Jump to content

h9k_a

Members
  • Content Сount

    723
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    24512
  • Clan

    [WOLF5]

Community Reputation

177 Valued poster

1 Follower

About h9k_a

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,066 profile views
  1. h9k_a

    USS Hill: What's the Point?

    Nope not missing a thing. Getting the Hill is a bonus to grinding for the Benham.
  2. If you can obtain more damage than the stated max AP shell damage, then you're double dipping. It's been going on with DDs which was what WG used the only 10% overpen damage on most of them was supposed to address. It also happens to other ships but because they can take cits, you can do more than the max stated AP shell damage if you overpen/pen and then cit a ship. But regardless. Reducing the bow/stern armor of USN CL's and the Chapy/Mogami to less than DDs is going to make them more prone to taking far more damage since they don't have the "protected" overpen roll that DDs get as well as taking pens to the athwartship bulkhead since there is now less armor for you to go thru. i am not discussing the overmatch mechanics but rather when you have an angled shot similar to the ability to cheek citadel the yammy.
  3. Because for people that main scenarios or co-op if you're constantly shooting or are spotted from the moon, then type 5 doesn't give you any benefit over type 2 If you're playing a torp boat and know how to use your concealment, then type 1 may be all you need. Either of those players would then have 1/3 the camo cost of someone that mounts type 5. If you bake it into the service cost, then if you mount a different camo that has better specs, you're paying for something you can't use. I suppose if you removed all camos except type 1,2,5,6 and perm camos, that would curtail some of the inflation that WG has created with those camos and economic flags. Also WG said that they're thinking about making premium consumables replace "free" consumables. They've never said that they wouldn't raise the service cost. Look at CV's because they have "premium like automatic consumables" they actually have a higher service cost than any other same tier ship. Remember the whole idea behind NTC was to create a credit/free XP sink so WG can remove those assets that are in the hands of the players. They believe that if players are credit/free XP/commander XP limited then they would have to spend doubloons to convert and make WG more money, remove those doubloons that are just sitting in players hands or players would have to play lower tiers to finance their higher tier play.
  4. h9k_a

    Hakuryu service cost

    Technically the service cost is constant. Remember they also tag you for the ammo/torps/planes you use as part of your costs. Fortunately CV's just get tagged for planes and not ammo/torps on all other ships. So yes, if you lose less planes you will net more credits. Here's the costs: https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Economy#Service_Cost
  5. h9k_a

    Hakuryu service cost

    CV's are more expensive than their same tier ships because "WG gave you automatic consumables." Also the cost of planes is higher than the equivalent bb shell or dd torp so it's really expensive if you lose planes. All in all unless you do well, CV's are a big credit sink.
  6. h9k_a

    Tech issues

    are you sure you don't have one of the major windows updates going in the background?
  7. For IJN CC and BB, you've really only got a few choices. Atago and Ashitaka (post buff). Musashi if she ever comes back. For the other nation BB/CC lines, JB, Bama, Atlanta (since it's got the built in XP multiplier). Pretty much any T-IX or T-X non-BC will make you decent credits if you play well. Just keep in mind some of the secondary focused BBs aren't great for training captains.
  8. h9k_a

    Tech issues

    Actually it sounds like you've got malware or a virus on you system. Misbehaving USB devices are frequently the first symptom.
  9. Now that the whole debacle of WG avidly saying 15% HP or 10% combat buffs do not change the balance of the game has been heard. Let's look at what else they're trying to slip by us. On the EU stream as well as the vids of the CC summit, you have WG employees claiming that the skill gap caused by premium consumable is huge (based on their other claims more than 10-15%). Yet those same employees state that an 15% buff to HP is the same as an additional heal so it's not significant. WG claims that more than 50% of T-X games are played without premium consumables mounted. Note they do not claim that more than 50% of games ONLY HAVE free consumables mounted. With the changes in smoke firing, the use of spotter plane has decreased. Now that you put speed boost on ships other than DDs that use it to speed tank and the static meta that seems to be dominant, why should I mount those consumables when they're not used? I would have had more faith in WG's analysis of the stats if they instead had pulled queries on showing the use of repair party or damage control party. I'm going to posit that those numbers are MUCH less than 50% I'd further encourage WG to examine the relationship between free consumables and XP. I'm going to put forth this paradigm. The players that never use premium consumables are the same players that still believe that not taking damage or getting killed reduces your service cost. Their entire game is predicated around not taking damage. Since they aren't doing damage, their XP and earnings are low so as a cost savings measure they don't take premium consumables. They don't see the value of an additional charge or better cool downs because they don't even use all the regular consumables. Please don't make the assumption that giving this type of player better consumables is going to all of a sudden increase their combat effectiveness. The performance gap isn't because of consumables. So WG claims that an additional heal isn't significant yet premium consumables that give an extra charge as well as a faster cool down cause a gap in combat effectiveness. Nice contradiction.The cool down only comes into play if the player can't/won't disengage. Since those players typically don't survive to use all of their consumables anyway, free vs premium consumables don't matter. So we should only be looking at players that actually use all of their charges. WG has stated that they want NTC to exist because the game needs a credit/FreeXP sink so that long term players deplete those resources that WG caused to inflate because of their introduction of improved camo and economic signals. Poor long term planning on WG's part has resulted in inflation yet they persist that it's a problem because some players have large caches of FreeXP/Credits. If WG is balancing ships for the top as well as bottom players, then why are they spending valuable development cycles implementing game modes for only the top producing players. The other issue that I have is that they're claiming that they're going to give premium type consumable to everyone and it's not going to significantly change the after battle deductions. Hmmmm, let's take a look at CV's shall we. The cost of service for CV's is higher than ships at the same tier and you can't mount premium consumables yet they increased the service cost because your auto consumables have faster cool downs. So the critical question is: Will WG change the cool down time and number of free consumables to match premium consumables WITHOUT changing the service cost?
  10. It might be cute to have Dasha speak into her phone and have the phone translate for her in an episode. It'd be interesting to actually understand what she says in some of the outtakes.
  11. Yep, but just proposing it the way the did, they've made me not want to spend another cent on the game. I'll play it until my premium time runs out but they've pretty much lost my trust and it's going to take some serious steps for them to regain it.
  12. WG also believes that by implementing NTC, they will keep you for at least 6 seasons per line. Lets assume a season is a patch cycle. That means you could max 2 lines per year (note that's lines not countries assuming the buffs are across a line and not per ship). They believe NTC is the secret to keeping long term players forgetting that the beginning players that they must cultivate will not stay. Why would a new player that has stayed past the horror that is T-V, the grind at T-VIII and gotten their first T-X all of a sudden discover that they have to grind that line 6 more times otherwise the "long term" players who have a ship that is 15% healthier, 10% better at doing damage and more maneuverable/takes less damage stay? I believe WG is overly concerned with the amount of "lost" money that is tied up in FreeXP/Doubloons that long term players are hoarding. They need to think of those players as the core teachers in the game that keep the performance of the games consistent. Feed/bonus us just enough so we stay but focus your efforts on gathering new players and keeping them. Be the arborist that harvests trees but replants them so they are a renewable resource. The Amazon/Paypal new player recruitment on the surface looks to be a good idea, but when you actually look closely, it's going to fail. Look at Mejesh and Zoup. They're offering prizes for existing/new player that start a new account using their recruitment links. If you have progressed way beyond a T-VI, why would you continue to use that account after "winning" those prizes? Those are going to be yet another short term alt account that is going to generate no income for WG but lose them money because they have to pay a head fee.
  13. h9k_a

    PSA: Naval Training Center

    It's very difficult to believe that what WG Devs believe is competitive is actually the case when you have 2 devs at cc summit officially stating a 15% buff in HP and a 10% buff in combat performance is not a significant difference and does not break the balance of the game. You have other WG employees (tuccy, E1van) stating that a 15% buff in hp is the same as an additional heal. On the Conq before the heal buffs of 0.8.6, a 15% hp buff gives it an additional 12,435 hp for a total of 95,335. With SI and RPII, the Conq gets 4 heals. Since the Conq as it stands now gets 2% of the maximum hit points per sec for 20 s, that means for a full heal it can get up to 40% of it's HP back (38,134 instead of 33,160 base). That means each heal gives you an additional 4,974 hp, which over 4 heals, you get an additional 19,896hp. When you add that to the original 15%, that mans a 15% hp buff on the Conq is actually 32,331hp. So yes, a 15% buff is roughly an additional repair party. In what world does an additional heal NOT break the balance of a ship when we have repeatedly heard that WG must balance the ships for the top 5% and bottom players not the average player? Let's look at a 10% buff in combat performance. We're supposed to believe that that also doesn't break the balance of a ship according to at least 2 WG employees at the cc summit (it's in iChase's video). Let's look at the latest "buffs/nerfs" in 0.8.0 since those were the last non CV combat buff/nerfs. Kii- reload buffed from 31s to 30s ( that's a 3% reload buff). Max damage buffed from 14,600 to 17,233 (15% damage buff). Net it's a 6,207 dpm buff per gun or an 18% buff. Good buff right, now look at the Nagato, reload reduced from 32 to 30. That's a 7% buff.....hmmm 10% is not significant, so why buff it 7% - maybe it's a special case. Dunkirque 28s to 26s buff. that's a 7% buff as well. Mahan 4s to 3.3s buff to main battery (17.5% buff). Simms torps increased in damage for a longer reload. Net change of 7,083 vs 7,632 dpm for a 7% buff. So if everything under 10% doesn't break the balance of a ship, why were 60% of the buffs in 0.8.0 less than that? Boy 50% of the games were played with free consumables. That sounds like a huge number until you consider what some of those consumables were. I'm going to bet that the number of games that were played without premium damage control party, repair party were much less. If you don't use engine boost/spotter plane, then why would you use the premium versions of them. Nice marketing ploy to throw out a large number without revealing the detail behind those stats. If the original statement had been 50% of games were played with ONLY free consumables then that maybe it's an issue. But the statement that the buffs would be offset by free improved consumables is totally false. If EVERYONE now has improved consumables then it's a level playing field. Now any buff is exactly that, a buff that is NOT offset. If players choose to place themselves at a disadvantage, why should the balance of the game be dependent on someone choosing to handicap themselves? WG has stated that slingshot drops are not an issue because the player is choosing to do less damage per attack, so if a player chooses to reduce their combat effectiveness by not taking premium consumables why should that be adjusted? Also great contradiction between the two bullet points highlighted. You've got one that states an additional heal is not a significant buff and another that states it's a "huge difference in fact". Just one thing for Wg to consider. Heed the quot by Albert Einstein "Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters."
  14. h9k_a

    Flawed Logic Behind Training Center

    But Thunder, you don't have to regrind a line, just use FreeXP to go right back up a line, it's only like 1M or so. Or spend money to convert all the XP that got shifted to the T-1. It's a win/win for WG - it either removes all the FreeXP that players are hoarding or they will pay to get ellite XP converted. Makes perfect sense for the JP Morgan wanna be that's in charge of strategic direction now.
×