Jump to content

yashma

Members
  • Content count

    3,733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5161
  • Clan

    [OPG]

Community Reputation

910 Excellent

About yashma

  • Rank
    Commander
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

4 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

1,542 profile views
  1. I just wanted to throw it out there that between Tier 8 and 10 only 2/7 cruiser lines have 27mm bows. Japanese, French, Soviet, British and American (CLs) all have 25mm or less bow armor The only two lines with 27mm bows as standard are German and USN CAs. .
  2. While I'm not debating that the Nikolai is OP, it clearly is, even that ship suffers from skewed stats due to the limited player base that owns it. The Nikolai has not been available for regular purchase in years, meaning apart from an extreme minority of players lucky enough to get it from super containers, most active Nikolai players are long term veterans of the game that you would assume on average perform above the mean. Obviously being more experienced player doesn't necessarily make someone a good player, but it certainly doesn't hurt.
  3. Paper Ships in the game

    But it was based of the Project 24, what you fail to account for is that there were two ships labeled as the "Project 24". http://wiki.wargaming.net/ru/Navy:Лидер_эскадренных_миноносцев_проекта_24 It is also mentioned briefly in the wiki article on the Project 47. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Лидеры_эскадренных_миноносцев_проекта_47
  4. Paper Ships in the game

    The Khaba existed on paper and doesn't fall under the category of "designed by War Gaming", although it is of the more flimsy variety.
  5. The old Islands of Ice wasn't with out flaws, but I still think it was far better than the current iteration. I really really don't like Islands of Ice this patch.
  6. I once played a battle in the Missouri with SE because I potatoed and accidentally clicked SE instead of BoS. I sheepishly told everyone I was re-training a DD in chat, and then took advantage of the free re-spec that was going on at the time to immediately remedy the issue.
  7. Eh....I don't think so, if anything it has the opposite effect. Seeing a Yamato or Musashi with 100k HP isn't intimidating at all because your first thought is "look at this guy who took SE on his Tier 10 BB".
  8. I don't think you fully understand how important damage saturation is in this game. Have you ever noticed that when you shoot at a "fresh" ship you can do ridiculous damage on your first salvo or two, but then it rapidly drops off? Imagine if every time a Zao fired HE at you it would do 5k-10k volleys until you were dead, or if BBs could do 20k+ damage every time they hit each other's super structure.
  9. Is MISSOURI coming back?

    That's probably just a placeholder value for now.
  10. It's more the plot. I'm trying to say clear of politics....but Tom Clancy had a very....."idealistic"....way of portraying events in his books. A political spin that appeals to one audience might not go down as well with another. *I'm not Russian and personally enjoy the book/film as popcorn entertainment.....but I make no qualms about its true nature as political fiction.
  11. Not necessarily. WG actually seriously considered putting Soviet missile destroyers in game, and from what I've heard even went as far as to model and test them on a private server. The tests were evidently a failure, but there was a very really chance we would have gotten missiles in game before subs. *I unfortunately don't have a source as I think this was mentioned in a Q and A somewhere, but I believe the ships in question were teased in "plans for 2017 video" and WG did mention they were considering adding an entirely new type of weapon would be added in game. They also mentioned there were going to be two new subbranches of VMF DDs, and the fact we never got the second branch gives some credence to the theory they were supposed to be missile boats. *edit I found the source where it was mentioned missiles were tested https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/6wbxox/tldw_of_a_brief_qa_with_ev1n/
  12. I'm all for putting more CCs in game, but I'm not sure how feasible it would be to give them their own in game typing. A lot of CCs are functionally battleships, such as the Lexington, and yet others are already categorized as BBs in game. Not to mention, I really doubt WG will go back and reclassify the in game CBs as CCs, so Stalingrad, Kronstadt and Alaska would remain as cruisers in game. Honestly I think the current system works best. Classify CCs as BBs in game, while CBs are treated as cruisers. That way WG can address each ship on a case by case basis and balance ships based on their play style rather than ship typing. Although, this admittedly does pose some problems as far as introducing tech tree CC lines.
  13. SUBMARINES!

    But submarines take that to an entirely new level as their historical raison d etre doesn't exist in game and ships built for the main intent of ambushing merchants will somehow need to find a role in fleet actions between warships. Submarines have no historical place in this game, so WG has to invent a role for them. To be fair though, I will acknowledge that many of my gripes also apply to DDs....but subs still take the problem to en entirely new scale. I still don't see this as anything but a major knock against the inclusion of submarines in game. In general feast or famine just means both sides complain...and as I mentioned above IJN torp boats are already widely derided for it on the forums and reddit. So then I'll ask again, what point is there to even add submarines in game. You previously mentioned something about "THey can push DD's where they are supposed to be.. DD's aren't supposed to be, or shouldn't be stealth torping spam happy monsters that they are anyway." If you aren't saying that submarines are somehow suppose to regulate DDs, I just get the sense that you're advocating for submarines to be a more extreme version of DDs, which I don't think many people would argue deserves to be in game. Still, I don't think the solves the issue. If we further nerf DD torpedoes, then DD balance would need to be addressed to make sure they're still viable in game. That potentially means adjusting radar cruisers so they don't counter DDs so hard, which could in turn lead to a re-balancing of BBs. You also didn't address my main point. If submarines are not given super torpedoes, they won't be viable given their extreme one-dimensionalality, but if their torps are strong enough to be viable as their sole means of operating that creates a balancing headache. Hmm...that reminds me.... For a person who seems to think the current state of DD torp spam is so bad as to be worth nerfing.....I find it really really interesting that you're advocating for the addition of a line that is going to be entirely reliant on torp spam.
  14. SUBMARINES!

    No, it's the exact opposite actually. The reason for the backlash is that submarines are not viable in game with out massive artificial changes in order to allow a slow ship designed to ambush merchants to compete in surface to surface fleet actions.
  15. SUBMARINES!

    1. We're not just talking about a slight buff here. At a certain point if a ship has to be changed so far from reality just to make it viable in game, it probably doesn't belong in game in the first place. Not to mention giving Subs the ability to move around the battlefield that quickly while having that much concealment is a recipe for disaster and the antithesis for classic "sub gameplay". 2. Ignoring the fact that DDs offer far more utility than submarines could ever hope to, and people still complain about their "feast or famine gameplay". 3. Submarines don't have the speed or spotting capabilities to chase down DDs. In the gameplay trailer it was revealed Submarines have limited spotting when submerged, and most DDs can go close to 40 knots with speed boost active. Not to mention with the way depth charges work at this point it's more or less assumed DDs will be the main counter to subs. Not the other way around. 4. DDs already occupy the stealth torping role, while offering far more utility than DDs. There isn't room to add submarines with out changing DDs, and if DDs get changed that could potentially have significant impact on radar cruisers. If submarines aren't superior torp boats to DDs, they are dead on arrival. However, if submarines are significantly better torp boats then that raises two balancing issues. 1. Torp based DDs are now pointless and require rebalancing. 2. Potential for torpedo soup to come back.
×