Jump to content

vorlonagent

Members
  • Content Сount

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3006
  • Clan

    [WOLF7]

Community Reputation

39 Neutral

1 Follower

About vorlonagent

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. vorlonagent

    The Hotfix helped a lot...but

    A better example than the Nagato for frustration is the Bayern (T6 German). I played a game on Strait last night. Twin Rangers on each side, one with each group. The enemy scattered the forces on the other side and send stuff to my side.. My side collapsed without the help. I was second ship forward behind a cruiser and turned away rather than push into torpedo range of a smoked-up DD with three enemy BBs closing on one flank. I survived longest because I chose to kite away rather than stay with the group and get killed. But kiting away meant leaving behind any AA help. And the Bayern needs all the help it can get. One especially frustrating drop went like this. The first drop came in at an angle and I dodged one of the torps barely. Yay me. Drop #2 came broadside on. There was no dodging it because dodging Drop #1 took time. The Bayern's rudder had barely started to recover when the next drop came. The Bayern's AA killed its first plane of the group just as the final drop was starting so I only took one more torp I could do nothing about. My AA killed that last plane after it got its torp off. Planes were in my reinforced zone the entire time. I did everything right. Maybe not great but reasonably OK. The CV player could pretty much ignore my AA and drop me at will. He got 4 hits out of 5 drops and lost two planes. If he had F-keyed instead of doing that final drop he would have gotten 3 torp hits and lost nothing. I'm not saying the Bayern needs god-tier AA. I'm saying being repeatedly dropped with no counterplay isn't particularly fun. Saying "Don't play the Bayern, then" is not an acceptable answer.
  2. vorlonagent

    The Hotfix helped a lot...but

    If you actually bothered to read the thread you'd find everything you posted already brought out and discussed. Except the accusation of lying, which isn't worth my time.
  3. vorlonagent

    The Hotfix helped a lot...but

    Once again we're back at the very questionable requirement that players running different ships with different capabilities and needs must stick together. The 4 ships I start with tend to want to scatter in 5 different directions, not all of them intelligent and not all of what's left being intelligent for me to follow. I'm not sure it's a good idea for the presence of one ship type (CVs) to so heavily warp gameplay that we play one way when no carriers are present (ships as individuals) but are compelled to play a second completely different and very restrictive way (ships as groups) when they are present. To some degree we always have to adapt to whatever weird mix of ships the matchmaker coughs up, but for carriers to force an unnatural mode of gameplay (grouping) seems a bug not a feature. You guys may be right in that it is how we have to do things at the moment but let's not confuse it with a positive addition to the game. Few CAs/CLs have the concealment to follow a DD into or even near a cap without being focused. Also DDs start in a forward position. Yeah they can wait for the fleet to catch up, but that ties them to a slow speed and leaves them twiddling their thumbs. And they're still not "scouting" in any way that would be recognizable prior to 0.8.0. Wazil has observed what seems a good compromise however.. This at least seems to preserve what a DD is supposed to do. I'll disagree here. The game is set up to reward solo play. Flamu made that point very clearly with some videos last year. Things have improved...some...since then. There may be kinds of solo play that WG doesn't want but if they wanted to encourage group play, they'd have a whole different reward structure, than Kraken, High Caliber, Confederate and the rest. They'd have a better Ranked system than "best player on the losing side gets to keep his star". Another part of that imperfect world is "players don't care about grouping". Trying to force them to group as a regular tactic is unlikely to yield positive results. When a ship can't handle itself against planes and doesn't have a group for AA, it is screwed. And screwed routinely if it happens regularly. Your answer seems to just be "don't play that ship, then", which is valid but admits that the ship is not just disadvantaged in the new meta but is unplayable. Noted. Thank you.
  4. vorlonagent

    The Hotfix helped a lot...but

    You make following my teammates into stupidity sound so appealing... Herd mentality for the win, then? What about DDs whose role often requires they work alone and ahead of the fleet? Do they just forget about scouting and capping because grouping up is the only way to survive? That doesn't sound like a meta designed to retain and enlarge the player base to me. What about CVs themselves who really need to hide somewhere in the back of the map or get killed? Does the fleet huddle around the carrier? Players need to be able to move and fight freely. They need to be able to succeed and fail individually. As frustrating as fail teams are, they're a better experience than playing follow-the-leader with guns, even though "follow-the-leader with guns" would probably be more historically accurate. ...so it's OK for some BBs or even BB lines to be screwed in the new meta? I ask merely for information... Never mind that grouping up and maneuvering tend to interfere with each other.. That tends to be true the higher-Tier things go. I've seen CV players complain a lot about Tier 10 god-level AA, especially when a Tier 8 carrier is uptiered into a T10 match. At Tier 6-7 where most of my ships are, "...and generally shoot them down" doesn't seem to be the rule. "Some get shot down" would be more accurate. From things I've seen and heard, reowrk carriers seem a hot/cold thing where a competent player either succeeds greatly or is shut down hard with no middle ground. Would you agree?
  5. vorlonagent

    The Hotfix helped a lot...but

    It isn't surface ships vs. CVs unless you want to make it that. We can compare lists and see what suggestions we can make that result in a better experience for both CVs and surface ships. I think iChase Gaming is on the money when he says there should be more skill involved in the plane vs AA interaction though I don't agree with his "AA minigame" suggestion. Bottom line: we both agree that CV play is frustrating. That's common ground right there. As I've posted before AA looks built to let you get in your first drop and then encourages you to hit the F key to stop your losses. It pushes you toward a repetitive strike once, F-key, strike once, F-key sort of play if I'm reading things right. I only have the basic Tier 4 carriers and I don't take them out much so my personal experience is limited.
  6. vorlonagent

    The Hotfix helped a lot...but

    Which suggests an overall problem with the system where CVs are either massively effective or completely shut down with no middle ground. Has the second hotfix helped/hurt/no change? My problem is at the level of Tier 6 and 7 however. I have one Tier 9 and a few Tier 8 ships. I'm never happy to find myself in a Tier 10 game either. DD torps are usually launched at a greater range with a correspondingly greater chance for me to dodge them through random or intentional changes to my course and speed. CV torps require radical changes in course and speed as a function of their closer launch range. I think the lack of CV torp damage reflects how inevitable it is that ships are going to get hit by them. Greater ability for counterplay allows for greater damage output. Limited options for counterplay must be balanced by light damage.
  7. vorlonagent

    The Hotfix helped a lot...but

    Once is fine. Once every 30 seconds gets old fast no matter what kind of ship you're in. Are you seriously asking me to depend on my teammates? If they run off someplace abjectly stupid, I'm forced to choose between common sense and a massed AA bubble, I'm expected to die for AA? Would requiring me to choose AA indicate a balanced CV + AA system? I personally think not. Nor is it really practical to expect independently-minded captains with different ships, capabilities and agendas to stick together. More often than not they fan out in 5 different directions. You might get better play in Clan battles, but not in Random. Nor is it practical to expect every player to be able to divide their attention perfectly and routinely spot and maneuver against air threats. You're very close to demanding unicum play out of non-unicum players. This system has to work for everybody. I've not found maneuver to be really effective by itself. Battleships turn like...well...battleships. (i.e. not that great) Also the AA system appears to be designed to let the first attack from a squadron through. The light damage from carrier ordinance also supports this. I've found that fighters seem to make it harder for torp planes to line up their run, giving a wider window for maneuver. Which just leaves those BBs who don't have fighters.
  8. vorlonagent

    The Hotfix helped a lot...but

    Agreed. Much less than surface ship torps,even less than pre-0.8 carrier torps. I'm assuming 4k a trop. But it is citadel damage. 90% is permanent, Only 10% can be healed. The difference is 50% of non-citadel AP and HE damage can be repaired. Also I can act to mitigate damage by angling my ship or maneuvering to dodge if range allows. If my opponent is hitting my citadel I have made a mistake or been outplayed. Carriers deliver 8k (2x torpedoes) of citadel damage every 30 seconds for very little effort and at very little risk or cost. The carrier isn't outplaying me to get that citadel damage. They just have to not suck at it. It's not a question of nerfing. It's a question of counterplay. Dealing with carriers is frustrating to me because there's nothing I can do about the incoming damage besides take it. I'd trade you greater ordinance damage for increased ways an alert player can dodge or mitgate your drops. I'm not sure what those ways would be, but reasonable players can discuss this and get us both better or more varied gameplay.
  9. The hotfix helped from my perspective of playing primarily Tier 6-8 ships. Thanks for the quick rollout. Carriers were really broken without it. But carriers are still frustrating to play against. The design of AA appears intended to nearly always let the first attack group out of the strike get its ordinance off. AA primarily limits followup strikes and that's where the frustration comes in. A torpedo group comes after my Nagato and if the CV player is at all competent, I'm taking 2 torpedoes. That's 8k or so of citadel damage that I simply can't do anything about. I can't kill the planes before they drop, I can't dodge the drop and I can only heal 10% of the damage. And that's before we talk about flooding, which in fairness hardly ever happens but would only add to the frustration. Torps doing citadel damage is a fair trade for DDs, CAs and the occasional BB, who would face significant risk in getting as close as CV aircraft routinely get, incur long reload times and and can be dodged at nearly any launch range by an alert player. Actually landing a ship-launched torp is important. Getting hit with a carrier torp is routine. Even if the carrier only makes one attack run before hitting the F-key, he's still back in 30 seconds for the next attack run. Oh look, there's another 8K of citadel damage I can't do anything about... This might not even be unbalanced from a design perspective. But it's frustrating to play against.
  10. The GC is going to be uptiered far more than it is going to be top-tier. I don't mind fighting Tier 6s or Tier 7s in the GC. Nobody should. I do mind the idea of fighting Tier 8s and T8 games are going to be common. I'd like something that makes the GC survivable vs T8. I don't think the new upgrade slot is going to be enough.
  11. vorlonagent

    POLL: Your opinion of the CV rework thus far

    1) I have no answer to #1. It is still too early to tell. 2) I play as if the Rework didn't happen. No more , no less games. 3) I think the problems with this version of CVs are small enough that WG can figure it out. I do NOT think the hotfix has fixed all of them, but it sure as hades helped. 4) What do you mean? Bacon is the 5th food group.
  12. The CV Rework seems centered around the idea of the CV getting one strike in on just about any target picked and approached in a commonsense manner (i.e. not flying through a ship or two's AA bubbles before attacking). AA doesn't stop the first run but makes additional attack runs problematic. This encourages the F-key exploit where aircraft simply disappear from a ship's AA bubble like UFOs, cutting short the consequences of making the strike. The CV can immediately launch another strike of the same type (say, torpedoes) and should, with a continued high survival rate from previous strikes, be able to continue to spam one-attack strikes more or less indefinitely. Clearly one of the balance elements for CVs has to be forcing the player to change attack types or accept a penalty for being unwilling to change. Cooldowns: CV aircraft are unusual in WoWs in because strikes can be launched and attacks made or less at will.. Launch cooldowns: Launches for a given attack type (missile, torp, bomb) would be slowed by imposing a cooldown which delays the player's ability to launch a fresh strike with that attack type. The cooldown would start when all aircraft from the strike had returned to the CV or been destroyed. It might be simpler to have the cooldown start from the F-key press instead. Even a 1 minute cooldown would help tremendously. It would make spamming a single attack type less efficient because the player has to wait to reuse it. A cooldown of 3-4 minutes would force the player to cycle through all 3 of his attack types. If he persisted in the attack-F-attack-F-attack-F strategy he might find himself with no strikes he can launch for a while. Both exploits highlighted by iChase Gaming depend on being able to repeatedly spam aircraft of the same type over and over without delay to have their full effect. Attack cooldown: While the transition from an attack group that has finished its attack back to the squadron imposes s short cooldown as it is, we might want a longer cooldown between strikes for a given air group. Planes that turn tight and require minimal animations to split an attack group from the squadron before being able to attack could spam their attacks before a ship's AA bubble could do its expected damage. Destroyers facing rocket attacks might be most vulnerable here. A short 10 - 15 second cooldown would be enough to allow ships to recover from a previous attack and attempt to deal with the next one. F-Key is not Immediate: The player hits the F-key and is immediately transported back to his ship, but his planes don't suddenly become invulnerable. Leaving the AA bubble. Planes must climb to high altitude and AA invulnerability. That means they will continue to endure AA fire after the player has returned to his ship and will continue to take damage and/or losses. Adjusting the time needed would be a key balance question. Too long would be too punishing, too short would not change the situation enough. This would go a way towards giving surface ship players a better sense of their AA effectiveness. Spent Strike Aircraft would face this same issue, but would arguably climb out of AA fire faster since they lack munitions to slow them down. Not all of these need be implemented in order to balance carrier gameplay, but they should close the known exploits that exist in the game.
  13. vorlonagent

    When did you start swimming in credits?

    I can see why. The IJN CAs tend to have paper mache armor and their gun turrets are in bad need of WD-40. But it's hard to argue with 10km torps on all DDs and CAs starting with Tier 5. :) the IJN battlerships came alive for me starting at Tier 5 and the Kongo. I got to love my Fuso once I got all the upgrades. Some of my T6s are graduating into T7s. But my port is still mostly standardized at tier 6. I was fine for the first 200K of the needed 300K... that last 100K was puling teeth. The Boise's heals makes it a very forgiving ship and 15x 152mm guns, even with the slowed reload compared to Helena, is a marvelous power fantasy. :) I'm fine right up until I decide "I have enough money to bring back this older ship I once liked playing..." My attitude as well. My Christmas 2017 containers were not so kind. I picked up the "year at Sea" pass early this January when it was cheap. I picked up 180 days last fall when WG had a deal that gave you doubloons whee you spent X dollars at the premium store. Yeah that'll do it. I've been finessing the Daily Mission chains by playing a couple of co-op games at the start of my playing day. to get the 250 and 500 base XP parts out of the way. After playing a lot of Co-op Random sometimes seems tiresome. If I can do co-op to get a mission done I'll always do i that way. I do Operations now and they by they aren't my bread and butter. With the payout so closely tied to the number of stars potato teammates could really frustrate you. How did you like the extended Halloween event? It could have put a lot of money in your bank but not do much for leveling up your ships. I don't have a 19-point captain to my name so I loved the chance to experiment with the 19-point captains I was given and build up Elite Captain XP.
  14. vorlonagent

    When did you start swimming in credits?

    I'm there with you. After a year and a half, I have every ship line leveled to at least 6 (I skip around a lot), with a few at 7, two at 8, 1 at 9. I am relatively flush with creds at the moment only because I worked hard at the Mighty Prinz event and its final segment demanded huge amounts of credit grinding to get the PEF. If you're tight on creds, you don't *want* that daily XP bonus or flags and camos that kick XP. It helps accelerate your XP earning past your credit earning and gets you new ships before you can afford them. For the same reasons, you shouldn't mind *losing* games as long as you personally performed well because creds are the same if you win or lose. But it makes the grind longer because you play more games at each tier before you advance. I found I couldn't grind the same ship over and over again. I had to jump around and chase daily win bonuses, which meant I was always tight on creds and doing everything I could to scrimp and save. I cannot echo this enough. The game is structured to make you cry and scream for credits until you pay for premium time. The singe best thing I did for my WOWS experience was run a premium account. Not just buy weekend passes, but 90-day, 180-day, or 360-day premium runs. No shiny premium ship compares. Running a premium account meant that I could chase first win bonuses and still keep my head above water.
  15. vorlonagent

    Making the PEF not suck

    Answering myself, yes it does help. The skill reads "main guns 139mm and below". It buffs secondaries. regardless of size.
×