Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

1,256 Superb


About Moggytwo

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

877 profile views
  1. That's an awful lot of conspiracy theory in one post. It must be unpleasant to go through life getting so worked up about nothing. I've been playing this game since closed beta, and I can't say I can remember an occasion where I've been "screwed over" by WG. Sometimes they do things I don't agree with, and sometimes they do things I do agree with, but regardless of what they do, the reason they are doing it is generally pretty straightforward, and rarely something to get worked up over. This ones pretty simple - they developed the underwater areas for all the maps, some of them were put in the game this patch, and there were a few spots where they missed that the underwater terrain was a bit too shallow. Clearly a reason for panic!
  2. Brawls in the past have been absolutely amazing - some of the most fun I've ever had in this game. This latest iteration has been the worst of them though, basically being "clan battles lite" which misses the entire point of what has made the mode fun in the past. Brawls should be; small maps (a single cap section of a normal map), small teams of either three or four players (never more than four). A player can setup a team that they can invite anyone to (the team persists for the season) and then the team moves up and down a similar ranking style to clan battles, with match making being done based on the average of the individual ranking of each player on the team. The competition should be setup into seasons, lasting a couple of months each, with a different tier of play each week, ranging from 6 to 10. Small scale pvp with teams of players used to working together makes for a play experience where the group can learn to mesh together far better than the larger scale clan battle mode. This mode should be the pinnacle of World of Warships competitive play, and should have excellent rewards, in particular with unique cosmetic rewards (emblems, permacamos etc) at the end of each season based on performance.
  3. Well obviously they are going to fix this. They only just put in the new underwater terrain on some maps in the most recent patch. A bug or two isn't exactly a surprise, and they will no doubt be fixing it, likely in the upcoming patch. No need to work yourself into a tizz about it, bugs happen.
  4. Moggytwo

    Please unsmite secondaries WG

    Secondaries are supposed to be a sub-optimal spec that gives you a bit of bonus damage when you move into range, and discourage DD's from moving close to you. They adequately fulfill this role. Your main battery is always supposed to be your primary damage output.
  5. It was OP when they removed it. It's still extremely strong. Plenty of people didn't like playing it because the dispersion was poor (standard RU/US/RN dispersion with 2.05 sigma, other supercruisers all have the better battlecruiser dispersion, originally introduced on Graf Spee), and many used to play it a bit like Stalingrad and other large Russian cruisers, by sitting angled in and relatively static. This was a recipe for failure, because she is incredibly vulnerable through the bow, and so is instead best played like a mobile battleship. Taken overall however, the sum of her parts adds up to what was a very powerful ship, hence her removal. Her stats were way out of the balance band at the time. Since then of course, she's been nerfed by the BB AP 10% cap to DD's, the supercruiser fire duration nerf from 45 to 60 seconds, and of course the skill rework taking away the BB survival skills (in particular fire prevention) from cruisers. She isn't as nerfed as Stalingrad in these regards, because she is a ship best played mobile, and this means she isn't as vulnerable to HE as Stalingrad. Stalingrad was also the most powerful anti-DD ship in the game at her introduction, and that was completely neutered with the BB AP damage cap, and Kronstadt didn't suffer anywhere near as much due to this.
  6. Moggytwo

    Tier 10 subs are brokenly OP

    That was some pretty interesting game play in the OP's posted video, thanks for that. Overall I have to admit I like the look of subs, and they continue to head in the right direction, although there are clearly still issues. I don't mind that a DD that catches a sub out like the Kleber did in the OP's video can one shot it - the sub has a small window to fight back if they know the DD is coming, and if they don't know it's coming then they got out played. As for BB's and CA's vs subs, I think that seems really good, BB's desperately need more rapid negative consequences for poor decision making, and this looks like the right direction. For the CV vs sub thing, there is clearly an issue here. CV's should not be immune to sub pings automatically and for a minute, it breaks the subs game play loop entirely. I like the DCP making ships ping immune for other ships though, because that is a manually initiated DCP, and thus involves decision making to activate a counter. You get that decision wrong and you pay the price. I think the fix is pretty simple though - just make it so that the CV automatic DCP doesn't activate on being pinged, and doesn't clear pings. The counter play for CV's should be to run away at high speed while hounding the sub with planes, and the CV should most definitely be at an initial disadvantage given they've had a sub find them and get in range. The team size and make up issue is valid too, although I don't think it's as bad as the narration in the OP's linked video makes out. I think a sub cap should be implemented to start with, and I think it should be set to two per team, although three might be viable. At the same time I think a four BB hard cap would be better than a five BB hard cap. Ideally a battle should be 2 subs, 3 DD's, 3 cruisers, 3 BB's, and one CV. Most battles should be within +/-1 of that for each class, with other line ups being rare outliers. I do not think they should change the numbers per team, because I think that randoms should always be 12 per team. So they do seem pretty close to a successful implementation, after a few more tweaks, and I expect that patch 0.11.0 in January will be bringing us a sub release.
  7. Yup, you're pretty much right here. It's interesting that no one ever complains about Borg, and she is most definitely the best battleship in the game. Plymouth and Austin do seem particularly weak - CL's that rely on concealment or islands but are very fragile are simply not a good design, especially at high tiers where it only takes one tiny mistake to get blapped. Sure the offensive power they have might give good games on occasion, and the best players will be able to do this quite often, but the average win rate and damage of these type of ships is generally going to be poor. Bias alert though - I think cruisers are a pretty poor class overall, and although I play all the other classes regularly and quite successfully, I almost never play cruisers, and do not enjoy the class at all. Well you're on the right track here. This is what I meant by being not fun to play against. It is specifically designed to get multiple runs on the same target, and because of the 25 second minimum delay between attacks it can seem like you are being focused for ages. If you're alone in a BB or supercruiser, and particularly if you're sitting angled in and static, then you are going to think FDR is the most OP and frustrating ship in the game, because not only will you be attacked for ages, you also won't be mitigating much of that damage. On the flip side though, if you're playing the FDR, it takes huge amounts of time to get anywhere because your planes are so incredibly slow, meaning not only is it boring to play but you also can't react quickly to support your team, so you lose one of the primary strengths of CV's. It's also a struggle to avoid flak because you're so slow, which isn't much fun. You are almost completely ineffective against any competently played DD's because of your rocket arming distance and very slow bomb fall time, losing another key strength of CV's. Any cruiser or BB that actually keeps mobile and has discovered how to use their rudder will mitigate much of your bomb damage. Your torps are extremely good though, and both fun to use and effective (when you eventually get them to a target) so that's a positive at least. So not much fun to play, and not much fun to play against. In other words, not a good design. I've played FDR in clan battles for a season, at Storm and Typhoon leagues. It's reasonably effective, but that's more to do with the crappy clan battles meta of having static Russian ships holding positions or doing a direct push, than the actual power of the ship. FDR's primary strength is its ability to counter static BB's and supercruisers. There are far too many static BB's and supercruisers in clan battles, thus it is more effective there. Haku is still better though, even in those perfect conditions for an FDR.
  8. Did you not read the post you linked? You simply cannot directly compare the win rates of FDR with the other tier 10 CV's, as she is a steel ship, and thus is played by far more experienced and skilled players on average. If FDR was a balanced ship, then it would have far better stats - it's that simple.
  9. If someone's game play loop involves sitting their BB or supercruiser angled into the enemy in a static position, they likely think FDR is absolutely broken (they also likely think CV's in general are OP, and complain bitterly about "HE spammers"). For the average competent player however, FDR is no more an issue than any other ship. I totally agree that it's not particularly fun to play against though. Console yourself with the knowledge that it's equally unfun to play! Which actually counts against it. Generally ships start out with higher win rates, especially steel ships, since the first players to get the ship are the most experienced and skilled. FDR would have an even lower win rate if it had the same battles played as the most played steel ships. KDR between steel ships is completely irrelevant, since all CV's have high KDR's, because they have by far the highest survival rate. Also, comparing the win rate of FDR with other tier 10 CV's is completely pointless, given the fact that FDR has a much higher skilled and more experienced player group. If FDR was as good as the other tier 10 CV's, she'd have a much higher win rate, in the 54-55% range. It doesn't matter how you look at her, she's a weak ship. The concept and implementation of FDR was, given the benefit of hindsight, a mistake. A ship that is simultaneously underpowered yet consistently complained about by its opponents, and that is neither fun to play nor play against, is one that should have been rethought before release.
  10. I find it hilarious (but unsurprising) that FDR is currently sitting at more votes than the rest of the ships combined. FDR is one of the weakest steel ships (alongside Austin and Plymouth). Lets not forget steel ships have a quite different average player base than other ships, being played by what are on average significantly more skilled and experienced players - this is why they have much higher win rates than other ships. Yet if we have a look at the stats FDR is last on the list of win rate of steel ships. Let's look at some NA server stats: Bourgogne 56.7% Stalingrad 55.3% Black 54.8% Shikishima 54.7% Somers 54.6% Plymouth 52.5% Austin 52.0% FDR 51.8% 51.8% win rate for a ship that has a player base skewed significantly to higher skill and experience levels, is incredibly awful. The ship is quite simply underpowered, and anyone who wants to play a tier 10 CV would be better served taking out any other option (yes, you are in fact better off taking an Audacious than an FDR if you want to actually win your battle!). More so than that however, she is also not particularly fun to play, with the only enjoyable aspect being the ability to turn without loss of accuracy in the torp drop. So not fun to play, not fun to play against, and underpowered - clearly the best steel ship then! In case anyone was wondering, the correct answer is Borg - she's an absolute blast to play, and is the most powerful battleship currently in the game. The only thing keeping her from being nerfed is her skewed player base making it difficult to use data to correctly assess her power level. Edit: As an aside, here is a list of just a few of the ships that have higher win rates than FDR. All of them are played by, on average, much lower skilled and less experienced captains: Roma, Cheshire, Albemarle, Khaba, Hayate, Leberecht Maass, Chung Mu, Z-31, Odin, Caracciolo, Vauquelin, and Drake.
  11. Moggytwo

    Frame drops

    I got exactly that in a battle last night. Happened for about a minute or two, and was enough for us to lose the battle rather annoyingly. I'm nearly over it. Maybe. My frame rate is normally perfectly steady at 70-80, but it got down into single figures and was completely unplayable. It's never once happened to me before. Between that and the battle end screen, this patch seems particularly buggy.
  12. Moggytwo

    Is getting Stalingrad still worth it?

    Stalingrad is still a reasonably strong ship, although she has been nerfed significantly since release. I personally have no interest in her play style though, and I think you'd be best served considering how you enjoy playing the game before buying her. As an aside, here are the nerfs that she has had since release: She had her fire duration nerfed from 45 to 60 seconds. She had the best anti-DD AP shells in the game on release, it was a primary strength of the ship, with her superb dispersion, extremely short shell flight times, improved pen angles, short fuse timer, and most of all reduced shell arming distance making for a perfect storm of DD blapping with full AP pens. This was the strongest aspect of the ship on release, and the BB AP 10% limit to DD's completely removed that strength, making Stalingrad by far the most negatively affected ship by this change. The commander rework removed the 15% fire/flood duration, and most importantly the three fire limit of the Fire Prevention skill from cruisers, and this nerfed Stalingrad more than any other cruiser. The CV rework also hurt her significantly, as she's particularly vulnerable to CV's, and had that pretty big counter put into the game after her release. Plus of course there's the most recent nerf - a direct nerf to radar duration, reduced from 30 down to 20 seconds. After all that, she's still not a bad ship. Yeah - she was a bit of monster on release!
  13. Moggytwo

    Is Brawl a Joke?

    It should be divs only, but no clan restriction. Putting randomly assigned teams up against full clan divs is always going to be a poor experience. Brawls as a concept should be like arena combat, and should be one of the primary modes in the game, and almost always available, using a season system much like ranked. The rewards are currently completely and hilariously awful, yet my friends and I still want to play it, because it is genuinely the most enjoyable mode available in the game. When you play with small groups, particularly in the two to four per team ranges, you are able to get a level of understanding with your team mates (once you've played with them for a long time) where you know exactly what they'll do before they do it and without them saying it. It is just so incredibly enjoyable to play competitive modes like this, and far better than the more strategic larger format of clan battles. Brawls should be: you set up a team with you and a few of your friends (no need to be in the same clan, but you do have to make the team or be invited, the team continues for the season). You have match making and rating done in a similar manner for your team as happens for a clan in clan battles (or better yet just have a straight rating, rather than a league format like CB's). You are mathced against teams of similar rating, and the amount your rating moves up and down following a battle is based on the comparative ratings of the two teams. Team numbers should be either three or four per team. The tier changes each week between 8, 9, and 10. At the end of the season you get your final position and are rewarded accordingly, along with accumulating actually decent rewards for your efforts along the way, ranking dependent of course. Clan brawls done this way should be the primary competitive mode in the game, and the ultimate expression of competitive skill in the game. Larger format clan battles simply are not as good a mode as this could and should be. WG are currently missing the mark by a wide margin with the small scale pvp system in this game.
  14. "Not a great plan." You should always assume that you could be spotted at any point, and have an appropriate exit plan that involves leaving with the lowest risk possible in that eventuality. What should I do if I am spotted? What should I do if a CV comes to attack me? What should I do if my flank capitulates and the enemy moves up quickly? You need answers to these questions before you take up a position. Generally, if you are angled away from the enemy so you can full ahead and run both away from the enemy and so that the island protects your escape route, then you're not going to go too far wrong. If you fail to take all potential issues into account, and get killed or hit hard because of it, then the game is just applying the deserved punishment for your mistake. You get 20 seconds! How much time do you need exactly? If you're an island humping cruiser you can be in the next postcode in 20 seconds, and if you're a BB or supercruiser, then you should be moving already or angling away, and in both cases you'll be fine. When you won't be fine is when you're in a position in your island humping cruiser where if you go full ahead you'll run into an island or out into the open in front of the enemy team. You also won't be fine if you've stopped bow in and too close while playing your BB or supercruiser. So don't do these things! The game is trying to tell you, in what should be a very unsubtle manner, that you're playing badly. Instead of complaining about being punished for bad play, you may consider the option of learning this lesson and adjusting your play appropriately.
  15. No they don't - you can sit behind island cover, you just need to have an exit plan. Exactly the same as if a CV turns up with their DB's and goes to drop you, except it's much easier to dodge an airstrike. If you sit behind an island and going full ahead will take you into the enemy and danger, or just make you hit the island, then you're badly positioned. However, if you sit behind the island and going full ahead will take you away from danger, and give you the ability to throw the rudder over as well without making yourself vulnerable, then you're well positioned. It's not the use of island cover that's the game play issue, it's sitting in a position you can't get out of. The main poor play that an airstrike will counter, isn't CA's and CL's sitting behind island cover, it's BB's and supercruisers sitting bow in with no ability to escape if they get pushed or someone drops an airstrike on them. Countering this poor positioning is a good thing. I totally agree, I've seen the Dutch cruisers in quite a few battles now, and have had plenty of airstrikes dropped on my head, and haven't eaten a single bomb as yet. I honestly think there's a chance they'll have to buff it, any competent player isn't even going to be touched by this ability. The Dutch cruisers have to put themselves in a very vulnerable position to use this ability, at under 12km from the enemy capital ships, in a position where they could easily be spotted by DD's and CV's and whacked hard, yet the airstrike has very little impact, if any, on a competent enemy.