• Content count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3352

Community Reputation

16 Neutral

About EAnybody

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile EAnybody

Recent Profile Visitors

73 profile views
  1. Not about detonations. Detonations are still rare, and have nothing to do with citadels/pens/overpens. The detonation mechanics are completely different. This is about the ability of BBs to regularly erase 40%+ of a CA's health for what should be rather trivial hits, and their ability to score these trivial hits with minimal difficulty every other salvo or more often that gets thrown a CA's way.
  2. Situational awareness doesn't help very much, because you have to expose yourself to fire in most cases. Particularly when you get to the upper maps, there's many with large expanses of open water and no cover, so if you want to contribute to anything, you're gonna expose yourself to return BB fire (as you'll almost always be within range of some enemy BB on most maps). My point is that as soon as you expose yourself to return BB fire, the rate of large-scale damage that BBs regularly do to CAs is completely out of balance. And by "expose" I mean that you are detected. That's exposure. Cruisers are increasingly being extremely passive, hiding behind islands and in smoke, and never venturing out, because of the incredibly high risk of taking that crippling damage no matter where you are. This results in overall play that is boring and frustrating for everyone, as CAs seldom can do their assigned roles anymore. I've got almost 1000 battles in T6+ cruisers (500 in T8+), and roughly that in T6-9 DDs. The experience I put up isn't just my own, it's what I see and hear from other players in cruisers, who are increasingly unhappy with the regular massive damage that they take from random salvos that get thrown their way. This isn't about the damage you can do in a CA. This is about the way that BBs overdominate CAs even with people who know what they're doing, and with little effort on the BB's part. I'm not expecting CAs to come out ahead regularly on 1 v 1 with a BB. But too often, half the cruisers die in the first 5 minutes, and the rest simply hunker down and contribute very little the rest of the game. And this describes the general game play, not just where unicum players do well in particular ships. I may personally improve, but the overall gameplay isn't improving, and it's greatly due to the overly harsh damage treatment of CAs by BBs. In short, when a potato BB player has a well above average chance of wrecking a unicum CA player with little risk to themselves, that's a problem. And that's the state of things today. Heck, just venture over to Youtube and watch any of the more popular WoWS players there. They take these huge hits all the time in cruisers, and it definitely affects their playstyle when they do. If the elite regularly get mauled, what's the poor average CA player experiencing?
  3. Of course, MFCAA use means you have to micromanage to get any real benefit from it. No micro, no benefit. And while you're micro-ing the AA, you're not paying attention to where the ship is going, and likely not using the main guns well, if at all. Also, switching targets is most difficult than it sounds, as often you'll have to pan around quite a bit to get the cursor on the incoming planes. MFCSG is actually easier to use, since you're using it against ships, which are far slower, already in the place your main gun probably are pointing, and you don't have to change targets very often. MFCAA is really best when you're doing the fleet escort roll, and don't have to contend with surface ships at all. I'd estimate that is true maybe half the time that you'll be attacked by planes. Overall, even for the nice AA ships, I'd recommend BFT/AFT as a most versatile combination; it significantly improves your AA, but also your secondaries, and you can auto-select for increased damage if you can spare the cycles, otherwise just leave it be. Sure, it's not devastating, but it's still really tough. The AFT/BFT combo increases AA damage an incoming plane strike takes by almost 70%, and that is applied to every plane in range. MFCAA results in +100% only to the planes I click on. Sure, adding AFT/BFT to MFCAA gives you a huge bump to +240%, but that uses 11 captain points for the whole thing, whereas AFT/BFT is just 7. Realistically, I find that AFT/BFT + the AA Guns Mod 2 is less expensive and far more flexible than anything using MFCAA, if you're going for the AA ship.
  4. Because early capping determines the entire rest of the game tempo and strategy - if you don't cap, you're behind the 8-ball immediately, and have to compensate by being significantly more aggressive (and thus, take more losses, which compounds the problem). I'm not talking rushing into the cap with a CA. I'm talking about what normally happens: the DDs run in, and the CAs follow a ways behind typically staying several km outside the cap, watching where the islands are, etc. It doesn't help, because most BBs can still lob in shells to hit the opposing CAs, often before the CAs can react. Particularly at upper levels, the caps are far enough away that BBs get up to steam just fine, so you have the BBs no more than 3km behind the CAs, at most. And, of course, it's not just at the beginning. The problem is endemic to the game, where CAs are prone to taking crippling damage (or insta-deletion) from virtually all sides and any distances. Situational awareness doesn't help. Nor does hiding behind islands. The instant you get detected, you're in even more danger of deletion than a DD, because you can't dodge as well, and take FAR larger amounts of damage than DDs do from the same guns.
  5. No, I'm not. In Real Life, BBs guns had a hit rate somewhere around 2% (slightly less at Jutland, slightly more at Surigao straight using radar directors). In WoWS, it's almost 20%. Seriously. Look it up. WoWS BBs typically land at least 1 shell out of every full salvo against BBs and CAs, out to almost 20km. At ranges under 10km, they're scoring 4+ per salvo. That's easily a factor of 10x better than reality. Sure, potatoes do much worse, but by the time you're a T6 BB player, you've got the hang of things, and most BB players can score 3 or 4 hits on a broadside DD at 8-10km. In Real Life, they'd never be able to score ANY hits on a DD. The only BB hits on DDs in Real Life have been due to area saturation fire, not aimed fire. Something similar goes for Cruisers - BBs did pretty terrible against cruisers at anything other than the optimal 8-10km range.
  6. Under no circumstances should the Alaska be put into the cruiser line. Well, one circumstance: they nerf the living crap out of everything she has. Even at T10, putting in Alaska as a reasonable fascimile of what she is would make the OP Zao and Moskova look like paper. That is, you'd have MM putting in a ship that would dominate every other compatriot, with no weaknesses. That's the definition of unbalanced and unfair. As the other folks have stated, unless there's a separate battlecruiser line that gets it's own MatchMaker balancing, Alaska belongs at the T7 BB line, as she's very comparable to Scharnhorst - better speed, better guns (accuracy and ROF), much better AA and Secondaries, (possibly) Radar, but slightly less armor. She doesn't belong down as a T6 BB unless you'd nerf her signficantly all around (and why do that, it would ruin her fun). She's NOT a contemporary of Dunkerque, which had significantly less powerful main armament (despite being 13 instead of 12 inch guns, they were much slower ROF, significantly poorer range and accuracy, and much lower penetration with substandard shells), a third of the secondary armament, maybe 10% of the AA armament, was several knots slower, less well armored, and with much worse torpedo protection. This is obvious when you consider the Alaskas were 10% larger displacement, and designed almost a full decade later than the Dunkerques.
  7. This is specific to T6 and above cruisers. The current rate of citadels (and even pens) on cruisers hit with BB shells has to be toned down. It's seriously ruining gameplay, and is really, really, really causing a lot of complaints in my games. This is happening across all upper tiers, all ship lines, with very, very few exceptions. Here's what I see (both happening to me, and all the time to others): Early game push for caps, with DDs desperate to get some support, so Cruisers push up behind them a ways. Cruisers try to angle or see some cover, recognizing their vulnerability. BBs, lagging far behind both DDs and CAs, are often not in the range of either yet, but start lobbing shells at stuff their DDs have spotted in the contested cap. Due to the incredibly accurate BB guns (don't laugh, they actually are FAR better than IRL), each salvo tends to hit at least one shell on a cruiser, even with the cruisers doing everything right. Often, it's because the maps offer no cover, or there's 3 BBs shooting at 1 CA simultaneously. For moronic reasons, virtually every shell that hits does at minimum Penetration damage, or, more often, a Citadel. Cruisers, now down below 50% health, retreat, leaving the DDs to sufffer being spammed by the BB's secondaries or just a hail of HE from BBs. DDs die because of the broken detection mechanics and the incredible accuracy of BB guns. Cruisers spend the rest of the game hiding behind islands or way out on the edges, contributing little to play anymore. I've done this to CA in my BBs, watch my support CAs vaporize or vanish in a DD, and get crippled in a CA when I'm driving. It's all due to the ridiculous damage that BBs shells do to CAs. Some of that is the insanely large citadels on CAs, allowing a full-damage (usually 10k+) hit virtually anywhere. In many other cases, it's the Pen vs Overpen determination that almost always comes down in favor of Pen, despite hitting places on the cruiser it should do virtually no damage. Extreme bow and stern shots are particularly egregious examples, where I've had (and seen) an Iowa volley strip 25k or so from a cruiser simply by nicking the end 5% of the ship with 2 shells. It's particularly bad when you see BBs Pen light cruisers; that should almost never happen - either it should citadel, or it overpen, NEVER pen. Similarly, when shooting HE, BBs should NEVER citadel, and either pen or overpen or bounce (but not shatter). And, of course, the ability of a BB to citadel a cruiser from any angle, any distance, on any shot. As pointed out in another thread, this is insanely demoralizing for cruisers - they spend 2 minutes, kiting or properly hiding to try to do some damage to a BB, hitting it 30 or 40 times, and do maybe 20k in damage. This all gets erased immediately when ONE single shot lands virtually anywhere on the cruiser, and, Magic! 40% of your health disappears. It's not a matter of IF, it's a matter of WHEN, no matter the quality of the player. BBs simply are given too accurate guns, even at extreme ranges. This is absolutely killing Cruiser play - cruisers are becoming extremely passive and completely unwilling to expose themselves at all. And who can blame them - they're basically DDs, with no effective armor to defend against anything except DD shells. I understand why, in an arcade game, there's more accurate guns than IRL. Makes for more fun play. But that doesn't excuse the ludicrously common rate of extremely heavy damage that BBs can met out to cruisers doing everything right. I'm not talking CAs that expose their broadside. I'm talking CAs that get hit by shells magically lobbed over islands and land mid-superstructure (even when they're 200m behind the island, practically hugging it). CAs that are facing stern-on or bow-on to BBs that are 15km+ away. CAs that are angled at 70 degrees or more, just barely enough to get a front turret possibly in play, and get hit behind the rear turrets. Or a CA that just pokes its bow out from behind an island, and gets 4 shells directly into the bow side (well ahead of the front turret) at 10km. Each and every one of those cases I seen 20k+ damage per salvo most cases, which to me says "Citadel!" (unless we're willing to allow for 4+ hits in a salvo, often at very long ranges). It's literally ruining the game.
  8. There's simply no excuse for not fixing the reasons for the very low hit rate for IJN torpedoes. Currently, it's hovering around 8%. But if you look at T8 and above, it's hovering around 6%. That's completely unbalanced, for a ship that really can't do anything else at all. Let's put it in perspective. BB shells have about 90% of the damage potential of a torpedo. About the same number can be shot at the same time. BBs can shoot 2.5 times as fast as an IJN DD can throw out torps, and have twice the range. Typical flight times for a BB shells are between 3 and 10 seconds. Pretty much all IJN torpedoes have a MINIMUM reaction time of 10 seconds, and if they're spotted earlier, 30+ seconds. And for all the [edited] up BB shell dispersions, it's nothing like torpedo dispersions, when even the "tight" pattern leaves you with 200m+ between torps at 10km. Consequently, BBs average hit rate is at least 1 out of 10 shots at targets 15km+ away against even small stuff like DDs, and 5+ at medium-sized CAs under 10km, and overall roughly a 20% hit rate at all ranges. I don't have the numbers (because they're not available), but I'd be flabberghasted if torpedo hit rates against DDs were more than 1%, and against anything that's moving about the same. The vast majority of torpedo hits are against stationary or very slow moving (< 5knots) - ones in smoke, or who accidentally grounded. Even there, it's VERY rare to get more than 2 torp hits on a target, which, unless you are a DD, is quite survivable by any other ship. Consequently, few games for IJN DD players have more than 5 torpedo hits, and it's rare to hit more than 3 ships at all. Contrast this to BBs, which have 50+ hit games all the time, CAs, which have 100+ hits on a regular basis, and gunboat DDs, which frequently do 200 hits. IJN DDs depend on their torpedos to have pretty much any game impact. They can't cap in the face of ANY opposition, they can't spot (for the same reasons), they can't run, they can't hide (with the coming smoke nerf and the soon-to-be radar and/or sonar on every single ship with ridiculous range and duration), their stealth is mostly irrelevant, they certainly can't shoot, if someone parks a plane over them they can't get rid of it, they can't ambush well because of their slow speed/slow torpedoes, and they have the lowest health of all DDs. In order to fix DDs as a whole, the entire detection scheme has to be fixed, because it's broken in so many different ways, and no other type depends on proper detection mechanics for its very survival like DDs do. Radar and sonar need to only show a ship on the minimap, not in the main viewer. Planes on the other sides of islands should NOT be able to spot a ship if they (the plane) can't be seen. Minimum sight distance shouldn't exist. Glass islands where you see through them with radar or sonar shouldn't exist. The current "fix" for invisi-fire is idiotic. Redraw rates on the main screen for newly detected ships lags for no reason other than bad coding. And yes, spotting distance for IJN torpedoes is perhaps the stupidest thing in the entire game filled with broken mechanics and stupid values. A band aid on the immediate problem would be to reduce the spotting distance of IJN torpedoes to something like 1km, from their 1.5-1.7 they are now. A 40% reduction in detection time would go a long way to remedying the situation where even the largest tub of bricks doesn't have too much problem dodging a well-aimed spread that should realistically pole-ax it. The other band-aid would be to completely do away with the Torpedo Reload Booster (which is just a dumb patch for a problem not otherwise being addressed), and drop the general torpedo reload time for T7+ IJN DDs by 25% or so. Even high-tier IJN DDs should be able to put a spread in the water slighly less than once per minute. The thing that would help aleviate the "Torp Wall" problem is to nix the Quad and Quint launchers, and stick with Triples. This goes for the other DDs too. There's a reason most DDs players find 3x3 to be far superior to 2x4, and it's not the loss of that 1 extra torp. Make torpedoes actually usable, and the need to throw large numbers something hoping for some occassional hit becomes far, far less.
  9. I play on a box that would make most people cry. It's a surplus high-end server from 2013; 48 cores, 1TB of RAM, and a high end SLC SSD array. $150k brand new. Got it from an old employer who went bankrupt. I sit on a 1GB fibre connection that has 5ms latency to much of the world. Though WG's servers kinda suck compared to others. That said, the reality for WoWS and many similar games is that Win7, any mid-range CPU from 2012 onward, 8GB of RAM, and a 600-series GTX nvidia card are about as beefy as you need to play at any sane resolution (at least 2500x1600), and anything more is simply guilding the lily and has no effect on gameplay.
  10. "[A Dunkerque] can't ignore Cruisers and Destroyers for a period of time..." Plural. Most other BBs can tank and sit around for a couple of minutes taking fire from multiple DDs and/or CAs. Dunkerque cannot do that. If it's under fire from 2 or more DDs and/or CAs, then it must retreat or get help, because it will melt before it can kill it's attackers.
  11. Well, how is that any different than any other BB? As a DD or CA, you simply never do a 1:1 on ANY BB. The game is too slanted against you to do that.
  12. Well, they were originally a Destroyer Leader idea, but were never intended to fight ships larger than themselves. They weren't even really intended to fight Light Cruisers with their guns, let alone anything bigger. Fighting as the commander/coordinator for a Destroyer Division (the US name for a DD Flotilla) was their imagined role, with them sitting in the BACK of the division while its DDs rushed into to torp. That all said, I do think the Atlanta shouldn't be in T9 matches; that's asking a bit too much of their really short-range guns, and many T9 maps have VAST open spaces. If there were any change, I'm make it thus: Demote it to T6. It keeps all the ship upgrades available at T7 that way. Remove the Radar. It's already a bit OP for most matches. Change the MM code so that it only ever plays in matches with T6-T8. Never sees anything below a T6. Otherwise, it's fine. It's a rough contemporary of the Cleveland anyway, and belongs there, not with the Pensacola.
  13. Unfortunately, at T7+, cruisers are prone to LOL Citadels from BBs. That is, every single BB you run into can citadel you from any angle, any distance, no matter how you try to angle or wiggle. And the ratios of Overpens (or the occasional Christmas Present of a bounce) to pens is extremely low. Even with crappy dispersion, if you're being shot at by a BB, a typical salvo (of which only 1 or 2 will be hits) costs you close to 10k of your health once you reach upper tiers. You don't last long that way, which is why playing a cruiser has become all about the special abilities. Basically, you spend the entire match hiding (either behind some island, or undetected, or in smoke) until you get to use your special abilities (and I count "firestarted" as a special ability). You don't go out hunting, because that's exposing yourself, and that's a death sentence. At least in my DDs, I can usually stealth up fast if I get spotted. CAs, not so much. And fire from 4 other ships will kill you in under 1 minute, even if you're not taking BB AP fire. It boils back down to BBs being overpowered. Severely. If cruisers didn't have to constantly worry about being insta-deleted from halfway across the map at any second, you'd see a lot "better" play, or at least a far more interesting play level. It's similar to the DD's problem, where they have to be stealthy all the time to survive, but it's incredibly difficult to do much useful work while maintaining total stealth every second. Bottom line: until WG fixes the problem where anything but BBs faces the almost-near certainty of instant death if spotted, well, game play will remain quite passive and boring for anything other than BBs.
  14. What you just described is the antithesis of team play, it's the very definition of Over Powered and Individual play. If a single ship can do all that, it's not team play. Teams are just that: you MUST fight together to succeed. If a BB can wreck a push of CAs and DDs, that's not team play, that's the BB being too overpowered. Same goes with the "population control" on cruisers. That you consider a No Go Zone a good thing speaks volumes to you not understanding the concept of Team. Not to mention that you'll see few BBs push into caps, even at higher tiers; that's DD's job, according to BB players, and they'll just sit outside here and erase anything that moves near it. Once again, that's not team play, that's just bullying. A BB should not be able to do anything alone, or risk being erased by any competent opponent. That's simply not the case now. The current play is that the BB stands around in the back, and nukes anything it can shoot at halfway across the map. Doesn't sound too teamworky. In short, you're happy with BBs because they totally dominate the play. That's not teamwork, and that's not fun for anyone outside of BB players.
  15. Speaking as a CA and DD player, not a BB or CV one, Dunkerques are one of my favorite targets, because of the preferred playstyle of most Dunk players: bow on to serious opponents, slowly moving backwards or advancing linearly. If you attack a Dunk from anything other than the front 90 degree arc, they melt to HE like nothing, and AP from 8" guns is likewise a quick way to kill them - you get pens on the superstructure trivially, and that's 1500+ HP per shell. My Yorck, for instance, has more than sufficient armor to bounce 13" shells from most angles, and rarely takes a citadel from a Dunk, ever. But, in return, I do 8k/salvo of AP (and upwards of 15k if I get a good hit in), or 1 fire per salvo + 5k HE damage. And I shoot almost 2.5x as fast. Things like the Myoko are even more deadly. Heck, a Cleveland roughs up a Dunkerque with little problem, as do the Bundy. If you're a DD or CA, you don't fight a Dunk 1:1, even less so than a normal BB. You fight in teams. If you do so, the Dunk is in HUGE trouble. The armor and HP pool aren't big enough to take a pounding and burning from cruiser AP or HE, and the HE from gunboat DDs is a frightening thing, as they're scoring lots and lots of pens, not just fires. Unlike other T6+ BBs, their AP very rarely citadels CAs unless they're broadside, and you're an idiot if you expose your broadside to a BB in a CA at all. Yes, Dunkerque seems to do well again fellow BBs. But it fairs very poorly against DDs and CAs unless the Dunk player retreats to nearby cruiser cover, and most Dunk players don't seem to understand this. It can't ignore CAs and DDs for a period of time like many other BBs. The only T6+ cruiser that has major problems against a Dunkerque is the Nurnberg (bad HE, and AP that won't do enough damage quickly), and maybe the Aoba (due to lack of ROF). You just never turn the CA's broadside to it, and the LOL Citadel that's so common from other BB fire is extremely rare. The gunboat DDs fair equally well, with the German AP on their DDs being extremely harmful. Not hard to do 30k in AP damage to superstructure in a 2-minute engagement from a German DD, and the Dunkerque's HE isn't good enough to confidently kill that DD unless it's under 8km (and you'd be insane to use your guns on ANY BB under 8km in ANY DD if you have any choice in the matter). TL;DR: Dunkerque is quite good against enemy BBs, particularly players who presume they can just carelessly engage it and their HP/armor will guaranty a win. It's deadly against DDs or CAs who don't keep their distance, or simply don't pay attention to it. It has dreadful weaknesses against any CA or DD captain who is aware of it's dependency on bow-on fighting, and can counter that by forcing it to fight any other way. And it turns into a molten slag heap in 1 minute if 2 or 3 CA and/or DDs decide to HE it. In short, against opponents who don't respect it, it's deadly. Against those who do, well, it fairs poorly.