Jump to content

vorlonagent

Members
  • Content Сount

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3309

Community Reputation

45 Neutral

1 Follower

About vorlonagent

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I installed WoWs on a completely new computer. Fresh Win 10 (64-bit) install. For reasons unknown the Game Center feels the need to download and install a second copy of WoWs. It even restarted installing the second copy after I cancelled it. Is there some reason I *need* two copies of the game and I don't know about it yet?
  2. Binkov's Battlegrounds has this to say. (Including a WoWs ad) They don't cover the Bismark/Tirpitz but really they were designed to sink commerce ships and outgun anything that could chase them, They weren't built to slug it out with other battleships,.
  3. I took the latest in-game survey and I was thrown off by the phrasing of the questions in the first half, all of which asked "Which of these things do you know?" Was WG asking if I was aware of these products/brands TV show's existence? In which case I'd be checking nearly every box, or were they looking for which ones I actually enjoyed, liked and consumed? That's a smaller list. Since the second part of the survey has to do with which I'd want to see in WoWs, I *think* it was supposed to be "are aware of", but the wording could have clearer.
  4. vorlonagent

    Flame away at a casual player

    I had the exact same experience you did. Twice. Tiers 1-4 you can only fight ships at most 1 tier ahead of you. So as a Tier 4 you can only fight at worst Tier 5s. When your ship is a Tier 5, you can find yourself in games with Tier 7s. That threw me at first. When I got my own Tier 7s and 8s I ran into a second learning curve with Tier 9 and 10 ships. What tier Premiums did you buy? It sounds like you may be moving into Tier 5 with the regular ships and maybe got a Tier 8 and your first taste of Tier 9 and 10 life. Even though I've been able to grind my way to a few Tier 8 and 9 ships, I still struggle with Tier 9 and 10 games. Tiers 6, 7, and 8 are my sweet spot.
  5. So it's perfectly OK for some ships to be unplayable with carriers? Lose the MM lottery, sucks to be you? Because that's the logical result of what you are saying. This game plays at realism but is not realistic by a long shot. It's an arcade-y shoot-'em up. Realistic carriers were so OP that if they had their power in game that they had in real life nobody would play anything else. Why this happened in important. Patch notes tell you what but not why. I thought I'd heard that Carriers were supposed to be "the DOT class". I.e. that they inflict their damage primarily through fires and floods. That's the context for my usage. Certainly that would explain why Tier 10 torpedo bombers often drop 2x torpedoes. 2x flood chances. What is the practical difference since the CV is the origin of the planes as surely as the CL is the origin of the shots? You still have to kill the ship to make the inbound fire stop, be it shells or planes. The difference is the ONLY way to make the planes stop is to kill the CV. My last reply pointed out the number of ways a BB has counterplay against being shelled by a CL that it doesn't have against CV planes and that this lack of counterplay is why your CV planes can only nibble at their targets in terms of alpha damage. Did you miss where I addressed this with Vaffu? It's not practical. You are asking me to trust the defense of my ship to my teammates. There are ships where the ship can do everything right and get targeted and trashed by a CV. Sector reinforcement does not help much when planes are pushing 800-1000 HP and your continuous damage is in the double-digits and you get one mostly-useless flak puff at Long and Med ranges. Spec for AA becomes not an option but a survival requirement. Begging the question should any option be required? I've found plenty of ships in the mid-tiers in this situation. Then why do continuous AA values still have a % chance to hit in the tooltips?
  6. You can't clearly explain yourself, what you think or why so naturally I'm the one who's immature. You're no longer worth my time.
  7. That's a way of avoiding explaining yourself. You're saying a bad-AA ship must find AA help and it is the captain's fault if he doesn't. Why? Why is this a reasonable point of view to have? I'm saying is unreasonable to expect that a bad-AA ship always find other ships to share AA defense (you're demanding I depend on my teammates). It isn't going to happen even half the time and anytime it doesn't happen the bad-AA ship is simply screwed. The fact that the bad-AA ship is screwed is the reason why I started this thread. I'll agree that a bad-AA ship *should* look for AA help whenever possible but there are way too many times where it isn't possible. It's not reasonable to say the captain deserves to get dropped into oblivion as you have. You may wish to write your replies in the whitespace as I am doing instead of inside the quotes. It will save on needing to put your replies in bold to keep them separate. Above is what happens if someone tries to quote your message to reply back. I'd still like some facts and figures behind that, though I do tend to believe you. You did not quote the part where I said I wouldn't be surprised if alpha damage is down. Counterplay directly against rework planes is reduced with the rework, which requires reduced alpha damage. To some degree countrerplay vs CVs has been shifted to counterplay against DOT effects (fire and flooding), which made the nerf to flooding necessary. All because CV play is not a skill vs skill interaction but CV player skill vs RNG interaction. But a BB has counterplay against a cruiser that it doesn't have against CV planes. It can shoot at a CA. CVs are usually out of sight. CAs can hide behind islands too. But a BB has options such as blind fire, going undetected or shooting the ship that is spotting the BB for the hidden cruiser. Or simply turning and sailing out of the CA's gun range if nothing else works. A BB can't do anything like that against a CV. Initiative and choice are primarily in the hands of the CV player. If RTS CVs were fine, WG wouldn't have reworked them so some dislike of them seems reasonable. Just because WG reworked CVs doesn't mean they got it right. In fact they rather admitted they didn't. The company line was they simply had to put it into the game to get the data needed to finish balancing them. Three hastily-dashed out hotfixes are not proof that rework CVs are finished or even close. They just did those to get the shouting down. I personally think that the rework was taking too long and was holding up profitable projects like British CVs so it just got jammed into the game incomplete. But that's just speculation on my part. I have no hard data. Believe it or not I have sympathy for CV complaints about AA that is too good as well as have complaints of my own about AA that is too bad. The game has to be fun for both CV players and surface ship players. AA can't be too strong or you don't have fun. AA can't be too weak or I don't have fun. I want us both to have fun. Really. Fun generally comes from play-vs.-counterplay and there doesn't seem to be much of that in rework CVs. YMMV. I've written before that AA seems both too strong and too weak at the same time and that this is the best proof I can think of that CVs and AA are at best unfinished and at worst broken. Can you point out any specific errors I made and tell me what's changed? I don't know that any of the hotfixes changed how continuous AA damage worked and how it worked was the topic.
  8. I had Crowns with 132 crowns I didn't expect to use and got to use them. All through Fly Strike win, I was earning crowns way ahead of florins, bought the Hermes and Furious but didn't have enough of either for the Implacable. WG had crowns coming in way faster than the florins the crowns needed to be useful. Maybe this was supposed to sell air drop containers (which give florins)? dunno. Going to my Arsenal today I was surprised to find a new option all the way at the bottom of the Fly Strike Win tab that converted 5 (useless) Crowns into 40 (useful) Florins. So thanks for that. WG might want to call attention to this now that we aren't earning Crowns or Florins outside buying air drop containers.
  9. I honestly do not know. I think it will depend on which tier you compare to. Upthread a guy said his Midway torps are only 2.5 K damage. In that case, torp damage is definitely down but IIRC Midway torp bombers carry 2 torps. So each plane drops ~5K damage worth of torps which could still be down from RTS but might not be. Furious torps are nearly 6K. 6K sounds like it could be in the damage range of Tier 6 RTS torps. Maybe. I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised to find rework torp damage is down, however. I'm pretty sure Rework planes can recycle and relaunch faster than RTS-planes did and I think (but am not sure) they move faster too. And it's easier for them to hit a target multiple times in rapid succession and return, relaunch and hit them again. And again. I can see torp, and bomb damage reduced to maintain balance. I replied, "That's not practical." I need to provide reasoning for this just the same as anybody else. You are asking me to trust the safety of my poor-AA ship to my teammates. In a Random Battle. Every time there's a carrier in play. I may not be good but I know better than to expect that to work even half the time. Does this make sense? Am I wrong? If so, why?
  10. The way I understand it, there is plenty of RNG to go around with continual AA damage. First there's a roll to hit (if you look at your AA you'll see a % change to hit). Then there's RNG in which plane gets hit because only 1 plane in the squadron takes damage each hit. It's allocated on a sliding scale intended to preserve some aircraft and focus down others. I watched from 0.8.0 videos from iChase Gaming showing how damage is allocated. At one point he had a squadron that ran the complete green-yellow-orange-red damage spectrum. I assume this hasn't changed. The question is when "poor AA" makes a ship unplayable or simply ruins the fun of playing a ship when CVs are in the game. Ideally at least, AA should never be that poor. There's also the companion problem of AA being too good for CV play to be viable or fun for the CV player. It seems like both problems exist right now. Of course. And that's why you were simply being toxic. I give you reasons why your idea might not be correct and you just double down on being toxic rather than actually processing what I'm saying. That's "factual" by some ways of looking at it but you're not really saying anything useful. Look at Toxie2725 right above your reply. He was mostly just writing "Shut up, you're wrong." three times. In fairness he did make some decent points about the old CV system and cross-dropping as well as ways of getting surprise-torped if one crosses out from behind an island. Getting cross-dropped sucked, but the old CV system didn't seem to allow torp planes to drop as close-up as they can with the rework leaving more room to dodge pre-rework torps. Maybe I'm wrong. And with the Furious' torps doing nearly 6K damage each I'm not sure he's even accurate that the old CV torps did more damage. I'd want him to pull out some tier-by-tier comparisons. And after a cross drop there is a significant time lag before an RTS-CV could do it again. A rework CV spams the equivalent of cross-drops every 30 seconds, minute at most. And in the case of surprise torps, A player has control over whether they get into that situation and sometimes has tools like Hydro which give warning. Those are counter-play options.. I have limited choice over if the CV targets me and limited counterplay against their air-launched torps. It's all in their skill vs my AA RNG. I can maybe turn my ship a little against one drop, and make sure I have the right AA sector reinforced That's about it. See here are thoughts and reasons that process and work with what Toxie2725 was saying. I still think he's wrong but I'm willing to take his points apart and disagree with them on their merits instead of just saying Shut up. You're wrong.
  11. You are correct. I checked the replay. It was the Furious and it did drop two torps per drop. Definitely my bad memory. You are welcome to think that. OTHO, if you can't support your point of view with thought and reason, you're just being toxic. Even if you are right. Actually I wasn't CV hunting. I was dueling another Nelson and he got focused down. I won that duel because I was angled and he wasn't. Bottom line: 20K from guns, 50K from torps. The Citadel damage was from torps that hit amidships not AP from any ship. Call that "focused down" (connotation: death by massed ship guns) or "showing my broadside", 'cause I don't.
  12. You might want to try the Furious. I have it in my port but haven't played it. Max torp damage is 5933 per torp. 2 torps per drop, though. _RC1138 was right about that. I had misremembered. Therefore more attack runs than I remembered as well. I didn't YOLO. I didn't die to focused fire. I got ahead of my team, yes. Out of position, very probably. If you're going to ding me for bad play, at least ding me for the right bad play. :) Looking over my replay, I spawned between the center and rightmost groups. I decided to go help the rightmost group which consisted of 2 Yorcks, and an Iron Duke. A Kamakaze R came over from the center group to help cap C. After it was capped, the Kamakaze R went back to B Cap. The Yorcks kind of stopped and hid in the islands in C cap and didn't advance. I'm pretty sure one of them got killed. They would have been my only realistic hope for AA help. I kept going on a swing along the right side of the map. There were only 2 enemy units on that side, a Nelson and the Furious who was running down the right side of the and now was running back toward his spawn. The ID followed along. Given I was closing on him, the Furious noticed me rather fast. I didn't notice him, however. I was focused on the enemy Nelson. If you tell me I shouldn't have pursued the Nelson and Furious, sure. I'll go for that. Maybe I should have turned for B Cap where the big fight was happening. But I was working the Exeter's Last Stand missions and needed fire damage. The enemy Nelson looked like a nice isolated target for farming some. I exchanged shots with the Nelson and got a couple of fires going before he got sunk (by someone else). Over the course of the fight I didn't take all that much artillery damage. I took some from the Nelson and few other ships but most of it came from an enemy Atlanta who strafed me right before death for about 20-30 seconds while my guns were reloading. then ducked behind an island to avoid return fire. The majority of what killed my Nelson was indeed torp damage to the Citadel. There was never any large amount of gray in my HP bar, only amounts like a 1/6 full health, like a normal BB heal would heal back. I still used my heal twice. I hit the second heal after I started flooding from the Furious' second to last torp drop. (the last torp drop killed me).
  13. The carrier had 3 torps per drop. If that's not the Furious, my bad. Nelson is Tier 7. It can't get into a Tier 10 fight. Thankfully. I may not have been clear about what "attack run" meant. I am using "attack run" to refer to all drops made by the same squadron launch. 2 total attack runs, maximum of 3 possible drops per run. And the CV captain used all 3 drops both times. Both runs, the final drop was a single plane for a total of 14 possible torps. I consider myself an average player, but I have no definition for what "average" is so I may not be. 48.39% win rate on 2294 Random Battles played. Call me low-average even and I won't dispute it. I know I'm not a great or unicum player. It's not like every game with carriers is like what I posted, even for me. But it's really frustrating when it happens. The Nelson, Bayern and others are defenseless carrier bait. While a weakness to carriers is entirely reasonable, they should have more going for them than glorified spitballs. Full-on AA builds should not be mandatory for survival. The worst part is a CV spamming torpedo drops with endlessly with no letup or counterplay option. You just throw up your hands at the keyboard, wonder why you bothered trying to dodge and get in whatever damage you can before you die. Not nearly as easy in practice unless you are in a division. In practical terms any ship can and will find itself alone fairly often. If only because it decided not to go get killed with its closest friends. If you watched the replay, I'm sure you could find many errors I made. I'm at best an average player (see above). I don't think poor heal management was one of my mistakes, but I could be wrong. I had already healed a close to the ship's total HP in fire damage back with 2 uses of that heal (people love to spam HE at the Nelson). Nelson also has a big citadel and it took many of it's torps amidships. Damage control kept flooding to a minimum until the end of the second attack run .
  14. And this leads into why air-launched torps are so weak compared to ship-launched. There's so little counterplay vs air-launched torps so they have to be nerfed by comparison to ship-launched. By contrast, opening up counterplay options against CVs can also make room for increased damage for air-launched weapons of all kinds. Lack of couinterplay means both lack of fun for the CV's target and lack of damage, which is a way for the CV to not have fun. My Nelson was sunk in two back-to-back torpedo attacks where the CV player got in all 3 possible drops each run. Final damage total on my dead Nelson was something like 20K from gun damage and 50K from the 12-odd torpedo hits. It would take a lot longer to kill a battleship with good AA if the CV player had to return to the carrier after the first drop each time. When the CV can ignore poor AA and land drop after drop, it's stupidly easy to kill a BB.
×