Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

232 Valued poster

About EAnybody

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

818 profile views
  1. That's blatantly wrong. Here's a good example: I have a DD and BB right next to me. The DD is capping. The BB is shooting someone across the map of no particular import. What do I shoot, if I'm a damage farmer? The BB. Because I can reliably score more damage on him. I might (gasp) miss the DD. Then, after I've shot the BB and set him on fire, I'll go shoot another BB and hope for another fire. Note this isn't the "strategic" firecausing you see, where people look to take advantage of the enemy's problems with DC - no, this is the blatant focus solely on damage for damage's sake, not for the PURPOSE of why damage might be important in the first place. That's an extreme, but very common, thing damage farmers do. They aim for the most obvious target, and by "obvious", I mean the one where they think they can score the most hits. They don't aim for the most *significant* ship. Nor do they put ANY effort at all into making all the other things that a team needs to succeed happen. Folks like the Conq in the OP focus on one single thing: maximizing their total numerical damage. That's only slightly more useful to a team than being completely AFK. It's trivially easy to do in certain ships (which is why the RN BB HE is so broken), yet provides as close to no benefit to the team as possible. You'll notice that damage farmers almost never switch ammunition types - they're either all about the HE, or all about the AP, even if an obvious opportunity to use a more appropriate one appears. Damage-causing is actually one of the LEAST important things a ship (of any kind) can do. Because it's something ANYONE on the team, virtually ANYWHERE on the map, can do at that instant. Heck, a team can win a game without ever causing a single point of damage. "in game success" has nothing to do with being able to cause large amounts of damage. Only if you narrowly define "success" as "getting the most XP" is that even possibly truth, and XP awards are very much broken right now when it comes to any meaningful measure of player contribution. Unfortunately, the XP system is extremely heavily weighted towards damage farmers, particularly those who are so passive as to be able to remain alive the entire match. One of the big reasons the Conq in the OP scenario was top of the losing team's XP was that the game lasted almost 18 minutes, and the Conq lived the entire match. He also spent the last 3 minutes simply hiding, after everyone else had died, running out the clock until the enemy team won on points. The current system gives you XP for the amount of time you survive, and also with the XP focus on damage, living longer gives a very significant chance to cause much more damage.
  2. No, that's contributing nothing to play. Damage doesn't equate to contribution at all. Especially since his damage was by far the least consequential - fire damage on a BB, as it's easily healed, and seldom causes death. This has been discussed elsewhere as to why pure damage has very little to do with team contribution. Moreover, the only reason he was able to get that much damage was because everyone else died well before him, and he got substantial XP just for surviving the longest. In his case, he wasn't tanking damage at all, despite having the largest heal on the team by a mile. He wasn't drawing fire. He wasn't in any position to shoot at anything other than their back-line BBs. Wasn't capping, help support a cap attempt, or anything else. He didn't even kill anyone - all his damage was farming BBs. Which is completely useless. Backline sniping in a BB is just bad play, no matter how successful you appear to be by a damage counter. And the RN BB HE meta encourages this kind of useless behavior. I see this regularly, and it pisses the teams off too, since it's pretty obvious who pulls their weight and who just rides everyone else for selfish benefit. In our case, half the team was yelling at the [edited] to do something useful for over half the game. And that's hardly uncommon.
  3. A T10 match, with a bunch of T9 BBs in there, plus one T10 Conqueror. So, what does the Conq do all game? Sit 18km from any enemy, hide behind islands, and occasionally hit something with his super-power HE. Naturally, those ships let it burn, since they're more worried about me and the other BB and DDs torping them or secondary-ing them. So, naturally, when all the other BBs push to try to take caps, he runs the OTHER direction and island camps. At the end of the game, when we're losing, he does even one better: sits behind an island where he can't shoot ANYTHING. Ends the game with a Witherer award, 100k in damage, and tops our (losing) scoreboard. Despite having 100% HP until well after the match was lost, and contributing NOTHING to the game. THIS IS WHY THE XP REWARD SYSTEM IS COMPLETELY BROKEN. And of course, why RN BB HE is stupid beyond mention. This is sadly pretty par for the course for not just Conq players, but most RN BBs. The whole line just sucks as far as reinforcing all the horrid playstyles out ther.
  4. No, the reason I like a Z-52 over a Khab is that it does gunboat better. The only way a Z-52 loses to a Khab is if the Z-52 plays the Khab's game, and tries to fight in open ocean. Any other scenario, the Khab loses. So why do you think the Khab is such a great gunboat? The Z has a better ability to use it's guns to more effect in more situations than the Khab, and the raw DPM of the Khab isn't really any different than the Z-52 - slightly better with HE, slightly worse with AP. The flat arcs of the Khab are nice, but the Z has the same ones inside 8km, plus the Z can island camp while the Khab can't. The Z-46 and Z-52 are extremely powerful gunboats, and people keep writing them off to their detriment. Their flexibility as both excellent gunboat and major torpedo threat is what makes them even better gunboats - because when I smoke up in a Z, no one charges me, since they know I can torp them repeatedly, not to mention being able to hydro them myself. The Khab's really only advantage is that 50mm armor slab, which makes cruiser HE fire significantly less dangerous. Well, that and straight line speed. The Khab's a one-trick pony. Which means that if you avoid that one trick, it's far, far less effective. The Z has no such weakness, and thus makes a better gunboat overall. Because most maps aren't Ocean.
  5. What is Nerfing?

    Lawn darts and BB guns. Not really sorry to see them go. Sigh. I just miss my chemistry set. Now they think anyone with one is a Unabomber....
  6. Asashio... Just... NO.

    Usually it's a DD. Just stop running in that direction. slow down, and change direction.
  7. Asashio... Just... NO.

    This is only possible in one very limited situation: you're outside their max gun range, but both you and they are travelling in the same direction at about the same speed. Your opponent shoots, then you move into range from where he's shot, but he's now further away, so the distance between you two stays more than his max gun range, but the distance from where he shot to you decreases. In short, the flight time of the shells allows you to move into his gun range, but at the same time, allows him to move out of his gun bloom radius. It's just fine, since hitting people like that is very difficult, and all you have to do to make it stop is slow down a little bit. It's a very narrow edge case problem, so much that it's not really worth fixing. Because remember, when you do this, you lose the gun lock ability, and your accuracy suffers considerably for it. Not to mention that it's really only possible within 0.4km or less of the max gun range.
  8. The ONLY things that the Pepsi needs to have done to it to drop it to T6 is this: Punt on the Mk14 gun upgrade, leave it with the stock guns Punt on the Range upgrade, leave it with the stock range Drop the HP by a little, say to 32k. In short, what is currently the stock T7 Pepsi should be the top-end T6 Pepsi. Nothing else should be changed. It's then just fine. Similar for the New Orleans, it's a simple thing to drop it a tier: Remove the upgraded main gun turrent, and buff the stock guns ROF to 13 seconds. Remove the Range Finder upgrade Allow it to have either a Fighter or Spotter Plane (in place of Radar) Swap all the 25mm hull armor for 22mm hull armor. 150mm guns should be able to pen this thing with HE. Leave the detection where it is, since it loses the Concealment Module upgrade. On the other hand, I'm looking at what they're doing to the Cleveland, and it's too much. Bump the HP pool more than a bit, as it's a pretty tough little bugger. 40k seems good. Don't buff the hull armor up to the 25mm standard - that's for HEAVY cruisers, which Cleveland is NOT. It should go to 19mm or 21mm. That way it's still prone to HE pens from the main guns of DDs, but immune to the lower-caliber BB/CA secondaries. With 25mm armor, that makes it immune to DD HE fire, something a CL should NOT be. The concealment buff is FAR too much. That puts it better than the Mogami and almost at the Edinburgh. Given the size of the Cleveland and the "national flavor" things, this should NEVER happen. Clevelands should NOT be able to out-stealth IJN or RN ships. Period. And the gun buffs are stupidly OP. Now you have massively fast-firing guns that have very good turret rotation? ROF the same as the Edinburgh, with 25%+ faster turret rotation? All combined with the nice US AP and HE. Absolutely not - that's just insanely stupid. Stick with something more sane, like 8 second reload and 22.5 second base turret traverse. If you're gonna put those ludicrous guns on this thing, AND have a spotter plane, then you'd better have the gun range max out at 13km. Not 14.6 (or 17.5 with spotter). Basically, the "new" T8 Cleveland is positioned to take the very best parts of the Edinburgh, Mogami, and Chappy, with NONE of the downsides. Yeah, that's not patently broken at all, is it?
  9. DD Captains, Help me out

    In general, if there's two of you capping, you SHOULDN'T be running in single file going the same way. Makes for torping at least one of you (as well as shooting at you two) MUCH more likely to hit. Basically, by going single-file, you increase the length of your "ship" by double, making dispersion much more likely to hit at least one of you. 2 DDs in a cap should break different directions. In which case, how you lined up going to the cap really doesn't make too much difference. Same goes for any other ships following into the cap. Avoid the follow-the-leader lemming train, even short ones.
  10. Actually, I think a Z-52 is a better gunboat. And of course it's a FAR better torpedo boat, than either the Russian T10 DDs. While the Khab has flatter arcs and an additional turret (4x2 vs 3x2), the Z-52 actually has better range on the guns, and has sufficent arc on the guns to shoot from behind islands, something the Khab can't really do. Plus 20% better ROF, so the actual number of shells in the air for the Z-52 is almost identical to the Khab. They have roughly the same turret traverse (9 v 10 sec), with the Khab having slightly better HE (8 v7% fire, and 1900 v 1500), while the Z-52 has better AP (2600 v 3000). The HE pen ability of the Z-52's 128mm is functionally no different than the Khab's 130mm - it's 21mm vs 22m pen (28mm for both with IFHE), but no target they face makes that important. Overall, the Khab is the better gunboat if you're out in the open, running fast, and shooting stuff that's likewise out in the open. But in every other gunboat scenario, I find the Z-52 is better. And, of course, the concealment and cap capability of the Z-52 is ludicrously better than the Khab. I don't find that the Groz has any advantage over the Z-52 either, except in that kind of open-water gunfire scenario.
  11. Z-23 OMG!

    Yeah, I can't see any reason to own a Z-39, as it currently stands. It's a top-hull Z-23, with about 10% better stealth (but no Concealment Module, at T7, right? So no real difference, then.), the stock torpedoes, and the 150mm gun. Only real difference there is that they bumped the range up 10% in exchange for a 10% loss in ROF, plus removed one gun. So lowers your DPM vs a Z-23 by 25%, but you can shoot farther. Yeah, nothing interesting at all. Still plays virtually identically to a Z-23, just at T7. The somewhat lower gun DPM hardly justifies pushing it down one tier. A pay-to-win (or at least, pay-to-get-a-better-than-average) ship. How about something interesting? Say a T7, with the same hull as the Maass, but lower detection (7.1km or so), (3) turrets of the same 128mm as the Z-46 has but only single guns not dual, a quad centerline torpedo mount, and then two twin torp launchers, FIXED FORWARD to fire say in an arc of 5 to 15 degrees each side of the bow. They have a fixed arc which you have to shoot them on, fixed pattern. Uses the G7 Steinbarsch torps (8.5km/65knt) Oh, and maybe delete the Hydro on this, in exchange for 1 more charge of smoke and speed boost (3 with normal, 4 with premium consumables). So it's kinda like a V-170 at T7. You have a few fast-rotating, fast-firing guns instead of more slower guns of the Maass, and a unique torp playstyle.
  12. here's another example: A Kiev, which is covered in 19mm armor except for the superstructure/guns at 13mm. At 105mm gun (on a Hipper) has a penetration of 18mm if /6, or 26mm if /4. Thus, if it has /4, every single hit should penetrate. No exceptions (well, ok, allow for the very occasional random bounce/shatter). If it's /6, then at least half of the hits (based on the armored surface percentages) should shatter and not penetrate. If I'm seeing the /4, then I should expect roughly 80% pens, which translates into averaging in the 400/hit damage range , while if I'm seeing /6, I should see only 20% or so pen and 140 or less per hit. Across several tries, I averaged 100/hit or so. And again, let's use the New Orleans + Kiev for a test, this time against the 127mm secondaries of the Cleveland, which has an undisputed /6, able to pen 22mm of armor. So maybe 25% of the hits should pen on the NO, but 100% on the Kiev, in this scenario, doing, on average roughly 150/hit and 600/hit, respectively. Guess what? 500/hit vs the Kiev, and 75/hit vs the NO. Conversely, a Gneisenau, with 128mm secondaries, absolutely shreds the New Orleans, penning all over the place. Clearly those guns have /4, averaging 270/hit, out of the theoretical 500, where as I would expect in the 100/hit or lower if they had /6. So the 105mm on the Hipper looks a LOT like the 127mm on the Cleveland, not the 128mm on the Gneisenau. Given the very high numbers of hits per test instance (It wasn't hard to get 500 hits per test, even without manual secondaries, as the ships are packed in close and trival to hit at 2-3km), a lot of the possibility of concentrating on impossible-to-pen parts of ships is statistically removed.
  13. Asashio... Just... NO.

    frankly, the easiest way to prevent BBs from camping is also the simplest to implement: make accuracy an exponential decay. That is, if you're twice as far away, you're four times a likely to miss. Or some similar exponent. That is, if you can't hit anything at 20km, there's a lot of disincentive to stay back there and fire. Move 5km closer, and your hit rate goes up 3x, that'll get the potatoes moving. that is, change the accuracy so that you hit at roughly this rate against an equivalent-tier BB-sized target: 20km+: 1 in 50 16-19km: 1 in 25 12-15km: 1 in 8 8-11km: 1 in 4 under 8km: 3 in 5 And roughly 60% of that for CAs, 25% of that for DDs as a target. (sorry, I repeated myself here, it's just that this is so obviously the way to fix BB camping)
  14. Lyon Builds

    Don't do BFT. The increase in rate of fire simply isn't worth the 3 points, which can be better put to AR or SI. That said, AFT is really useful, because it boosts both AA and Secondary damage significantly by increasing the range. Whether you do the AA or Secondary module is up to you. I do AA, mostly because I seem to attract dive bombers like flypaper. That said, remember that the Lyon's 130mm guns have the/6 HE penetration characteristic, which means they'll pen only 22mm of armor. That's fine against DDs, but only useful against BB and CA superstructure (not hull), plus T7 and under cruisers (and even some T7s are significantly immune). That is, a secondary build will be most useful when you're top-tier, but it's of very little use when you're facing T8 or T9 ships (except DDs), at least in terms of causing damage. The fire chance is still pretty decent. Also, do NOT pick the Preventative Maintenance captain skill thinking it will improve your AA or Secondary gun survivability. It absolutely WILL NOT. It only improves the survivability of modules which can be damaged, not ones which can only be destroyed. I.e. PM works for torpedoes, primary gun turrets, steering, and engines.
  15. The above were merely one instance. I tested several times, and got similar results. Overall, I've run about two dozen different 1v1 tests in the training room, and while that's hardly definitive, it's at least not subject to pure randomness. The aim points do seem target-specific. For instance, I parked the Hipper broadside-to-broadside with the New Orleans at 2.5km, and a very substantial portion of the shots seemed to be targeting the hull. But, given the incredibly bad dispersion that secondaries have, "aim point" is really not terribly relevant, as stuff will really hit anywhere. And yes, I've accounted for the portion of the target that would be immune to any HE. It's simply not that big, and certainly not enough to account for the HUGE discrepancy in predicted vs actual damage. For instance, on the New Orleans, 85%+ of the exposed hull 25mm - the belt armor is only very slightly above the waterline, and only for about 50% of the length of the ship. Similarly, the entire superstructure is 16mm. As a rough estimate, I'd suggest that, for a broadside target, 60% of all shots are against a 25mm target, while 25% or so against a 16mm target. Which means that if the 105mm Hipper guns were /4, then they should be able to pen about 85% of the target, while if they were /6, they should only be able to pen 25%. Given that a pen is 566, statistically, you'd expect either 85% or 25% of the "theoretical max pen" for the number of hits. Or, more aptly, you should expect THREE times as much damage from something that can pen 85% of the target vs something that can pen 25%. Given that level of statistical separation, it's pretty clear which was happening: /6, not /4. There's simply not enough room for hits to absolutely immune portions of the New Orleans to overcome that level of separation. It's MUCH harder to tell what's going on in the BBs, as they have two sets of guns, and yes, the aim points probably add an additional level of noise. Not to mention that it's much harder to find a target like the New Orleans which provides the level of statisical separation based on their gun caliber. All of which goes back to the original request: we need an Official Statement from WG as to how this mechanism works in practice for specific ships (or ship lines).