, maybe the CV player is inexperienced and doesn't know where to look for you or maybe he's busy hounding your teammates on the other side of the map, but that's just dumb luck. If the carrier is smart and is looking for you, he's going to find you very quickly unless you're just out in the middle of nowhere where your DD can't be useful. This will force you to abort whatever maneuver you were attempting, and most likely also force you to either use a smokescreen or take a lot of damage. Even if you're right next to a cruiser with good AA he can still hit you at least once and even a single pass from rocket planes is a large amount of nearly unavoidable damage to most DD's. Yes, there is a small minority of DD's with good AA and they can make carriers leave them alone, especially lower tier carriers. I shot down over 40 Shokaku planes once in a Fletcher. That doesn't make things ok for the vast majority of DD's, who have no ability at all to exact a high cost from a CV attacking them. Face it: rocket planes are too good against DD's. It's a major problem in the game. Even WG seems aware of this.
  10. I don't think there's a narrative that few people play co-op? WG said a long time ago that about 30% of the playerbase plays exclusively PvE. That probably hasn't changed much.
  11. Vaidency

    Two questions for WG about CV.

    Because I did like it a lot and spent a lot of time playing it until they messed it up with the CV rework. Because they're still an enormous issue in the game that continues to generate a lot of feedback. CV's are a huge issue in random battles, which is the "general" game mode for World of Warships. Hence, feedback and discussion on them belongs in the general forum. If WG is tired of their forum being cluttered up with endless bickering over CV's then they should try to fix the issues with them. Shoveling the feedback into a sub forum won't convince anyone the problems are gone.
  12. Vaidency

    Two questions for WG about CV.

    WG has already answered these, basically. 1 - They know players don't like multi-CV games (and many players don't like even single-CV games), which is why they've been steadily clamping down on their allowed numbers. They're reluctant to just pull the trigger and finally hard cap them at one per team because it would cause long queue times. They know they're stuck here because after literally years of tinkering with them they still can't figure out how to make CV's harmoniously gel with the rest of the game. 2 - They answered this one a few months ago by basically saying that because DD's are hard to play, especially for new players, it doesn't really matter if there's one more thing out there making their game experience difficult. Absolutely nobody saw this as a satisfactory answer but they haven't offered another one.
  13. Vaidency

    Whats is wargammings goal with CV's?

    I'm sure revenue was a big driving factor. They sell tons of premium ships, and I'm sure they weren't selling many premium carriers under the old system because very few people played them higher than about tier 6. The overall goal of making carriers easier to play (mainly be preventing veteran CV's from completely neutralizing new players with fighter strafing) was successful at making them more popular, and I'm sure this resulted in a revenue boost as a lot of people bought Graf Zepplins and Enterprises and Kagas. Unfortunately, they never really solved the two critical gameplay problems with carriers, which is the way they upset the concealment/spotting balance between the surface ships (which may not have originally been intended as a huge part of the game balance, but definitely became one over time) and the general lack of counterplay. (It's just frustrating to be attacked by an enemy that you can't fight back against, can't disengage from, and must rely mainly on automated defenses to protect yourself from.)
  14. So why was the secret matchmaker algorithm punishing all your teammates by putting them on bad teams for that 8 game loss streak? Were they all due for big loss streaks like you? Or does this secret match making algorithm only rig your results toward 50% and not really care what it does to the other 23 people in the game?
  15. When I asked "What is the point of having an algorithm do this?" I meant that a totally random match maker will automatically break win and loss streaks through simple random probability. What's the point of the alleged secret rigging system when no having no rigging at all will achieve the same result over time?
×