Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

318 Excellent

About LAnybody

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,096 profile views
  1. LAnybody

    Myoko class Giant killer

    They're designed for use while retreating, or while kiting. The T7+ torps are really excellent for use around corners and to nuke pursuers. They're not "rush and torp" style of play. The torp arcs face rearward because the torp launchers are positioned to shoot rearward. Like the Atago, each torp launcher has a slightly different arc, which is why you see the torp aiming arcs differ.
  2. LAnybody

    ALL JAPANESE Cruisers Underpowered , NEED A BUFF

    Same is true for all cruisers, except the super-cruisers. All suffer from overmatch citadels from practically any angle. Nope. Not any more than other cruisers. All cruisers suffer from being blatted by BBs. And IJN armor isn't even close to the worst around. So? US CLs have to hide next to islands. US CAs have to depend on alpha strikes. RN CLs can't effectively damage angled CAs and BBs. RU cruisers have to stand way in the back, because their armor and maneuverability are even worse than IJN cruisers. French CAs are pretty much solely "run-and-gun" or "dash through" ships. Not all ships line do things the same. Trying to shoehorn one nation's playstyle to fit anothers is NOT playing the game correctly. Same for RU CLs, French CAs, and even US CAs. Yes, the IJN traverse is near the bottom of the pack. Again, NOT a real weakness given it's playstyle. Nope. Pretty standard, especially since they're 203mm, not 152mm guns. But ROF is hardly the only metric, and not even the biggest factor in damage. ROF, number of guns, shell ballistics, damage per shell, and gun layout all are important factors. It really doesn't matter than a Zao has a quarter of the ROF of a Worchester. The Zao can land 80% of it's shells very reliably. The Worchester might be lucky to get 20%. At 15km, a Worchester might be LUCKY to hit 10% of the time. A Zao? 75% of the time, with shells that do 2x the damage, and almost 2x the fire chance. Actually hits X damage output on IJN cruisers is way at the top, compared to everything else. IF that's your problem, then PEBKAC. Even my Ibuki has no problem erasing DDs in 2 salvoes in a 1 on 1 fight. Typically, 1 salvo is enough if you can aim. IJN CAs seriously outgun every DD out there. The 155mm Mogami absolutely shreds DDs, since it has a potent combination of good shell arcs, huge number of shots/salvo, and high HE damage per shell. At 6km, I often one-shot full HP DDs in IJN Cruisers. That's almost impossible to do in any other cruiser (except maybe RU cruisers). They're only out DPM'd byt he DD if the player gets themselves in a poor position. But again, same problem for every other cruiser line. Actually, I find IJN CAs to be one of the better anti-DD ships around, second only to the RN CL, and tied with the US CLs. They have really good concealment, and extremely hard-hitting, best-in-class accuracy guns. And they typically have Hydro mounted, as their DAA is pretty low utility. You simply don't knife fight with DDs. But at medium and especially long ranges, the IJN CAs are fearsome anti-DD. No, what you're running into is that you're not playing the IJN ships to their strengths, and you're forcing them into roles and playstyles that they're ill suited for. That's USER error. Not an imbalanced or weak ship. Zaos actually are EXTREMELY strong against DMs in any situation where the Zao isn't an idiot. The Zao can angle VERY effectively, bouncing most of the DM's AP. In return, it gets VERY solid HE pens and lots of fires. Even better, you can effectively rush a DM and torp him. Or just kite away and the DM is screwed. The Zao only runs into problems if it consistently shows broadside to the DM to allow it to use AP. If you're doing that, well, PEBKAC. So? Literally every other cruiser line has the same issue: NONE are good all-rounders, and ALL have very specific playing styles that, if you step outside them, make success very difficult. Yeah, sorry, you're just not any good at playing IJN cruisers. it really boils down to that. All of the things you're claiming are hard AREN'T. You're simply doing it wrong. Cruisers as a whole don't cap well (RN CLs about the only exception). IJN cruisers can destroyer hunt reasonably OK - not as well as US CLs or RN CLs, but better than pretty much any other CA line. And only the KM and RN CAs can even hope to fight "in the thick of it". Even US CAs have to be very careful about tangling with stuff in close. I haven't encountered the kind of players that are completely ignorant of IJN abilities. That's just luck, and isn't a general problem specific to IJN ships. It's actually easier to do a LOT more damage in an IJN CA than it is any other national line, because IJN CAs have the advantage of a combination of VERY accurate guns, with high fire chance, and large broadsides. They're not Pew-Pew-Pew machineguns ships. So what if they're not. Nothing else can RELIABLY pump out 5k per salvo damage on everything, with almost a guaranteed fire, EVERY SINGLE SALVO. And because your ship isn't a "dash in and die" one, you tend to stay alive MUCH longer, and thus do a lot of damage. That can literally be said of every other cruiser line. It doesn't seem to fit your preferred playstyle. I understand that makes it frustrating for you. That does NOT, ipso facto, make it either a niche line or a bad line. Don't confuse your personal preferences/abilities for absolutes. I would dispute that IJN CA is a problem for missions at all - in fact, it tends to be one of the better ones, because it offers balanced play - it's easy to wrack up Potential Damage in them, you can get torp hits all over the place, the guns are excellent for Incapacitations and Fires, and it has a good steady damage output. Only when trying to score citadels does the IJN not offer a good option for missions. Operations, on the other hand, yeah, IJN ships aren't good, because Operations are tailor-made ONLY for DPM monsters. All of the IJN strengths are mostly irrelevant for Operations, but again, that has to do with how WG has designed Operations, not the IJN ships themselves. IJN is hardly the only cruiser line you don't really take into operations. French CAs, RN CAs, and even Russian CLs aren't very good in them either. I and others have thought about it. It boils down to you not really knowing or being willing to learn how to adapt to playing to the IJN's strengths. It's really that simple. They have very strong attributes, and they're hardly one-trick ponies. They're not Jack of All Trades, but then again, neither are any other cruiser line.
  3. LAnybody

    Z-52 — German Tier X destroyer.

    In the current Meta, the Z-52 is a VERY good team ship. It does well divisioned up, and in Clan Battles. But it sucks in Random, because without proper support, the Z-52 can't play to it's strengths, and it has a LOT of weaknesses compared to the current competition.
  4. The Acasta really is a crappy ship, though. The short-term smokes aren't anywhere near as useful at T5 as they are at T7+, and the guns are pretty terrible - bad rotation and positioning for DD guns leaves you VERY much unable to dodge and gunfight well. Their ballistics are almost as bad as US guns, too. Which, given that T5 is still very close spaced maps, is a hard thing. The inability to stealth torp (practically speaking) makes them hard for most players. The Acasta is definitely the dog of the RN DD family. It can't do anything well, compared to it's competitors. The good news is that it starts to get better at the T6 Icarus, which is serviceable, and the T7 Jervis is enjoyable. The Lighting at T8 is the best, though both the Jutland and Daring are now very, very good too.
  5. LAnybody

    Tier 6 Choice

    Dude, I love me my PEF. Of course, I got it for free.... :-) But it's the shiznit for racking up secondary hits when you need them for a mission. Plus, it's a fabulously reliable CoOp ship and Operations ship. Better than the Bayern, and, IMHO better than any other T6 BB in those areas. It's a mediocre Random Battle player, though.
  6. LAnybody

    Stuck at "Waiting For Authorization"

    That's about when I noticed it - just after the weekend Naval Battles ended. It's happening frequently now, and even after going through the various fixes, I'm back to being stuck at "Waiting for Authorization" yet again. Classic case of why you don't tie your binary revision to the data that goes with it, unless there is a required FUNCTIONAL dependency. The auth problem is almost certainly tied to something that changed (that shouldn't have) in the binary itself, not the data.
  7. The things in WoWS that are frustrating have VERY little to do with Free vs Pay. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that FvP is virtually irrelevant to the enjoyment of the game. Pay is for convenience, and for ego. If you like the various premium ships (for whatever reason), paying for them satisfies your convenience and desires. They're not in any way necessary or even very beneficial for the most part. Personally, I find paying for ships to be the largest waste of money in this game, since I myself find ZERO benefit or satisfaction from owning some random digital good that provides me with very little benefit in-game, and has no value whatsoever otherwise. Not to mention the ridiculous pricing on ships. For the other stuff, again, it's convenience. Most of those extras are available for Free, if you work a little for them. Paying is merely a way for you to jump ahead, and, frankly, the game is set up to be pretty reasonably balanced with respect to time vs effort for most ship lines. I've been playing 4+ years. In all that time, I've spent for a couple of big flag packs. That's it. NOTHING else. I get premium time regularly through various containers and the same for flags and camos. I can even get a lot of various resources for free. The game is not set up to favor paying players. It's set up to favor players who PLAY. That is, the main driver of advancement isn't money, it's TIME IN GAME. Paying can get you some of the benefit, but ultimately, a player who pays but doesn't play much is going to be FAR behind someone who doesn't pay and plays a lot. I've got plenty of beef with WG and how they do ships, game mechanics, and other "features" (or so they claim) - many of those complains are longstanding, and intensely annoying that WG seems to be either oblivious, ignorant, or even downright malicious in not fixing them. But the actual money economics of the game are quite well done, and I do have to give them credit for that. You don't need to pay, in any shape or form. The "grind" isn't really a grind in the sense that it's unreasonably long. Heck, even without ANY form of assistance (flags, premium time, cammos, etc), I can "grind" out a T1-T8 ship line in about a month of playing. T9 and T10 require about that same amount of time. But I play maybe 20 hours per week, total. If you can't put that kind of effort into the game, then sure, it "feels" bad. But, on the other hand, people zooming up through tiers is bad for the game as a whole, because it leads to a bunch of really bad players all over the place. I'm perfectly happy that the game economics discriminate against purely casual players. As an old-timer, I actually would PREFER that advancement is tied to not just XP, but some other accomplishments, just to force people to actually play the ships and learn the skills.
  8. The Z-23, because it gets 5 x 150mm over 4 x 128mm, is a total no-brainer for the 150mm. Plus, at T8, the Z-23 is actually far more effective with the 150mm, as it plays very well as a "support" DD, not a "first into the cap" DD. The Z-39 likewise plays very well with it's 150mm, though it can bully caps easily at T7. The Gaede isn't too good with the 150mm, as the reduction in ROF is noticeable and pretty important down at that tier. Overall, I don't find the ROF reduction for the 150mm to be important in anti-DD work. They still have pretty potent HE, and my aim is more than good enough to keep landing them reliably. There is a bit of a DPM reduction, but as you generally will be fighting wounded DDs, it's not such a problem. And the HE pen is great for farming CAs/BBs with those 150mm.
  9. Realistically, the proper way to do this is NOT move a single captain up a whole line. It's to stagger them - say, one for the even tiers, one for the odd tiers. That way, you have two quite effective captains at the upper tiers. And you can leave a captain on a 6-ish ship to use in Operations, which is a great way to advance them to 10 point rather quickly - play 1 or 2 Ops per day, and that's 3000 XP or so for that captain. The fact that you use a single captain isn't really a fault of the system, it's more that you're choosing a sub-optimal method of play. FreeXP-ing is hardly a good way to do things, so if it breaks your ability to have a good captain, that's not WG's fault. Maybe consider that if you're going to sidestep the actual process of learning to use a line, the cost of FreeXP-ing a ship should include FreeXP-ing a captain as well? Again, this system has NEVER been about having a single captain for everything. It's just as unreasonable to expect that everyone can move a single captain around as it is to expect that everyone has a dedicated captain for each possible ship. And no, the Belfast does NOT require different skills. It shares skills up through at least 10, and more commonly 14, points with the other RN CLs. 10 point captains on all DDs T7+ are really a necessity. Anything above that is NOT needed to function well. Now that the HE pen has been adjusted, there are NO ships, of ANY kind, that can't work quite well with a 10 point captain at those tiers. The playstyle adjusts as you gain captain skills above that, but it's not a huge adjustment. It's really not hard to have a 10 point captain and play against someone with a higher one. Sure, it's a bit of a disadvantage. But it's certainly NOT even remotely a big one. Player skill is far, far, far more of a determinator than captain skills at that point. I'm not happy with the proposed changes, but, really, your complaints on this aspect are really not reasonable. You want the game to cater to just your desires of a One Captain To Rule Them All. Sorry, the system has NEVER worked that way, and there's nothing wrong with the way it was working (in terms of how you moved them between lines, and used different captains). I find the 500 doubloons a bit much, but, really, the silver cost to halve retraining was small, and playing a couple of games to get the retraining penalty off isn't a big deal. Usually takes maybe 3 or 4 with some flags, even if you're retraining a 15 pointer. I've played this for over 4 years at this point. I think I have a grand total of 2 19 point captains. I've literally got several dozen 15+ pointers. The difference in performance between a 19 and 15 is pretty much negligible. And I've NEVER paid gold for a retrain, nor ever used Elite Captain XP for that purpose. You simply don't need to, and if most people don't play anywhere near as much as I do, they also don't have even close to the number of ships and Captains I've done. Ship slots are now being given away for free via Daily Missions (and are pretty easy to get at least 1 per month), so keeping a couple of mid-tier ships around is entirely rational and cost-effective.
  10. LAnybody

    Asymmetric battles adjustment

    The worst part is that the scoring is kept the same for both sides. Given the frailty of the T5 and T6s, sinking them quickly means the high-tier team wracks up HUGE points fast, and the low-tier teams struggle to just avoid being 0'd out, let alone actually sink stuff when 40% of the team is dead within 4 minutes. The current system simply has far too many problems with it, and should be withdrawn.
  11. LAnybody

    Mark 18 Torpedoes

    Depends heavily on the type of propulsion, the design of the propeller, speed setting and, most importantly, the depth the torpedo runs at. A large number of torpedoes will NOT leave a discernible surface trail if they're shot deep enough. Even in WW2, the idea that only the Long Lance ones were hard to see because they left little or no surface trail is wrong. And in modern torpedoes, many will leave NO trail whatsoever, even at depth.
  12. LAnybody

    Friendly Torps !!!

    No, I am not. Go reread the scenario and what I said. Situational awareness cannot possibly include being aware of everything that is going on. That's simply impossible. Moreover, you simply CANNOT see incoming enemy torps in some situations until they're close - storms are the big one here. It also is more than unreasonable to presume that a person is constantly checking their entire 360 vision area, out to the full limits they can see, every 10 seconds or so. There is a very hard limit to how much information even a skilled operator can take in and process. Good situational awareness means you know (approximately) where all the reasonably relevant ships are to yours, and what's going on in the immediate locality. It's not reasonable to include events that are occurring across the map. People can really only look at what's going on elsewhere when their immediate circumstances permit them 20-30 seconds of uninterrupted time. Which is why a torpedo warning at a distance is a great thing to know about: it's something that you simply can't be expected to reasonably have seen on your own, and that you WILL need to know about in 30 seconds or so. It's not a "distraction" - it's a critical piece of information being communicated. It's even more important than something like a notification where one player tells another to Get Back - yes, you do have to look at the minimap, but the amount of time it takes is 3 seconds or so, which is entirely reasonable for most conditions not concerned with instantaneous survival.
  13. LAnybody

    Friendly Torps !!!

    Well, in all honesty, most of the time it is not their fault. Most of the time, it is the launching player's fault for putting torps into a place that have a significant possibility of hitting a team mate. That doesn't mean a feature like I described above wouldn't be very useful, and for very little effort, too.
  14. LAnybody

    Slow Down, WG!!!

    Actually, it's quite easy to measure and quantify this. And do all sorts of nice analysis of tradeoffs, etc. That's what MARKET RESEARCH is all about. And pesky little things like Customer Surveys, and all the kind of "focus group" and other stuff that a Marketing Department does. Knowing what your user base wants and how it feels is something that industries are very well versed in, if the company wants to follow even basic procedures.
  15. LAnybody

    Friendly Torps !!!

    Besides the places I outlined above where your own team's torpedoes need to be warned about, there are a SIGNIFICANT number of times that a team mate needs to warn you (or vice versa) about incoming ENEMY torpedoes. Remember that the torpedo warning doesn't pop up until YOU would be detecting the torps. Yes, enemy torps show up on the screen. Which is helpful IF YOU ARE LOOKING THAT WAY. Very often you are not, for very good reasons. There's a significant amount of time that you naturally won't be looking that way, for a variety of factors, and "situational awareness" won't cure this. There's simply too much going on for you to be able to look in all directions simultaneously, or even that often. If you're fighting an enemy in front of you, wouldn't it be nice if the DD on your team that's flanking spots incoming torpedoes from, say, a 120 degree bearing, and could easily draw your attention to them when they're 8km out? Repurposing the "I need Intelligence" hotkey (which is completely useless) to "incoming torpedoes!" is a no-brainer, and would absolutely be significantly more useful than the status quo.