Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

249 Valued poster

About LAnybody

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

709 profile views
  1. LAnybody

    What are European DDs Like?

    You think this is my only account? Do you think WG has only one server region? Do you think that's air you're breathing? Hmmmmm. Again. The Halland can sorta defend itself against T8 CVs. It can't against a T10 CV without help. That's not really much better than a Shima. It can't be anywhere near as effective as a Shima in the stealth torp role, as the fast torpedoes are not compensation for the (only somewhat slower) ones the Shima has, which cause almost 2.5x the damage and have a very good chance of one-hit killing lots of stuff. The EU torps can't do that for anything other than very wounded ships (or extremely stupid ones). No alpha strike ability, and they suffer very much from the problem of damage saturation on the target, as their torps hit too close together (one would think this is a Good Thing, but in practice, not so much). I have no problems beating a Halland in a straight gunfight using a Shima. Oh, you expect me to sit broadside and just plink away? yeah, no. The two rear turrets of my Shima have better DPM than one of your turrets does, and i'm hitting far more consistently than you are, because you're having to give me full broadside to use your rear turret, and I'm just stern on to you. Oh, and I can easily out-run your Halland. Or smoke up. Shima doesn't fight fair. That's stupid. It uses all its significant advantages over the Halland to NOT fight "fair". Which means the Halland loses. All of this applies up and down the boat line: while the guns are (marginally) better than the IJN ones, the EU DDs get blasted by anything that has a real gun fitout (which is US, RU, French, and KM DDs), and their torpedoes are so weak as to make the fact that they spam them pretty much irrelevant.
  2. LAnybody

    Are battleships going to be obsolete ?

    As a BB, you already have two mechanisms to mitigate torpedo damage: A torpedo belt, which offers SIGNIFICANT protection if you use it properly Damage saturation, which allows you to tank more than one torpedo hit on certain sections. These offer the exact same chance of damage mitigation that overpens do. In fact, it's far easier for a BB to use these than it is for a CL/DD/CA to use overpen to mitigate damage. Moreover, the fact remains that most BB shells (both in-game and IRL) easily pass through sections of a CL or DD that have no critical parts, and WON'T detonate inside, which is BY DESIGN (both in-game and IRL). BB shells are designed to penetrate heavy armor, and thus have a VERY long arming time. Hitting lightly armored (or no armor) targets is about as relevant to the shell's damage as passing through air. Note that your "overpen" still does a LOT of damage. 1000+ per hit. Given a typical CL has less than 40k health, and many lower tier ones have barely 30k, that's a lot. Moreover, you'll notice that overpens on CL/CAs don't happen much more often than they do on BBs. Which occur for the exact same reason: You are hitting non-critical locations. You have bad aim. It's that simple. Because if you had good aim, you'd be hitting the parts of the ship that matter. Just hitting the ship is irrelevant. You need to aim and hit SPECIFIC portions of the ship. RNG is significant, so that seriously reduces the ability to hit multiple shells in the point where you aim. But in the long run, if you're having problems getting anything other than overpens, it's your aim. Sorry, but that's the 100% truth. Because all the rest of us get reasonable results, if not consistent ones (which is the fault of RNG altering point of impact from point of aim).
  3. Hapa, Did you read what I wrote? Again, you're thinking like a developer. That's not the way you communicate to a user base. PTS is irrelevant. DevBlog is irrelevant. The DB site is irrelevant. Live streams are irrelevant. YouTube is irrelevant. WGC new is ignored. The Wiki wasn't updated correctly (and late). All of those places are talking to a VERY small subset of your total user base. Random bulletins on the website aren't coherent messaging - look at how many different articles sit in the News section - literally a dozen between releases, if not more. People don't data mine the website for new bits of trivia. They aren't going to breathlessly read a dozen marketing brochures to see what game fixes are in where. It's actually quite hard to tell which articles might contain game information, which contain product announcements, which contain proposals, etc. The NEWS section resembles an information dump format, and that's not useful, becasue too much information is just as bad as not enough. And I've explained why the notice in the actual Patch Notes is NOT sufficient, because you're doing it all wrong. If you want to communicate effectively to your userbase, they need to know there is ONE PLACE to get critical information. That one place will be: OBVIOUS LOCATION - a place where ALL the userbase is guaranteed to look. The best option is a place where they have No Choice but to look - in the game client itself. Authoritative - any information put in there will absolutely, positively be the truth. Not "likely to happen", but "will happen unless the Rapture occurs". You will not pre-announce stuff that isn't in the Final Release code. Clear - it will be free of marketing speak, advertisements, and other bits of information that aren't important to the subject at hand (which, in this case, is solely changes to the game itself). Timely - the information will be published no later than before the update. And, most importantly: Presented in an Appropriate Format - that is, the information is written in a way that properly segregates information by relevant topics, and indicates the difference between small, medium, and large changes, as well as the impact of each change. Information that is more important gets larger fonts, and more prominent placement, than information which is not. All the other stuff WG does (DevBlog, et al) is great, for the small group of people who are actively involved in the testing and development community. That's not your user base.
  4. LAnybody

    What are European DDs Like?

    That's because, right now, you're talking about an uneven distribution of skill. People who have the top tier ships (whenever a line comes out) will be those who either had sufficient FreeXP to bypass the majority of ships, or who had sufficient Premium/Camo/etc sitting around and a lot of time to burn. That means those who have the top-tier ships will be, by definition, the more skilled players. So naturally, they do better than the "unwashed masses". Gearings have been around forever, and pretty much all long-term players have one, regardless of how (un)skilled they are. The only people who have a Halland right now are Good to Great players, because it requires that amount of skill to get one this soon after release. Wait 6 months, and you'll see how the EU DDs perform, once the 45% WR players all have them. Not really. You're missing the point: that there's nothing to be gained by playing EU DDs, compared to playing IJN DDs. Even if you have a significantly different playstyle than "normal", whatever you can do in an EU DD, you can do in an IJN DD. It's not about playing the same boats for the same reasons. It's about capabilities. EU DDs simply don't really offer any differentiation over IJN ones, and have several disadvantages in comparison. The point being: why run up the EU DD chain expecting something different than you can get elsewhere, because you won't.
  5. LAnybody

    What are European DDs Like?

    Not really, and certainly not any more than most of the other DD lines. IJN, RN, and US DDs have FAR more impact, and even the KM and RU DDs have much more consistent influence on games. They have pretty average damage. But it's early, so one can't really make the statement about damage yet, as many people are still not experienced with countering their torps. And since they have no guns to speak of... that's not really a good thing. That encourages bad play, and brings us back to the "torp soup" problem. Torp range is only slightly above average, though they do have a nice short detection range. The problem with both spreads is that the "Narrow" spread has a big tendency to have AWFUL dispersion inside the spread, leaving a massive gap in the spread that easily fits any ship. The problem with the "super-narrow" is that they're only effective up close, as they're so small (and you only have 2 launchers on all of them) that hitting things out past 6km with the super-narrow depends on either blind luck, or a completely moronic target who sails straight for SEVERAL minutes. And their torpedo speeds aren't any better than IJN ones until you get to T9. It's still pretty much irrelevant, since none of them can stop a rocket plane attack on you. No, they're not. They're AWFUL knife-fighters, and even bad at mid-ranges. They have a dearth of DPM, VERY poor turret angles, and few turrets (which means you lose even more DPM easily when they get knocked out). Frankly, IJN DDs at T6 and up are MUCH better "duelists" than equal-tier EU DDs. That's compounded by the fact that the EU DDs have mediocre maneuverability (both the US and RN DDs are far, far more maneuverable) --- on par with the KM ones. Their guns can't track while turning. And, of course, worst of all, they have bottom-basement HP. And they can't use their torps well in duels, as while they might be fast, they have terrible damage. So little, that it's worth taking a torp from a T5-7 EU DD in a gunfight, because you can simply gun them down faster than dodging. Their torps aren't even powerful enough to kill most DD opponents with TWO hits. My pathetic little Kagero can easily take THREE Oland torp hits in a duel if you simply take them all on bow/stern. ONE Kagero torpedo blows an Oland in half, no matter where it hits. Heck, a single KM torp (the next weakest in the game) is enough to kill any full-health EU DD up to T7. And, of course, the fact that EU DDs have middle-of-the-road concealment. Really, there's absolutely nothing to recommend the EU DDs as anti-DD duelists. That's completely out of their wheelhouse, and you'll get p0wned regularly if you try. I can't remember the last time I was in a DD and got killed by an EU DD that didn't have at least a 3x HP advantage over me. IJN DDs do it better. With more impact. They are so dependent on captain skills to be even basically functional that anything under T8 is practically unplayable. You really have to have a MINIMUM of a 12-point captain to get decent returns out of them. That's stupid. And yet, I can still repeatedly beat the snot out of an Oland in a Lightning, Kagero, and even Benson, all which have better guns, better detection (well, just slightly worse for the Benson), better HP, and better torps. Same things goes for the T9 & T10 - their competitor DDs are just outright superior. The problem with the EU DDs is that the one thing they can do well (torpedo) has by far the least impact on the game, as their ability to hit things with their torps is mediocre, and the damage they cause is pathetic. Every other aspect of the EU DDs (except AA, which is, in practice, irrelevant) is severely beaten by at least half of their opponents, and most opponents beat them badly in several categories. If you like EU DDs, then play IJN DDs. They are functionally superior in pretty much all aspects.
  6. LAnybody

    Pan Euro DD's purpose?

    Then try IJN torp boats. They do everything the EU ones do, better. It's not like the EU boat's AA is good enough to stop getting DevStruck by rocket planes.
  7. But it's not authoritative as to what is in a particular release. That's the point. Stuff gets talked about, and discussed, and progress reported on. But its a DEVELOPMENT blog, not a RELEASE blog. That's VERY, VERY, VERY different. Stuff from DevBlog doesn't automatically make it into a particular release. It's obscure for the large majority of the player base. It's also non-intuitive to read, time consuming, and filled with minutiae that 99% of the customers don't either understand, or NEED to understand. And yes, the vast majority of posts on DevBlog are "crap" the sense that they're discussions or proposals or speculation on results, not definitive announcements. Those other things might be interesting, but they're still not in any way need-to-know information. You don't use a forum that is filled with that kind of conversation as ANY sort of primary communications channel. I work in software and release engineering. You NEVER expect your customer base to read what is, after all, only internal discussion of the development process. Moreover, if you expect your customer base to read, in its entirely, your release notes in order to be able to use your product, you're not going to sell much. Particularly if you don't do a decent job of distinguishing to the customer what are the important parts of each release. Did you read your Car Manual? What if they put out a new one every couple of weeks? Would you read it then, cover-to-cover? What if they noted in Appendix B of the 15th version of your Car Manual that, hey, we changed the fuel this time around, and didn't you read our Reddit channel to see we'd discussed this, and we're using diesel instead of unleaded starting next Tuesday? WorldofWarships.com is where WG interfaces with its customers. Period. End of story. NOTHING anywhere else is where to put important information. And when WG puts it on that website, it should put it in a manner that makes it clear the relatively importance of each change. You don't lump them all together and say: Here's 20 things we changed, oh, didn't you notice that #14 was a major change, along with the other 19 minor ones that the presentation made no effort to distinguish between in any way? For a good example of how a WoWS Release Note properly called attention to a major change, look at how the IFHE changes were announced: https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/game-updates/update-092-european-destroyers/ Now, yes, the particular change I am complaining about is not as big. But even then, it's very significant. Does it belong at the very end of a 5 page screen, in a hidden drop-down, under a misleading title (hint, it's not "balance changes", this isn't balance, this is a feature change), getting the exact same emphasis that a 0.5 second reload buff (4%) to a T5 cruiser gets? Heck, just having an up-to-date-with-each-release Wiki is something that should 100% happen. People, this is how a well-run Software company does things. Of course, this is WG we're talking about, and they've repeatedly demonstrated that they are anything but a professional-quality software development organization. If you think the DevBlog is "well trafficked" by the playerbase, well... It *might* be read by a majority of the people who post to these forums (myself included). But it's not even remotely closely followed by even the small minority of us who read these forums. I'd be surprised if 90% of the player base even KNOWS what DevBlog is, let alone has read it even once. Don't confuse your own circumstances with what is typical user experience. Videos, likewise, are a TERRIBLE way to detail release information. Particularly videos that aren't under 30 seconds long. People WILL NOT watch videos that do information dumps. They simply won't. You can fill them full of naked beautiful people, and they STILL won't listen to the information. (A great example of this is in the movie The Big Short, where a naked Margo Robbie explains what/how MBS securities are, and why they're bad. And people still can't tell you at the end of the movie what an MBS does, despite the fact that Margo's description is actually VERY clear). And the patch notes are terrible. The information isn't properly prioritized, and tends to over-emphasize marketing stuff, and de-emphasis substantial games changes, as a whole. Just because the information might be in a Release Note, doesn't mean it's effectively communicated. The Release Notes aren't Release Notes. They're a Marketing Brochure. Look at how they're laid out and present information. Their primary intent is about MARKETING. Moreover, as basic Software Release Management will tell you, for important details, you always put them in a place that your user base CANNOT ignore. Even a well-written Release Note is never the appropriate place to put significant game changes, when the vast majority of your audience will very seldom open the place you put all that information. Significant change notifications belong in the GAME CLIENT, to be displayed on login. That other game companies are as bad or worse is no excuse. It's still very, very poor professionalism. And that's what irks me the most: WG continually exhibits terrible software development professionalism. Their processes and procedures and decisions repeatedly display thinking that is appropriate to 25-year olds in their garage working on 0.0.2 of a product with their dad's $40k funding, not a $20m/year revenue company with 100 employees.
  8. And NONE of those are ways you communicate with your Player Base, who are CUSTOMERS. You folks are continually confusing the existence of DEVELOPER-related information with CUSTOMER-related information. The forum & DevBlog aren't even remotely authoritative. Reddit is gossip, the Discord server is the for the tiny percentage of the base that plays competitive, and the Patch Notes had it buried at the end. They're not transparent to their customers in the least. Any Customer Relations person would laugh at the above as being ways you communicate effectively to your customer.
  9. OK, couple of things: (1) DevBlog is NOT AUTHORITATIVE, and contains a HUGE amount of speculative information. Claiming that people should read the Dev Blog as some way to know what is coming along in a patch is like claiming that I should read the Democratic National Committee's Policy Statements to know what US Law says. Moreover, it's obscure enough that expecting people to read it for any relevant game data is laughable. I know where it is, but as I don't make a living off of WoWS, expecting even very informed people like me to keep constantly abreast of all the crap that comes across DevBlog is ludicrous, let alone the "average" player. (2) the forum postings are the EXACT SAME AS DEVBLOG in terms of reliability, authoritativeness, and predictive ability. Reading the forums to know about FUTURE stuff is ridiculous. (3) The changes are at the VERY bottom of the Release Notes. In 10 point text. Buried in a drop-down. It doesn't get much more obscure in terms of failing to communicate on an "official" release document. It's literally like hiding the fact that you're going to increase the federal deficit by 20% in a footnote of Appendix 1020 of the Omnibus Spending Act (all 20,000 pages of it). Major changes should be at the TOP of the Release Notes, in 18 point text, NOT hidden in a "Click here to see" link. Heck, the best way to do this is that it should be an IN-GAME POP-UP WINDOW on login immediately after each release. They do this for all sorts of other stuff, and it would be, by far, the most reasonable way to inform people of major changes. Not "balance" stuff, but significant stuff like altering game mechanics, feature changes in various ships, etc. Refer To The Fine Manual is not a justified corporate communications strategy for critical information.
  10. LAnybody

    Pan Euro DD's purpose?

    I'm now up through the T7, and so far, the EU DDs are completely pointless. They have VERY poor DPM on their guns, so bad they struggle against pretty much everything, INCLUDING IJN DDs. Their HE fire chance is only mediocre, so they can't even claim to be a fire-starter. They have a dearth of guns, relatively low RoF, bad turret angles, and very blah turret rotation. That adds up to a VERY poor gunboat. Worse, they have HP on the level of IJN DDs, so they can't get in a gun duel with anything and expect to survive. Their heal is so miniscule that even if you get the full advantage out of it, you're still only marginally better than the worst other DD (the IJN torpedo boat at that tier), and virtually every other nation has more HP to start than you do AFTER all the heals have taken place. The no smoke is really harsh, especially when they have average to somewhat below average concealment. You get spotted by most other DDs, and your guns can't discourage them from keeping you spotted while their team deletes you. It's not helped by the very average speed and maneuverability making dodging not a simple thing. And, of course, you've got the torpedoes. While reload FAST!!!!!!! Whoop-di-do. The narrow spread is so narrow that hitting things is really hard to do with them, and the "wide" spread has god-awful dispersion: I frequently see 1 torpedo on the extreme of the spread, and BOTH other other two on the other side of the spread, with a big gap between them. And they're not that fast at T4-7; frankly, no faster than KM or IJN or French torps, so you don't score any more hits with them than those lines. And when those torpedoes hit.... it's like sneezing on the target, for all the good that hit does. Landing hits on a BB causes about 2k in damage. TWO F****KING THOUSAND for a torpedo hit. It's not even worth dodging for that amount of damage. Heck, on the light cruisers and DDs, they just line them up on the bow, take the first one for 7k of damage, then that's it. I think I'm barely averaging 4k per torpedo hit, across all targets. That's pathetic, even if I land an average of 8 torps per game, which is far higher than any other line (usually in the 4-5 for the torp-heavy lines like KM and IJN). The long range on them is really pretty pointless, as you're what, a "backline torpedo boat"? That harkens back to the "20km Shima" spam days in terms of crappy game meta play, with the exception that your "torp soup" is about as dangerous as a wet noodle. They're really pathetic. They don't have the HP or guns to be good hybrids at all. They don't have the speed and especially concealment to be decent pure torpedo boats. They have no smoke, so can't cap contest. They're torpedoes are pretty pointless, since while you can land a fair amount, they cause so little damage as to be completely ineffective. With the flood nerf, there's very little chance that you score much in the way of flooding damage, either. I'm forced to agree with the comment upthread that thinks they exist solely for CVs to have another target to chew on. They certainly don't serve any purpose that other DD lines can't do better, and don't provide any "interesting" game play option, either.
  11. After getting blind-sided by a T-22 with Hydro tonight, I had to look up to see when this was added. Turns out, in 0.9.4. At the bottom of the Release Notes. In a "have to click here to uncover" section. In small font. MAYBE, when you guys make a VERY signficant change to a ship, you MIGHT want to announce it more openly. And, by the way, I had to edit the Wiki to remove the section that EXPLICITLY SAID the T-22 didn't have hydro. Adding hydro to ship that didn't have it before, AND IS NOW THE ONLY T5 DD THAT HAS HYDRO is a very significant change. Sheesh.
  12. LAnybody

    Think I Know Why Jean Bart Is No Longer Sold

    Yes, that's great, but that IS with the +200% daily win bonus and the +100% XP camo. A 2700 XP game is still excellent, though.
  13. LAnybody

    For the guys trying to decide between Smaland and Hayate

    The Hayate is a real good example of "the juice isn't worth the squeeze". I won't go so far as to say it's garbage (it's not), but it's absolutely not worth the price. Because, you can play a BETTER version of it, for free: the German Z-52. The Z-52 is equal to or better in all aspects than the Hayate - speed, maneuverability, stealth, guns, health, AA, concealment, and even torpedoes. In every category, the Z-52 can match the Hayate, and in about half, it's better. It also has spectacular hydro, whereas the Hayate has none. The *sole* place that the Z-52 is worse than the Hayate is that the Hayate has much better smoke; or, more properly, the Z-52 has really crappy smoke. But even there, the Z-52's smoke is sufficient to get the job done, so you don't notice. And the Z-52's torpedoes, despite having 20% less (8 vs 10 on the Hayate) are functionally MUCH better - better concealment, lower reaction time for the opponent, a 50% better reload time, slightly faster, and they don't have the horrible dispersion that IJN torpedoes have. Even the 2km lower range (10 vs 12km) is pretty much irrelevant, because, let's be honest, you don't hit things launching at 12km. The reality is, that the Z-52's torpedoes actually score FAR more hits than the Hayate's does. You don't miss the 50% lower Alpha, because you land twice as many. Which makes stacking floods far simpler. In actual play, the quad G7 Steinwall is superior to the quint Type 93 Mod 3, by quite a bit. That's because much of the IJN massive Alpha is unused (due to overkill), and stacking 2 G7s vs 1 Type 93 means you do both more alpha, and are far more likely to get a unrepairable flood. If you want an IJN DD Premium trainer, get the FREE Shinonome. It's very capable at T6, and it helps you hone your IJN torp skills in any case. The Hayate is simple a hard PASS, because there are two free ships out there that are better than it, and it brings nothing that their of them can't replicate, better.
  14. LAnybody

    [UPD] Server Desync Bug

    I'm still seeing it pretty consistently on the NA server. At least a third of my games have it, and it's VERY definitely not my aim (since I'm currently grinding two lines, I'm constantly playing 2 ships, so I am VERY aware of how the aim SHOULD go). Nonetheless, I'm running about 25% or so down in accuracy, because the target ship simply isn't where I expect it to be. Conversely, it's hard to tell when others see it shooting at me, EXCEPT when I get attacked by a CV. It's then blatantly obvious when "misses" turn out to be actual hits 2 seconds later.