Jump to content

Vaidency

Members
  • Content count

    1,102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    7750

Community Reputation

394 Excellent

About Vaidency

  • Rank
    Ensign
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

820 profile views
  1. Suggestion of new game modes

    Really? "No DD" mode is going to attract more players? How's that ad pitch going to work? "Try World of Warships, where you can experience fast-paced battles in dozens of very detailed and historically accurate ships from all over the world! Now featuring exclusionary mode with a lot fewer ships!" Yeah, that'll have people racing to download the client... I agree that game modes aren't zero sum, and splitting the player base into "all ship types" and "no ship types that counter BB's" might result in two healthy player bases. But it also might result in only one, or even none. Also, I don't think it's a coincidence at all that I've seen suggestions for "No DD" mode and "No CV" mode, but nobody's ever suggested "No Cruiser" mode. The ship type that every BB player loves to catch broadside for a Devastating Strike is welcome to stay, but we really need to look into those guys who see BB's as targets, don't we?
  2. Suggestion of new game modes

    You can certainly play how you like. It's a casual friendly game and none of us are ever going pro. But you're asking for a completely different rule set that explicitly forbids other players from playing how they like (or, as you put it, how they "feel better about themselves" as if that's somehow a completely different motivation from why you play the game.) Your suggestion, if implemented, would fragment the playerbase, and severely skew the game balance. And the only benefit would be to create a simplified game mode where you don't have to tolerate the complexity of dealing with different ship types. Applying similar logic to other team-based games sounds ridiculous, which is why you are being ridiculed. "I like batting, but I hate it when outfielders catch my hits and I'm out. Can't we make a separate baseball league with a "no outfielders" rule? I should be able to play like I want!"
  3. Suggestion of new game modes

    As someone who usually throws rock, I think a "no paper" mode for rock paper scissors would be really great.
  4. There were plenty of people who were arguing that Musashi would require Yamato's 2.1 sigma to be competitive at tier 9 and without it the ship would be terrible. It was a pretty good example of how the community massively overvalues the sigma stat. There were also people who claimed that the recent Colorado changes that increased the ship's hitpoints by 18% but reduced the sigma by 0.1 amounted to a nerf.
  5. Citadels

    My go to ships for citadel missions are heavy cruisers. I got the 10 required citadel hits for the mission in 3 games on my Charles Martel. Would have gotten it in one game if I'd played them in a different order because I got 11 citadel hits in the third game alone. Just run a concealment build and be a little patient and it's pretty common to get opportunities to ambush other cruisers.
  6. If I had you on my team I'd intentionally throw the game just to hurt your stats too.
  7. WG just admit you screwed up

    I tend to score about the same number of torpedo hits per game in my Gearing and Shimakaze (about 4 or 5 hits per game.) This does mean the Gearing has a higher hit rate because it launches fewer torpedoes per game. However, I think it's worth noting that I use the torpedoes on the two ships somewhat differently. With the Gearing, I usually aim one launcher at the lead indicator and the other ahead or behind based on what I think the target will do in the next 30 seconds or so. With the Shimakaze I do the same thing but then I have a 3rd launcher that I can use to cover another possible guess about what the target will do, or possibly just shoot the third launcher at a separate target. Shooting non-overlapping spreads of torpedoes like this maximizes the chance of getting 1 or 2 hits with the salvo (which is usually what I'm aiming to do.) Basically, since I treat the Shimakaze's 3rd launcher like a "bonus" set of torpedoes, I often take lower-percentage shots with it. This leads to a lower overall hit rate, but, like I said, about the same number of total torpedo hits per game because the Shimakaze can launch more torpedoes per minute than the Gearing can. When playing both DD's, I mostly launch my torpedoes toward enemy smokescreens or BB's. High-tier BB's aren't maneuverable enough to dodge IJN torpedoes unless a screener spots them, and people sitting in smoke seem to be about equally vulnerable to torpedoes from both ships too. In the end, I think both the Gearing and Shimakaze are pretty balanced with each other as torpedo-focused DD's. I know there is a constant push by DD players on this forum to buff torpedo-focused DD's in general because a lot of people want the whole IJN DD line to be the Kamikaze. I don't really agree with this. I think the ships are generally pretty effective on average and don't really require buffs, but they are more prone to hot and cold streaks than other ship types because torpedoes are inherently somewhat unreliable. The main issue I have with playing these two boats is the proliferation of Missouris. I really dislike having a ship with 80k hitptoints, concealment and speed that rivals some cruisers, and radar being one of the most common ships at high tier. But they're a much bigger problem for German DD's than USN or IJN ones, so I kind of laugh at people commenting that German DD's are "the only ones worth playing because the torp boats suck." What's my Z-46 supposed to do when a bow-tanking Missouri is hanging out near a cap? My only real option is to just reposition somewhere else on the map.
  8. I don't think "randomly shelling civilian structures on shore just to watch them burn down" is the kind of historical accuracy WG would like to see in their game. All the more so since a lot of the buildings on the maps are cultural easter eggs for the countries the maps are based on.
  9. Seagal's departing!

    The John Doe campaign: Do a bunch of generic stuff anonymously.
  10. WG just admit you screwed up

    Right, and I said in my post it makes a difference against DD's. If you had an 18 second rudder shift you wouldn't have dodged either of those torpedo spreads.
  11. WG just admit you screwed up

    Gearing and Fletcher do not have superior torpedoes to Shimakaze. Having 50% more torpedoes that each do 33% more damage and are a knot faster easily makes up for the 0.3 km difference in detection range, which amounts to a whopping 1.5 seconds of extra time to react. People always treat that 1.5 seconds like it's a huge difference. "IJN torpedoes are spotted from the moon!" No they aren't. It's not a big difference. Given the rudder shift times on high-tier BB's and CA's, and the fact that Shimakaze has an entire 3rd quintuple launcher to cover a much bigger arc, scoring torpedo hits is no more difficult in the Shimakaze than the Fletcher and Gearing (and yes, I have several hundred games between those 3 ships so I am speaking from experience.) You can even check Warships Today, which currently reports that the Shimakaze outdamages the Gearing over the last 2 weeks, and it's sure not doing that with its guns. My personal stats also show higher average damage in the Shimakaze. The only way that the longer spotting range on IJN torpedoes is really detrimental is when you're trying to torpedo enemy DD's (which are actually nimble enough to dodge given an extra 1.5 seconds of warning) or that they are more likely to be spotted by screening DD's or aircraft on the way to the target. A high-tier BB with an 18-second rudder shift isn't going to dodge a properly aimed spread unless they are spotted by some kind of screen.
  12. Farming solo warrior...

    If I were in a game where my team was up 4 remaining ships to 2 but down on points and suddenly one of the 2 surviving enemies torpedoed the other in an attempt to get Solo Warrior but the damage reflection kicked in and sank him too, giving my team the win, I'd probably hurt myself laughing.
  13. WOWS +1 FOR SLEEPING GIANT MAP

    I've only played a half dozen games on Sleeping Giant so far but none of them have been boring. I think the geometry of the map creates aggressive play. I like it so far. I still don't like Tears of the Desert. I've only had 2 games so far on the new Trap so no comment there.
  14. It's good of him to point out that the American victory at Midway was nearly inevitable. While the Japanese did have superior naval forces at the battle and certainly could have won the naval engagement if things had gone differently, we tend to overlook the fact that Midway Island itself was well garrisoned and fortified, and it's extremely unlikely that Japan's limited amphibious assault forces could have taken the island even if the American fleet were driven off or sunk. Japan was almost certainly going to lose there. And even if by some miracle they didn't lose at Midway they were going to lose in the end anyway because they had nowhere near the industrial capacity needed to fight the US, much less the US, China and British Empire simultaneously. Alternate history is fun, but the odds WW2 could have gone significantly differently (especially in the Pacific) are actually very, very low.
  15. Free T6 french DD thru missions

    LWM's "mehbote" designation is, in her own words: "An average ship. Has strengths and weaknesses. Doesn't need buffs to be viable however she's not going to be considered optimal." To me, the phrase "doesn't need buffs to be viable" generally doesn't gel with your statement "given how bad the ship really is." Also, didn't Flamu say the Musashi sucked too before releasing another video a week later where he said it was overpowered? I'm not sure I give a whole lot of weight to his ratings.
×