Jump to content

wadavid

Members
  • Content Сount

    589
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    12639
  • Clan

    [-K-]

Community Reputation

263 Excellent

2 Followers

About wadavid

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,023 profile views
  1. wadavid

    BB's and CV Divisions has to stop

    If someone sets it up, I'd donate toward a prize pool.
  2. wadavid

    BB's and CV Divisions has to stop

    Every time a carrier gets nuked 3 minutes into a battle, the world becomes a slightly better place. May this continue forever.
  3. I haven't read any of this thread yet, but I'd like to jump in and say I'm disappointed how O7 used RNG and russian bias to "win" this competition. Is it even winning if you can just RNG to russian ships because I watched a Zoup video?
  4. wadavid

    GPU Loading In Port

    If they didn't know the port has felt like a laggy garbage pile for 3-4 years, I wonder if they also don't know that they have a whole ship type that can unilaterally do damage without meaningful skill-based counterplay? Should we tell them?
  5. wadavid

    Super Unicum Seeking Advice on CV Counterplay

    Whoa - I just realized you're completely right. I don't understand the realities of CV. You actually understand the mechanics and tactics of this game in a way that I never will. CV damage is just as avoidable as any other damage. Thanks for explaining that there is no difference; I was just confused. Sorry I was preaching ignorance and distortion.
  6. wadavid

    Super Unicum Seeking Advice on CV Counterplay

    Terrain stops Yamato shells. Going dark and literally not being spotted stops Yamato shells. Being a MLG Henri driver and speed-juking salvos stops Yamato shells. Late-turning into the salvo so that they bounce on the main belt stops Yamato shells. Do you get unlucky sometimes? Yes, but you have an awful lot of ways to create favorable odds. Carrier interactions simply do not offer such options. Maneuvering is much too slow to be meaningfully effective vs. the relative speed and agility of planes. Skillful juking of a BB salvo might be the difference between 20k and 4k. Full mitigation? No, but a huge difference, based on skill. If Midway dive bombers are attacking you, can you really do literally anything that would affect the outcome by a 5-to-1 ratio? Lol. This comes down to a profound misunderstanding of what ships can do to mitigate damage directed at them. If that point is lost (i.e. "overmatch + HE = no options (paraphrasing)", there's no sense in discussing it further because the distinction between a challenge to find a way to deal damage while avoiding taking damage (i.e. the literally whole point of the game, I thought) is irrelevant because you think any mean battleship can just auto-citadel you. (That's totally wrong, but that's the argument you're using.) Battleships can't just auto-citadel you anywhere on the map, if you've gone dark, or have cover, or whatever, but carriers basically can, and that's the whole problem. Midway can do 10k in a single pass to anyone, anywhere. Period. Should it be able to do that if the carrier player outsmarts the ship? Sure. That's what games should be about. But it shouldn't be the same guaranteed damage regardless of what the attacked player does, yet that's how it currently works. I don't know how to more clearly lay out the issue. If you think that sounds great, we fundamentally disagree on how a PvP game should be structured. If you still think that options are equal when being attacked by a carrier vs. any other ship type, I don't know what planet you're on. (Note: I'm talking about the tier 10s. Langleys or whatever might be fine; I wouldn't know.)
  7. wadavid

    Super Unicum Seeking Advice on CV Counterplay

    Terrain. Angling. Concealment. Note: these are things the player can control and get good at. The player shooting has tools, the player being shot has tools; they both try to outplay each other with skill. That is how games are supposed to work. Carriers offer almost no skill-based defensive play; if a CV wishes to strike, they can. Period. Any ship, in any position, with any amount of AA, of any skill level. How good the carrier is is the difference between losing all planes without a single strike and a 200k game. What the attacked players did has little to do with it. That is bad design, even if many players feel equally helpless in situations where they legitimately do have options.
  8. Fuel limits still put (in my opinion) too much of the skill burden on the CV. In practical terms, there would be a hard border of effective range and as long as the CV could park somewhere convenient, the carnage could proceed. Yes, that's taking more risk, but good CV players already do that and would be barely impeded by it. If you scaled the range back enough for the top half of players to feel it at all, you'd make things borderline unplayable for the bottom 50% who don't understand how to use hard cover to get closer. (This would also be frustratingly map-dependent, in that any given fuel range could be overly comfortable on one map and a nightmare on another (Ocean? lol). Maybe there's a way to make it work, but I think there would be no magic distance at which you don't either fail to solve the problem for top players or make the game too hard for bad players (or, probably, both).
  9. I think some amount of alpha increase to go along with the aim time nerf would be fine. Predict well, get rewarded - but with the possibility for the attacked ship to juke it. Skill vs. skill. The current model (and corresponding alpha values for most ordnance) is based on constant more-or-less-successful drops, so making the drops harder justifies increasing the reward when done well.
  10. @Femennenly My suggestion would be to significantly increase both the aiming time and maneuvering penalty for all types of aircraft, of every nation (with small variations for flavor, but none exempt from considerable dispersion penalties when making even small adjustments after the initiation of an attack). High-tier RN dive bombers and USN torpedo bombers are examples of current aircraft whose gameplay (featuring a large drop delay and aiming delay, respectively) shows a partial step toward the desired balance of rewarded prediction but offering counterplay via rudder inputs from the attacked ship. The only counterplay option I see as viable (based on anecdotal observation of a very mixed opinion on true manual AA control) is maneuvering, but it currently poses very little issue for most "preferred" plane types of a given nation/tier. That is what I suggest adjusting. This does not add any new mechanics, and would result in an interaction which resembles those of other ships (e.g. attacking cruiser trying to guess how a DD will dodge, DD trying to guess where the cruiser will shoot). Currently, rudder response, ship speed and turning radius are no match for the combination of speed, agility and accuracy of most aircraft, making it a one-sided engagement. Keeping a very tight final dispersion pattern but decreasing the ease of landing the "perfect" drop on a maneuvering ship will give both sides a chance to prove their skill. A carrier can still correctly guess where the ship will go (especially if terrain is tight, or the ship can't afford a turn due to a lurking battleship, etc.). The carrier can still commit to any drop position with great precision - but the ship can also guess where the carrier will try to drop and steer another direction, forcing the carrier to maneuver and land less (or no) damage. Both ships can use their skill to try to outplay each other (you know, like a game?) rather than the lopsided predatory mess we have currently. Summary: I think that adjusting the drop parameters to make perfect drops still possible but more difficult (via increasing aim times and aim penalties while maneuvering) would sway the dynamic toward balance and fun for both sides. CVs could celebrate the times they 200IQ a ship's intended course and get a big hit; surface ships can celebrate their next-level plane-beats. Both have a chance, and both can be effective in the game. Also, new (like for-real new) UI when?
  11. Do you believe that a challenging situation should have a different outcome if you play well vs. if you play poorly? You say "It's ALL you", but with CV vs. surface ship interactions, the whole problem is that it's NOT you, it's the CV - and only the CV - whose skill makes a significant impact on the outcome of the engagement. That's not a challenge for the surface ship; it's just taking damage relative to the skill of the opponent. A lot of people - for some weird reason - don't find that fun. Glad you're enjoying it, but you're not in the majority.
  12. The point is not that CVs are doing things (firing ordnance at my ship) that other surface ships do not do. It's that with surface ships there are ways to fight back or at least hide/run away; with carriers you simply take damage regardless of what you do. I can't believe it's so hard to grasp that distinction.
  13. Wat?? The original change had a drastic (positive) effect on how concealment/detectability works. This reversion will have a similarly drastic (negative) effect on how it works. If this response was coming from a 150-game, 40% winrate Wargaming PR employee, I'd accept their dismissal of how big a deal this change is, especially for DDs. But I feel bad that you (Kami) are being put in a position to try to put out the fire by characterizing it as a non-issue. In my circles it was lauded almost unanimously as one of the best changes to the game in the past year, so what on earth is to be gained by undoing it is beyond me. This reversion is garbage. Literally everyone prefers the way it currently works, and many top players would list the original change as one of the top changes to the game in 2018. If there's any way to still prevent it from hitting the patch, such an option should be considered because there's nothing to be gained other than undoing a overwhelmingly popular mechanic change and making spotting less intuitive for no reason.
  14. Deleted... posted in the wrong place.

×