Jump to content

Meatshield_No13

Members
  • Content count

    230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    9110
  • Clan

    [HSD]

Community Reputation

83 Good

About Meatshield_No13

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

676 profile views
  1. Azur Lane discussion thread!

    The torp, fighter and Zukaku are IMO the 3 top things. Assuming you still need Zuikaku. The fighter and torp even if you don't use them now having them means they're around for when you have a ship to use them on. As for the BB turret, everything I have seen says it is bad, so I would avoid it, unless you want it for completionist's sake (that's what I did).
  2. Azur Lane discussion thread!

    Decided to actually have a pick at the hard mode being as I have bought out the entire shop minus the un-needed Zuikaku. Primary aim is to clear D3 for the shiny, not concerned with 3 starring yet, just clearing through. So managed to clear through C1-3 with no real issues thanks to leaving Laffey and Javelin in the dorm for like a week and a half of continuous passive levelling. I suspect I will suffer some hangups on D1-3 due to Javelin and Laffey only just being in the 70's. Not too worried about anything else. I wonder if a 90+ Helena can cope when the 2 DDs buy it?
  3. That is genuinely fascinating to learn.
  4. An idea to improve ship customization

    Or just add a new option to the current filters: "Custom Camo", or something like that, if you have it enabled you see whatever colours they have splotched all over their ship. Disabled you see the bog standard Premium camo as it is now. I think the idea has definite merit.
  5. Azur Lane discussion thread!

    Saw this on YouTube, thought it might be of benefit to link here:
  6. Admittedly a small necro here. But I wanted to close out my thoughts and opinion on the upgrade. As stated previously this is all subjective based on my play style, preferences and approach. To begin after more experience with it I have personally now demounted the upgrade and am back to running a full stealth build. I am going to reiterate my previous findings, this module has greater value the further away you are from the enemy. Greater shell travel time allows greater evasion response, and this module further improves on that capacity. Distances starting roughly at 15km and increasing from there is where you want to be to fully exploit this module. It is a high maintenance setup though, it requires good awareness of the ships in your immediate section of that battle, awareness of current enemy interest in you and greatest of all constant rudder input. There is no value to be gained if you don’t regularly to near constantly shift with the rudder. If used right you can frustrate a surprising number of salvos, but again high player uptime cost. The downsides remain what I have repeated previously, loss of stealth and ability for surprise attacks, and also one that admittedly doesn’t come up much, cap control such as stalling, holding or actually capping. Out of all BBs the Conqueror is one of the few that can risk playing into a cap earlier than most once the battle has progressed and ships have thinned out enough that vision is less consistent and focus fire is harder to achieve. However for me personally the biggest reason for returning to the stealth build is because the unique upgrade sacrifices the ability to make those close in attacks (usually involving AP) and skirt closer to the current engagement. I did not enjoy that I found myself playing further out with the unique upgrade and leaning more and more on HE instead of a more even mix of AP and HE. That was the dealbreaker to me, the loss of what I consider the ability to push the tempo/seize the initiative, the stealth enabled me to close in and deliver punishing and sometimes lethal strikes to the visible frontline of the enemy (sorry, not sorry Cruisers). Then immediately retreat slip into stealth and use the heal to recuperate, I found the Conqueror great at this sort of “pop and drop” play. The upgrade for me threw too much of this away. To sum up and essentially repeat myself. There is value using it in long range evasion play. I’m actually annoyed I didn’t think to record potential damage because I think I was consistently scoring higher amounts with the upgrade but I cannot back that up with data. But if accurate it would be a combination of increased visibility to the enemy and greater rudder response. I didn’t like it because it reinforced long range HE shelling and surrendered too much of what I considered one of the very few ways a Conqueror can actually push the tempo/seize the initiative. I believe that that ultimately the upgrade isn’t junk, and has value, but that value forces you to think very much differently to the current concealment meta. This ultimately means the upgrade is going remain niche and see very limited use.
  7. What would constitute as "damage farming"?

    As stated by another poster BBs can not mount Steering Gears Mod 3. Steering Gears Mod 2 is available to T6 and up. Yes I gave stock numbers for the rudders, but that only makes the T10 look better, being as T10's don't have any hull upgrades to grind that improve rudder shift, while the lower tiers do. So posting the fully upgraded rudder shift times will only make the gap widen and further support that high tier BBs have less responsive rudders and large turning circles. Again, the numbers show that higher tier BBs do not turn sharper. They have more raw speed so in a turn they are moving faster but that's it, again that's where I think you are confounding it, the speed makes them seem more responsive, when they aren't. Every other point you made I don't have any real issue with but it is not accurate (and the numbers show this) to say they turn sharper.
  8. What would constitute as "damage farming"?

    Not the rest only this. Referencing the Warships wiki. Yamato: 900m turning circle, 22.1 sec rudder shift Kongo: 770m, 17.2 Fuso: 740m, 17.1 Montana: 950m, 22.2 New Mexico: 640m, 19.7 Colorado: 640m, 20.8 I could continue listing but the numbers above should be clear. Lower tier BBs have quicker rudders and smaller turning circles. This is a factual known piece of information available in game to. Lower tier BBs have more capacity to respond with sudden turns over higher tier BBs. So no, high tier BBs do not turn sharper than lower tier BBs, do not confuse turning sharply with less raw speed with turning slower/wider but with more raw speed. Secondly, patch 0.5.2 reduced the maneuverability of ships exceeding 35,000 tons. Higher tier BBs have more speed (generally), but do not mistake speed for ability to sharply turn. I believe that is where you may be confounding their perceived sharper response. They simply have more speed, enabling more water to be crossed, creating a bigger area they could move around in vs a lower tier BB, that and it is hard/questionable to actively chase a fleeing BB because of that speed.
  9. Premium Ship Review #111: Jean Bart

    Edit: should be all there now. That is a deflection to my question, not an answer. Aigle: Mehbote = average, not weak, not strong. A previous poster already discussed this, I hardly see anything misleading about the rating based on stats. She isn’t pulling any quirks or stats like Scharnhorst to merit a “gudbote” rating. Baltimore: Mehbote, again average. The data you pull is from ranked, that is cherry picking, you went for a game mode that doesn’t play the same, has distinctly different play and revolves around different priorities that value things differently. Should we value the worth ofships entirely on ranked play? That’s what you are putting forward here. What’s the random battle data on Baltimore? Why did you use ranked over random? It’s odd you would forgo a larger set of data, unless you were ignoring data that doesn’t agree with what you are after. So I don’t see any misleading here, especially since this was pre informed to me as an angry review. DOY: Garbage, accurate in spite of stats. The problem here is you focused on the picture and not the content. The DOY is garbage compared to the KGV, and that’s the key point, as a premium the DOY fails at encouraging money spending, she doesn’t bring anything to encourage an informed would be customer to instead just acquire the KGV for free. She fails as a premium on the basis of saleability, this is emphasised multiple times. Statwise? An inferior copy of a borderline OP boat means you have a ship that is still technically sound but again is overshadowed by a far more accessible superior boat. The only complaint I can find to level here is expanding the subtext of the garbage rating to cover ships like this that are technically competent but have technically superior counterpart that undermines their entire selling value. The complaint here goes both ways. You have placed way too much value in a single picture and a sentence describing a rating in brief, while completely ignoring the entire body of work that describes and explains this rating. On the other side the rating subtext could be expanded to cover exactly this. Kidd: Gudbote, on the fence. Did you read the review or just focus on the picture? I am seeing a pattern, too much focus on the picture and a sentence rather than the body of work. If you are going to judge her work like that you need to be fair and judge YouTubers work the same way, draw conclusions from video titles only, not watching them. Reading the review makes it clear the very data you are using to disprove is actually supporting her position. You focus in on WR and Ranked, I direct you to the sections I quoted above. She states very clearly the qualities of the ship in regards to winning and ranked. However a ship is not valued solely by ranked. Randoms, PVE, scenarios, damage farming. The Kidd doesn’t have the same tools to deal damage as easily, it does have the tools to win though. The problem here is you are picking singular parts while ignoring the whole. The Kidd will have different value to a person who plays ranked vs someone who is invested heavily in PVE. Her review has to encompass these views, you are rejecting half the views in your valuing of her ranking. If you are going to do that read the body of work, when you do you will see she mentions it’s capability in ranked, which you should then take on board. Too much emphasis placed by you on one picture and a sentence. KGV: Mehbote. Arguably ranked wrong. I can give you this one. But let’s be clear, CCs also got this wrong to, some of them only initially. Flamu admitted initially he thought the KGV was bad, but he eventually worked it out. His video is entitled “A very picky ship”, not exactly the most glowing of endorsements. IChase called it the rock bottom point of the line. So she was hardly alone in her estimation based on an off the cuff and partly built in jest review series. Now answer me this, being as this is a series how about the rest of the rankings in that post? Buffalo: holidaybote, technically not “great” but it’s clear that in her opinion it’s an improvement over previous ships. I will give you this one because you can quite easily interpret it as “great”. The issue is “holidaybote” isn’t quantified leaving it open to variable interpretation. Again an angry YouTuber review though, so as advertised it’s weighting is much less prominent. Now how are the rest of the rankings? Alaska: Firstly your information is wrong, 4 changes occurred, not one. 1, turret traverse speed was increased. 2, turret firing angles improved. 3, concealment improves to 11.9km IIRC. 4, fires burn from 30secs to 45secs. So incorrect information, the quantity of changes alone immediately gives this a pass. But let’s continue. The three buffs are all synergistic they all complement eachother creating a situation where each helps magnify the other. In short the quantity and synergistic nature of the buffs alter the ship enough that you can’t compare the two versions. It doesn’t take much to push a ship from balanced to OP. Flamu calls it “very strong”, and “highly recommended”. Not “overpowered”, please give me a timestamp if he did. I also believes he is underselling the buffs because of his level of skill actually glosses over what these weaknesses cover so it isn’t as apparent to him. So to tally up I gave you two ratings she got wrong, telling that they were both “angry YouTuber” ones and not actual in depth thorough ones. Edit: should hopefully be all there now.
  10. Premium Ship Review #111: Jean Bart

    So which ship is OP that has a full in depth review then and only 4 games? It can’t be Jean Bart as more than 4 games have been played by said CC.
  11. Premium Ship Review #111: Jean Bart

    Ok I believe people are mixing up some very important details here. The difference between her singular in depth reviews and her angry YouTuber reviews. Things like the USN CLs and RN BBs were angry YouTuber. Because they were a tongue in cheek line review. You do realise that the points about each ship: 4 games, each JPEG takes 2 hours, etc was in reference to her “angry YouTuber review” series and not the Jean Bart. It may not be completely clear because there is run on to the Jean Bart in the same section. People need to correctly distinguish between the two. One is very clearly labelled as tongue in cheek and brief in data, and is advertised as such. The other is far more comprehensive and does involve more than 4 games, the singular reviews like Jean Bart do involve multiple games. To use the KGV angry YouTuber review as an example of “you are lacking actual games! Play more Mouse!” Is missing the mark by a wide margin. There is a whole order of magnitude of difference between the angry series and the Jean Bart, which is advertised upfront as such. Secondly are people really going to demand the line reviews from “angry youtuber” be the same level of detail and research as something akin to the Jean Bart review? Really? Stop and think about that for a moment. Lowballing it, that is at least 5 ships, how many games is that per ship? At least 10, that’s 50 games. Now go map the dispersion for those 5 ships in the training room. If I remember correctly it’s about 100-150 salvos per ship. Then you need to do the graphical part where you overlay it all and put a dot on each shell splash. Dont forget such details as shell flight time at different ranges, the shell arcs as it’s important to point out how well the ship could use island cover. You may not use them in the review but you do need the info if people ask pertinent questions or if it is specific to an aspect of the ship. Now collect the data for turning time and speed retention in a turn for those 5 ships. Remember to repeat for consistency and to also repeat at 3/4 and 1/2 speed. It has been proven the in port stats don’t accurately reflect reality such as turning circles. Don’t forget to also time from standing still to reaching full speed, pertinent for some ships, for example what’s the difference between zero to full on a French BB with and without speed boost? Graphically map out turret angles, correlate with the actual turrets in game to confirm to. Study the armor scheme, test shooting to uncover any potential quirks that may be obvious. Fill in everything else I missed, then finally type all that up, edit, collate, get checked by other sources, makes necessary edits and changes. Get it checked again. Jean Bart took 30 hours rounding down. 30 x5 = 150 hours, how many hours are in a week again? 168 was it? So let’s go and say two per week, that’s 60 hours. Now then what’s the time cycle between CCs getting the ships and final release? Pretty sure I haven’t seen a single YouTube CC cover every single new RN DD in the same absolute level of detail as this Jean Bart review. So I want to see a full comprehensive review of the RN BB line with each ship having the same comprehensive review as the Jean Bart, I expect each individual to produce two per week. Also start top down, so from T10, then after two weeks you need to pull the T9 and T10 and redo them because they lost radar, significantly altering their toolbox. Then later pull and update the T10 again because of the gun changes and additions. Normally I would keep quiet, but the expectation to produce a timely review of an upcoming line of ships at the level of the Jean Bart review is unrealistic. Especially when YouTubers don’t produce the same detail of work, they produce nice digestible videos but they lack in very significant areas of detail. I don’t see any YouTubers doing dispersion maps for example.
  12. When Use Conqueror AP?

    Mechanically impossible, HE shells detonate on impact with the first thing they strike. The only way to HE citadel is if the ship has a citadel armor that is also the outer armor, RN CLs being an example. Being as the Conqueror doesn't have any part of the citadel in such a location it is impossible for her to be citadel struck by HE, the game mechanics simply do not allow it. More likely is an AP shell struck you from another source at the same time HE shells struck you, or because of all the 32mm plating the sheer HE damage felt/looked like a citadel. Your other points about the Conq's weaknesses are accurate except for the AP, too many people under-estimate the AP.
  13. Azur Lane discussion thread!

    Warspite in the medal exchange on Sandy server for anyone after her. Also Unicorn for 30 if you are after her for healing hijinks. I believe (but could be wrong) that Shouhou and/or Unicorn are good for low Oil farming fleets.
  14. Azur Lane discussion thread!

    The Ema grind just got a whole lot less grindy for me.
  15. Azur Lane discussion thread!

    Well you know it could've been an all pledged Bulin vanguard fleet backed up only by repair ships........
×