Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

42 Neutral

About Gum_wars

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

354 profile views
  1. Gum_wars

    Done and done.

    Let me clear something up. I had three very bad matches today, with one exemplifying a mechanic that, in my opinion, is not correctly implemented. I am not a great player and I have never claimed that to be. I make mistakes, and often too, but I fail to understand how supporting your team in either attempting to cap or defend a flank makes me a poor player, or in one person's opinion a bad mark on all BB players (really??). In the match with the DD, our push fell apart quickly, far faster than I anticipated. Did I make a mistake in extending with what I believed was adequate firepower to hold an equal number of ships away? Yes. As a matter of fact I did. I could have played further back or started turning away the moment we started taking fire. I probably should have positioned myself to have more options but I believed we would win the day, so I didn't. In the scenario I ended up in a situation that I'm not often in; the dreaded head to head with the counter to a BB. During that exchange I got yet another dose of the smoke-spotting meta that I have serious issues with. The DD does not have direct line of sight while in smoke. They are dependent on teammates to spot for them yet they see me as they would if there was no obstruction. That mechanic should be worked on. To all, I absolutely accept responsibility for mistakes I make in game (and in life) but after a bad run today, stacked on top of the chaos of the last two weeks, has given me pause regarding what this game is about, what it means to me, and if the satisfaction I receive playing it is at least equal to the time and money I allocate to it. Right now, given that there are alternatives to this game and how utterly toxic some members of this community are, I think it is overdue to take a break for a while. And further, in response to the last reply, no I don't think BBs should be untouchable. They have weaknesses and should have them in order for balance play. I've argued this with the CV players that felt the first hot fix was too much; the game isn't fun when only one ship type is fun to play. So, for the record, no I don't want BBs to be impervious. I do think that the spotting mechanic needs improvement.
  2. Gum_wars

    Done and done.

    The problem is that I wasn't set up for a retreat. Had I been, I wouldn't be here. Yes, in two other games I found myself in similar situations where I was pushing a flank with support and watched as the wonder of random MM giving me potatoes, and ending up in wildly lopsided engagements. In all three matches I was extended, with support, and managed to stay in the game longer than the players around me. I'm not an expert but I am not a horrible player either. I consider myself middle of the road. The other ships appear to have been firing on other targets, I can only assume they figured the DD had me handled. I don't think it's an incorrect statement to say that even moving a BB on the battlefield requires planning. Planning that if something goes sideways you may not have much to work with.
  3. Gum_wars

    Done and done.

    I was in a cluster of three ships, two BBs and a cruiser. On the other side they had one of each, a BB, DD, and CA. I don't recall what the CA was but the BB was a Montana. The engagement started off good and I was trying to support our CA with direct fire on their Montana, drawing attention to myself. The cruiser either made a mistake or got caught flat-footed and ate a pack of torpedoes from the Harugumo. Almost simultaneously, the Montana devstruck the other BB, leaving me in a three on one encounter with the DD rounding the island that blocked line of sight for the enemy BB and CA. The DD came around and I open with my front turret and score 3 hits for mediocre damage. The DD drops torps and pops smoke. I figured he'd try the torpedo attack and had already started backing up once my teammates got sunk. The torps miss, I'm now spotted by their CA, and here comes the rain. The DD pounded me for close to a minute drains half my health, mostly from fire damage, I have three fires blazing. I call the DD out for being a coward. He accepts the challenge and calls me out for backing up. At this point my game is done. The CA and BB are in a position to fire on me so I go full throttle towards the DD, all while he continued to rain fire on me. I use a repair and heal, while waiting for a shot to line up. I get a shot and fire again with the front turrets. A split second after firing a burn to death with 5 out of the six rounds connecting sinking the DD. My secondaries did nothing, like two or three hits. I've built this ship with close quarters in mind and have had devastating success in other battles. I've had less success using HE against a DD than AP. I don't see any significant increase in damage, honestly. I've connected with the same number of rounds using both and it doesn't matter. You've confirmed my suspicions regarding the AP nerf; one on one with a BB is your ideal engagement when historically, the secondary battery would rip a DD to shreds. Why should a DD be concerned when the have a 30 second window to do whatever between salvos and the most a BB can do is a few thousand per whack, if they can hit the squirrly bastard. No, this is a deal breaker. I can't pay someone for the pleasure of being this frustrated. It'd be one thing if there was skill involved but the smoke flamethrower tactic is just ridiculous. CVs and DD have play mechanics that push balance out of kilter and make it very frustrating for other ship types. A long devshot with BB takes skill, a flamethrower hidden in smoke is basically get in range, pop smoke, and rack up damage. No thank you WG.
  4. Gum_wars

    Done and done.

    Yeah, I expected that. It is a rant, after all.
  5. Gum_wars

    Done and done.

    This is more a rant then anything else. I just spent my morning getting burned down, repeatedly, in my Iowa. It wasn't fun. It was quite the opposite of fun. I've been playing this game for more than 3 years, which I know, isn't tremendous compared to a lot of the other players here. However, to me, it represents a significant expenditure of my time. I did the FTP grind from tier 1 to tier 8 in US BBs. Once I researched tier 8, I went premium and I did that for two reasons; the first was to cut down on the grind. The second, and I discovered this with my Cleveland, you need to be moderately successful in order to actually break even at tier 8. I could lose all day at tier 1 through 6 and still make a small profit. At tier 8 and above, if you don't win, or aren't premium, you lose coin. That dynamic alone is problematic. So, today I squared off, one on one, with a Harugamo. It had launched all of its torpedos and popped smoke. I evaded the torp attack and then spent the next two minutes getting set on fire. I called the DD captain out for what has always been a ridiculous dynamic to me and he, to my surprise, left the smoke and engaged me directly. There were two other ships on the enemy team closing in, but at this point all I could, or wanted, to do was get this DD. He took me from full health to death with his main armament. No torpedos and only a little help from his friends so this interaction is representative of basically a DD v. BB, gun to gun. Reload times were a factor but what decided things was the fire damage. From what I can gather, historically this sort of exchange never happened. I know WG can't rigidly adhere to history; the game would be pretty slow if that were the case. But I'm not happy at all with this meta. I did sink the DD right before I burned up, but I'm having a hard time accepting this. When I played FTP, I could and would accept any crap that happened in game; I'm not paying for it so the devs can do what they like. As a paying customer, I feel differently. I'm not saying "WG make my ships indestructible because I pay to play." What I'm saying is that I'm paying to be frustrated. I'm paying to get upset, and I'm paying so WG can continue to make changes to the game, without input from the people that keep the lights on. When WG changed the meta with AP v. DDs, I complained and knew this was going to change how DDs engage BBs. A full broadside from the Iowa, with AP and all nine connect would almost sink a tier 5 DD with full health if all rounds did maximum damage under the AP rework. That means as a BB, I cannot engage a full health DD in close quarters and hope to survive. If the don't devstrike with a torpedo attack, I can blast at them all day with my mains and they will hit me dozens of times with theirs between each reload. Secondaries don't do anything. I've got all the captains' skills and modules to buff my secondaries. The only thing I can hope for is to stay outside of the engagement range of a DD, which conversely makes it almost impossible to hit with BB mains, or pray that I get a lucky hit if they get too close. Because DDs don't need to worry about a full broadside killing them, they often press harder against single BBs, and usually come out on top. I don't find this mechanic fair, in keeping with historical accuracy, or even a good component skill wise. A DD needs to get close, pop smoke, and if any other ship is within 12 to 15 km of the BB and keeps them spotted, the BB captain is going to burn down. I don't see what skill is required to sit in a cloud of smoke and pummel another player with molotov cocktails. In short, I'm done for now. I'm uninstalling this game and finding something that actually is fun to play. Right now, WoWS is not fun, to me anyway. [/rant]
  6. Here's why what you're saying is just flat-out wrong. Here's a fictional but plausible scenario; you have an engagement with four surface ships with the lineup being 3 on 1. On team A, the numerically superior force, you've got a Republique, Minotaur, and Zao going against an Iowa. All four players are relatively equal in terms of skill, and the engagement happens at the start of the match with all ships at full health. How do you think this is going to turn out for the Iowa? If you say anything other than the Iowa getting splattered and maybe one of those three opposing ships taking damage, then you'd need to carefully explain why that would be the case. If a three on one is no good for a very capable surface ship, then why should it be any different for a CV? There you go again with hyperbole. I've never seen a CV attack go sideways against even two strong AA surface ships with all aircraft getting wiped before an attack goes off. Again, what you're saying doesn't line up with reality. I know I've personally experienced different, post hotfix, and you'd find the same asking other players as well. Yes, you did, and you're saying the same thing again right now. CVs had the clear advantage at any tier pre-hotfix. From tier 6 to 10, CVs had free reign to attack without consequence and could do so for the entire match. Case in point, I recall a battle I had on a two CV per side conflict. I was in a New Mexico and made it to the endgame with myself and a DD remaining against a lone IJN CV. Post hotfix, the enemy CV would have likely be running with depleted squadrons. Pre-hotfix and he had full strength attack capability because at tier 6, there aren't any vessels that have a significant AA presence, which is odd because before the rework, my NM did a fairly decent job. With less than 5 on the clock, this CV basically torped the ever living hell out of me, with me racking up close to 15K in aircraft damage, but not a single plane shot down. So, no, I'm afraid you are flat out wrong that the Hakuryu was the only problem. I don't know what tier you play up to, but it only got worse in the higher tier matches. It may be the case that you hadn't mastered all the exploits, but the F key was a defect that worked for all CVs, not just one. I don't know what to say here; its clear your play style seems to demand the ability to hammer people from the start. I'm starting to suspect your individual play style is the problem here, not the meta. I've watched dozens of matches post hotfix where the CV is a contributing member to the action, just not in the unlimited capacity they were right after the rework. I'm still seeing CVs win matches, using teamwork rather than lone wolf crap, and place high on the board too. The difference now is that CVs aren't always in the number 1 & 2 spot, like they were before the hotfix. Absolute [edited]. All you've done here is whine about not being able to rule the battlefield. As stated before, and you've yet responded with a valid answer, is that CV players should be punished for bad decisions just like every other ship class. You go on and on about how unfair it is that you can't get one attack off when engaging multiple ships without ever thinking that maybe, just maybe the reason you are having a hard time is that you haven't adjusted to the rework. It should be very evident to you that the reason these tactics fail now is because that was exactly the aim of the devs. Those tactics, if you can call them that, broke the game for everyone other than one class of ship. Let's say for the sake of this argument I agree with you (and to be clear, I don't) and say the hotfix has broken play for CVs; I'd much rather have the game broken for one ship class over the game being broken for all but one. I don't mind, at all, going up against CVs in random. They create a dynamic environment that requires attention to respond to. As a BB main, having to watch my angles against enemy fire while simultaneously needing to manage sectors and what side I'm facing to an incoming squadron makes the game very challenging in a good way. Before, it didn't matter what sector was reinforced, the only tool at my disposal was trying to dodge, which was only moderately successful against bombs and rockets. Torpedos were ridiculous pre-hotfix.
  7. Overextended for a CV is obviously not the same for a BB, CA, or DD. Your also deliberately taking my points out of context to suit your argument. The balance struck in the game is that no strategy is unanswerable. Clustered ships AA too powerful? A CV needs its team to be effective in breaking them up. 7k range torpedoes on a DD that can't be detected at 7k is long enough to get the job done. I've been on the receiving end of torpedo attacks where I never even see the ship that fired them. My point is that CVs at the start of the rework were, collectively, too powerful. Not one or two, all of them. At lower tiers surface ships don't have adequate AA to be effective even in groups. At higher tiers CVs became unstoppable due to a broken AA mechanic and absolutely horrendous functional oversights in play mechanics that gave CVs unlimited ability to attack without ever being answered. You understand this, right? Your persistent claim that the hot fix has crippled CV play does not align with play statistics or what I've personally experienced. Carriers are still relevant and dangerous if played intelligently. The bottem line is that this is a team game and no single vessel class should be able to dominate the others without challenge. That's what the rework started with and how games played out reflected that. Two CVs per side resulted in seeing which players knew how to effectively work the exploits first, and ever other player on both sides became targets for the CVs. If you were lucky, you ended up on the side whose CVs worked the exploits better and it was a steamroll. I can't tell you how many matches ended in under ten minutes with one side only losing two or three ships. I actually had CV players apologizing for how bad it was. Under tier 6 and they could attack you relentlessly with no way to fight back. Occasionally you'd catch one in range of a long shot but that was the exception. I stand firmly on the ground that CV play was broken after the rework and is far better balanced now than before. For you to defend that mechanic speaks volumes about what kind of player you are. If you want to just win win win regardless of how other people aren't enjoying the game then go to coop or find a single player game. The rework was broken and the hot fix is a step towards getting things back in line. Other patches will follow that move the needle closer to center. Right now, and I've stated this before, AA is too powerful, it does need to be tweaked. At the same time, bad tactics should never be rewarded. If a flotilla of five USN AA monsters are rolling together, a CV player should be looking for softer targets. To even suggest that you should be able to fire off one attack is absurd, let alone three. Your points about clustering shutting down CV play for entire matches is pure hyperbole too. The match constantly transforms as the clock winds down. Fewer ships can't cluster. Before the hot fix you did have clusters to the end because even being in groups of three ended badly due to the lack of balance issues. Again, if you've been playing a good match and lasted long enough to make it to the end game, your reward will be ships on their own. Anyway, your responses clearly point to where you on this issue; the rework was fine and you were okay with anyone not playing a CV being miserable. The hot fix sucks because you can't dominate the way you did before and rather than trying to figure out how to play under the new rules, its easier to say WG is unfair and the new meta is broken. Frankly, you're in a minority, game play that I've witnessed says CV players can still be determinate as players, and you'll likely be disappointed going forward. I don't imagine any tweaks to restore CVs to that one week of lopsided play. Balance means that the difference between winning and losing is the due to the skill of the players. The ships are woven into a web of checks where ships are outdone by one class but are equals or better to others. CV players enjoy unequaled speed and an ability to spot that is still super powerful. I had two BBs and one DD set up as stealth builds and with the nerf to CE, I spend most of the game spotted. Now, because of that change I've gone back and respecced several ships, I didn't complain that it was unfair. I don't want CV play to be kept in a box, I want it to be fair. I'm not convinced that superior AA should be irrelevant to a poorly decided attack. I definitely don't agree that CV play is botched. The hot fix has improved the game, period.
  8. Well, you could argue that if any surface vessel attempted to engage a group of other surface vessels solo, they would become permanently useless, a.k.a, sent to the bottom. The ships that they attacked would be relatively unharmed save for any chip damage received or lucky shots the solo warrior got in before getting nuked. Teaming up is the whole point; you band together and attack using coordinated, deliberate tactics and strategy. Don't be upset that random doesn't really give big incentives for teammates to be helpful or supportive. To your point about CVs being unable to attack without being deplaned is hyperbole, and you know it. I've been in plenty of matches post hotfix and if the other team is working together, with a CV captain that isn't blindly throwing their planes at AA monsters, they do quite well. No, CVs should have the opportunity to attack three times, that should not be a guarantee. It really makes no sense that a poor decision by a bad CV captain should be rewarded with being able to successfully attack three times per squadron. The theme that seems to be repeating itself here is that you may be having difficulty adapting to the new meta, not that the new meta is critically flawed. Dude, really? Think about what you just said. What happens if ships cluster together? They become rich targets for long-range attacks, especially DDs with 7km+ torpedoes. It's a case of rock-paper-scissors, you spot, maybe sacrifice a squadron to force a cluster, then your TEAMMATES drive attacks that leverage the decision for them to cluster. Again, CVs can still be successful, but they can't do that ridiculous solo warrior crapthat we saw with the Hakuryu. My Iowa can't single-handedly win a match while farming 300K+ in damage, unless I'm having a ridiculously good game; the point is that performances like that are an outlier. You understand that before the hotfix, if you had a CV, this was normal. At no time are ships that cluster "permanently invulnerable". Any other surface ship can engage them. Again, one ship should not be the constant supreme commander and winner of every match. Your point about reality is a bit warped too. The Midway had 100 onboard during WWII but she was top tier. Most others had 40 to 70 at most. To be realistic, it would be neat consumable that would let you launch everything in a big hail mary. It would also be comical to see a CV get deplaned in the first 5 minutes of a match too. WG could put something like this in and the strategy people would adopt would be to build out full spec AA ships, cluster a convoy, and watch the sky light up. Your problem is that the clearly broken mechanic that 0.8 brought to the table made being a CV player, even a bad one, easy to rack up coin with and now its gone. You don't think its fair that historically powerful AA ships decimate poor decisions made when CVs attack ships grouped together. Rather than explore what this means concerning your options and strategies, you blame the meta. C'mon now man, was it fair the way it was before the hotfix? Is it fair now? No, I'll agree that the pendulum swung to far over in favor of surface vessels and now WG has more tweaks to do. Are CVs completely neutered? No, not even remotely. I've still be sunk by carriers after the hotfix, and appreciated the methods used to make that happen. Bottom line is poor decisions should be rewarded with epic failure. You shouldn't be guaranteed any attack if you do something dumb an end up overextended. When I finally got my first fast BB, that was a mistake that I made constantly for the first 10 to 15 games I had. I'd overextend not paying attention to how fast this big ship got out ahead of the pack and was nuked constantly for doing it. I didn't complain that it wasn't fair I couldn't hit much when getting pummelled, I adjusted my play to avoid making that mistake and now I'm rewarded for making better tactical decisions.
  9. Why would that be unfair? Describe another engagement where a single attacker tries to go after multiple surface vessels and doesn't get pounded. Occasionally, a good DD skipper can successfully nail multiple ships but that's the exception, not the rule. Why should CVs be the only class of ship that enjoys being able to attack a superior force, land a blow that is either chip damage or greater, and not face a serious penalty for doing so? CVs should be discouraged from attempting attacks on vessels with good or better AA support. That's where teamwork comes into play with either baiting ships into one on one situations or destroying AA support so CVs can engage with more direct and lower risk attacks.
  10. I think WG, and the community are missing the bigger picture regarding CV play in a WWII setting. Realism, to some degree, should be considered. If a squadron is attacking a group of moderate to high powered AA, or attacking a single very high powered AA vessel, when the CV captain hits the F key, there should be a scattering of the squadron as the pilots go evasive to escape the DPS bubble and flak. Just as DDs have a considerable cool down following a torpedo attack, as do BBs relative to their potential attack power, the F key should, trigger a restrictive cool down while the squadron evades, regroups, and returns to the carrier. The cool down period should be roughly the same per tier, but higher tier carriers have access to better aircraft, and possibly more skilled pilots, that reduce the damage taken as the squadron retreats. This could open up a new mechanic where CV captains have secondary personnel, squadron captains and lieutenants with abilities of their own.
  11. Gum_wars

    Over Penetration??? wth IS THAT???

    I meant friendly enemy? A friend of an enemy? An enemy friendly? You get what I'm saying...
  12. Gum_wars

    Over Penetration??? wth IS THAT???

    I really didn't know that! It always seems like they have a bead on me, even if we're one-on-one. I can't tell you how many times I've been burned down due to what appeared to be a DD, using smoke as cover, and absolutely roasting me. I'll pay closer attention to see if there's a friendly nearby giving up my location.
  13. Gum_wars

    Over Penetration??? wth IS THAT???

    Check out the story of Taffy-3. A USN dd took a direct hit from the Yamato. 18 inch hole, damage yes, detonation no, ship continued to harass the IJN for quite some time before being sent to the bottom. I'm a BB main and freaking hate the dd meta. Smoke should work both ways, if I can't see you, you shouldn't be able to see me either. In reality, it takes a flipping crane and relatively calm seas to reload a deck torpedo launcher, and a dd sure as hell isn't running around with 60+ of the damn things on deck. So, WG did get the AP overpen thing right but ignored all the other "realistic" aspects of running a torpedo boat under fire. And don't get me started about HE rounds directly hitting a dd bridge and how utterly incapacitated that ship would be while the remaining crew tries to pull it together...