Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

2,127 Superb


About Harathan

  • Rank
  • Birthday 03/28/1981
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Orange, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

2,324 profile views
  1. How about a replay to go along with that, or do we just get your anecdotes? Not sure if maybe English isn't your first language, but the phrase "X has change very little" does not mean "we've made changes enough that your shells don't work". Next you'll be telling us that you suffer fewer overpens if you have premium time.
  2. No worries. I get that "realistically" overpens often don't make sense. I'm fully on board with that assertion. I once snapped a shot of 234's at 3km into what I thought was the engine room of a same tier BB - I'd just jumped a pair of BBs and I was running between them - but between steering my ship and getting my torps launched I did not have time to aim properly. My aim was a bit too high and the entire volley overpenned. Visually every shell went into the side of the BB (well below the superstructure) but they all overpenned. But I didn't blame the game for it; I know how WoWs works. The blame was on me for aiming a bit too high. Objectively, anyone could reasonably look at that and go "How did ALL those shells just go straight thru a BB and do almost no damage? There's all that stuff inside!" With the way armor is modelled in this game, how do you reduce overpens on under-armored targets without completely changing the penetration and damage mechanics of the game? Overpen does % of shell damage, so upping the % just favors ships that already do more damage (i.e. BBs) and mainly hurts DDs. Reducing overpens by filling ships with stuff primarily hurts ships that only survive vs BBs because of overpens, so again the primary benefactor is BBs and it mainly hurts cruisers. The only way I can think of reducing overpens that isn't a direct benefit to BBs is reducing shell penetration only for BBs, but that's a hell of a change. Once viable targets are no longer so and fighting other BBs with AP would be much more difficult. My Conqueror is game for that tho.
  3. I don't know how I feel about this given your signature says you think you're a champion of ship balance, but ok. Just my personal opinion, but to my mind someone who spends 90% of their time in BBs in Co-op (and obviously I'm not referring to you here) cannot credibly claim that wanting fewer overpens is an unbiased opinion of game mechanics. It's literally a direct buff to that specific way of playing more than any other.
  4. Harathan

    San Diego's Initial Stats are a Flaming Turd

    Because despite their assertions to the contrary, WG devs don't play their own game. Oh I'm sure they all have accounts and ports full of free ships, but I'm willing to bet money that the ones who are designing ships and deciding what to put into the game do not spend any of their free time grinding ships like we have to. They don't play the game. They participate in it. They're not invested in the ships the same way actual players are. Monarch being "famous and historical", etc. They're just putting ships in the game and calling it good because hey, they can always fix it later. Of course the problem with that is, they don't always fix it later.
  5. Harathan

    San Diego's Initial Stats are a Flaming Turd

    I think it feels like that cos that's what is happening.
  6. Harathan

    San Diego's Initial Stats are a Flaming Turd

    It wasn't a secret how many people wanted to see Dido. WG didn't so much add her to the game as excreted her into it. Comes back to the same thing tho. People raise legit concerns about a ship and instead of "Ok thanks for the feedback, that looks totally valid, we'll push that up the chain just as hard as we can" we get "Don't worry, it'll be fine by the time it's released" as if none of us have been paying attention to ship releases for the last 6 years. Like, hello, we literally just got screwed on Dido over almost the same issue (reload times) but yeah we'll totally trust WG that they won't do it again.
  7. It's hardly a coincidence that the loudest voices calling for this kind of change are BB mains.
  8. Right, the idea that DDs should maintain any kind of survivability against BBs is "coddling the DD mafia". But you're totally unbiased and just trying to present a balanced idea, huh. Besides, I don't think the bots have a DD mafia and they're the only ones you play against.
  9. Harathan

    San Diego's Initial Stats are a Flaming Turd

    They did the same thing with Dido's reload times, too.
  10. Yes, there are and you're asking for every other ship type to do more damage against them with AP. It doesn't matter how you try to justify it the end result is that ships that cannot reliably overpen, but that rely on overpen for at least some of their own survival, will be worse off with the changes you're suggesting. I'm not surprised that most in favor of the proposed changes are BB mains. Sure, we should look at it from the well-balanced and absolutely unbiased point of view of folks who mostly play against bots and mostly play the ships that stand to benefit most from a reduction in overpens. Right.
  11. The only way it effects all ship types is in the damage they'll be suffering from BB shells overpenning. When was the last time you saw a CL or DD overpen a BB? Trying to suggest this would be an equal buff across the board is hugely disengenuous. And, you know, anyone not in a BB.
  12. You're in co-op. Despite what co-op players say, it's infinitely more toxic than Random. I've been reported simply for playing, minding my own business, just like yourself, infinitely more times in co-op than I ever have in Random. Plus you're in a CV, which is everyone's target of vitriol anyway. Welcome to World of Warships, dude. The community effing sucks.
  13. Not everyone means that, but the counterargument is the same regardless: what is the intended end result? If teams are evenly matched by "skill" and whatever metric is used for that is accurate, W/R will be artificially drawn closer to 50% for both good players and bad players. That's true for an "even-mix" system and for an ELO style system. That being the case W/R cannot no longer be relied on as an indicator of skill, so that's out. What else do you rely on? Survival rate? Accuracy in a given ship? Average damage done? All those can be gamed by determined seal-clubbers and even taken together they're not a reliable indicator of anything. What if you're new to a ship? Returning from a long absence? You've just reset your lines for Research and are learning the ships upward again? How do you account for the games inherent RNG in those metrics? What if someone has a longer than usual run of crappy RNG? I know from experience that can happen even in a tournament setting. Skill-based MM just doesn't fit in a game like WoWs.
  14. Exactly. So while I understand folks who bemoan overpens... welcome to WoWs. You've got 20 minutes to do hit point based damage over compressed distances with supersonic shells. The only way smaller ships like DD and CL are surviving that vs BBs is to accommodate the fact that damaging a ship doesn't always equal sinking a ship. It's one of the few concessions to real-life naval combat that we've got. The alternative is each match takes place on Ocean (but bigger), lasts an hour, it takes 10 minutes just to get into range, 95% of your shots will miss and if you do get hit you spend the rest of the match crippled and trying to not sink. More realistic but probably not as popular. I'll stick with overpens, honestly. I certainly wish more shots would overpen my Dido...