Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

34 Neutral

About Red_Hammer_Fleet

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Birthday 03/11/1990
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Fort Hood

Recent Profile Visitors

547 profile views
  1. CV Rework Condensed Version

    Indeed. I won't blame them for setting it up the way they did. It seems like the new system will lower both the skill floor and skill ceiling, while still retaining some requirement of skill to inflict damage. It does look like a more balanced system, here's hoping it works out.
  2. CV Rework Condensed Version

    Even with the AA turned down (heard rumor that the close-range AA batteries were shut down on the bots), the player was still losing aircraft if they lingered too long. I don't play CVs, but the changes look like a step in a good direction.
  3. Proposed Consumable: Sabotage

    When I said "I'm not entirely certain what all these numbers mean as a whole", I meant in the sense of an analytical conclusion. The data was scattered enough in its results that I couldn't find anything close to a simple answer. As for some kind of conclusive answer ... I would need to do several hours of research before even daring to put pen to paper. Work out which ships were released when and with what consumable options, just to get a baseline of semi-usable information. I don't know if snapshot numbers are out there for relative ship populations during a given month and the number of battles played for each ship. One major problem that I have with the graphs is that they don't mention change in server population. It would make sense to me that the average number of players on a server would increase as the player base grows. The averages are nice, but without a measurement against the server populations and rates of ship play, nothing truly concrete can be said. If I could get the snapshots for each ship that was in the game in December of 2015 and the number of games played for each of those ships, the same for September 2017, release dates for every ship in the intermediate, and the daily average server population for each month (12/15 and 09/17), then I could work something out that has at least a thin veneer of analytical value. But alas, I cannot make bricks without clay. For that last line, I suppose so. Almost every tier in the second graph shows battleships receiving less torpedo damage by percentage than destroyers. A few of the margins are rather thin, but they are present. You missed T7, where BBs receive 0.6% more damage from torpedoes. Six-tenths of one percent ... not exactly something to get out of bed for. To be fair, a few other tiers are about half a percentage point the other way - especially in the upper tiers. What's odd is that top-tier cruisers aren't receiving a similar proportion of torpedo damage as battleships or destroyers. BBs and DDs see about 12.8% of their received damage from DD-launched torpedoes while cruisers of the same tier spread receive an average of 8.8% of their damage from DD-launched torpedoes. That's about a third less, when in the first snapshot the averages were more varied across ship types (+/-2.4%; 16.5% BB, 11.7% CC, 14.7% DD). Thank you, @Kochira. Were it not for the last line of your comment, the tangent that made up my last paragraph there may not have been inspired. You showed me a different way to view the data, for which I am thankful. I would buy you a beer if I could.
  4. Proposed Consumable: Sabotage

    I'm rather late to the party here, but I did notice that almost nobody has addressed the data that @LittleWhiteMouse presented in an analytical way. As LWM presented, the amounts have significantly changed. For CVs, T4 to T10, the percentage dropped an average of 4.2% across the board. Going from an average of 12.6% of damage received down to 8.4% of damage received. That's across the entire CV population and for all tiers. The largest difference was surprisingly enough at T4, with an 8.6% drop in DD torpedo damage received. The upper-tier CVs saw ~1% reduction in destroyer torpedo damage received over that time. Battleships saw a similar drop (4.3% average) in received torpedo damage, again with the largest reduction in DD torpedo damage happening in the lower tiers. At T3, battleships saw their received torpedo damage reduced by almost half: from 20.8% to 10.9%. The higher tiers received a similar benefit, with an average reduction of 4.1%. Cruisers, which have received primary access to radar, also saw reductions in received torpedo damage across the board. As a group they received 4.2% less torpedo damage between the two snapshots. T3 and T4 share the top spot for largest change, with each tier seeing a 6.4% reduction. The top tiers saw a 2.9% reduction, which is odd since the top-tier cruisers have the greatest volume of access to radar. T10 did see an appreciable change, with a 6.4% reduction in torpedo damage received. That is one-sixteenth of all damage received by all cruisers in the game. As a class, Destroyers saw the smallest reduction in received torpedo damage at 2.1%. T5 saw the greatest reduction (4.1%), while the top tiers got a 1.5% reduction. This isn't terribly surprising, as destroyers are the fastest and most agile ship type in the game, and have the easiest time dodging a fish. LWM states that these two graphs date from end of 2015 (I'm guessing December) and September of 2017 respectively. Not quite two years between them, and we've seen a drop for every ship type vis-á-vis torpedo damage received. Even at its height, approximately one-fifth of battleship damage in two tiers (T3 & T10) came from torpedoes. One-fifth, and it was christened "Torpedo Soup"? The worst that cruisers had it at the time was 15%, at T3. It is all borne out in the numbers listed, go look for yourself and you'll see it. For comparison: CVs saw a 12.1% increase in AP damage and a 0.2% increase in HE damage. That's opposite a 4.2% decrease in torpedo damage. Battleships saw a 1.5% increase in AP damage and a 2.4% increase in HE damage. Opposite a 4.1% decrease in torpedo damage. Cruisers: 12.7% increase in AP damage, and a 4.4% decrease in HE damage. Opposite a 4.2% decrease in torpedo damage. Destroyers: 10.2% increase in AP, and an 8.4% decrease in HE damage. Opposite a 2.1% decrease in torpedo damage. That is across all tiers, mind you. The top tiers saw some odd changes over this time period: Top-Tier CVs received a 20.1% increase in AP damage and a 6.4% increase in HE damage. Opposite a 1.1% decrease in torpedo damage. Top-Tier Battleships received a 1.5% increase in AP damage and a 2.4% increase in HE damage. Opposite a 4.1% decrease in torpedo damage. Top-Tier Cruisers received a 9% increase in AP damage and a 4.7% decrease in HE damage. Opposite a 2.9% decrease in torpedo damage. Top-Tier Destroyers received an 11% increase in AP damage and a 9.5% decrease in HE damage. Opposite a 1.5% decrease in torpedo damage. I'm not entirely certain what all these numbers mean as a whole. I did leave out a few categories for the sake of keeping this simple. The pattern that I am observing is an across-the-board decrease in torpedo damage, which has hurt a group of players that already didn't have the easiest time as gameplay went. Every top-tier group (T8-T10) across the game has seen less torpedo damage, from what wasn't exactly the most competitive set of numbers. While damage has been compensated for in other areas -- particularly AP damage, which increased for literally everyone -- the crux of a destroyer lies in her torpedo tubes. I don't know if anyone else remembers, but the 'top ships of the month' thing has yet to list a destroyer in the top-5 for most-played in a month. As I recall, there isn't a single destroyer in the top ten ships for most-played when measured in terms of games played. Destroyers are a critical part of the game, and it seems like they aren't really popular. The longer this goes on without any tangible changes, destroyer players will not want to keep playing. This is alienating players, as these forums have shown. As for why they aren't popular, I think I have a pretty good idea for why. Destroyer play is "short, brutish, and nasty" as a matter of course, even without radar in the game. Add in radar and that life often gets much shorter. While it is very true that evading radar is a required skill for any DD captain, radar does have some problems that need to be addressed. The "spot through islands" bug is my chief complaint, though there are a few other problems with it as well. As for the conversation about "hard counters", some of you seem to have forgotten another hard counter to smoke: Hydro. Almost all the high-tier cruisers and a lot of mid-to-high-tier destroyers have access to Hydro. Anyone who plays German destroyers knows this quite well: Bring a friend or two in a cruiser (CLs are great for this), watch for a cap to start turning, run in, fire up the hydro, and feed an unsuspecting DD to the cruiser(s) following you. I've done it before, it is a legitimate tactical method. The element that has been missing from that conversation so far lies in what destroyers are supposed to do: cap and scout, sink ships when practical. Anyone in a cruiser with radar can see that a cap is being taken, run over, use the consumable, and that destroyer has to run until the radar runs out. Best case, he takes no damage and has to turn around to try again for the cap (done that as well). Worst case, he loses a large chunk of his health and has to walk on eggshells for the rest of the game. How many times have you spotted a DD in a cap circle, he goes to flee, drops his smoke to cover his retreat, and he gets lit up by radar? What happened next? Did the ship make it out? I will bet that the destroyer didn't make it much farther, or was seriously damaged from the ordeal. If you don't play destroyers, I would like it if you tried them out. Get to T7 and try capping when there are three to five radar cruisers on the opposing team (double points if you are bottom-tier). You will spend a good chunk of the game running from that radar and trying to cap or scout. Good luck sinking anything with your torpedoes, as most battleship players appear to also know which cruisers have radar and will stay firmly behind the safety of radar cover. I'm willing to bet that the use of radar as a shield for battleships has also contributed to the passive meta. Throw in the hit percentage numbers for destroyer torpedoes (hundreds fired in a single match, maybe a dozen will hit), and you'll see that something is amiss. I will not advocate for radar to be done away with. It is in the game, we have to live with it. It does need some adjustment, and I would like it if WG did not add radar onto any more ships until that adjustment is completed. Just like the RN CV line, I don't think anyone is expecting it to come out before the other two lines have been fixed. Let's take a tactical pause, fix what needs fixing, and then move on.
  5. GULAG Recruiting

    Hi, I'm John and my clan is recruiting. We are a casual clan looking for players of any skill level (30% win rate? No problem!). Here are the clan rules: 1. 50 oil per week after joining. It's not hard to get one container a day. We understand if your life is busy, so please let us know if life will not permit that much play. Just try, this isn’t an ironclad rule. 2. Discord applications. Your application to the clan must be accompanied by a request to join our Discord server. 3. 30-Day Boot. If you are inactive for 30 days, you’re gone. 4. Weekly divisions. I can't track this, but would like to see everyone division up with a fellow clan member at least once a week. The current goal is to get 7-player groups for running operations together on voice comms. 5. Check the Discord server once a week. Even if you aren’t into playing in a division, just check in for updates. 6. Abuse, bullying, or otherwise poor conduct while playing with the team are grounds for dismissal. Nothing too crazy. Additional information can be found here on our Discord server. There is one player who has an exemption from the 30-day rule, due to his line of work (currently in Afghanistan as a contractor).
  6. Japanese CL line?

    Or, more simply, set the damage-per-shell value a good bit higher, and maybe drop a 1-2 seconds off of their reload. Going from 10 to 9 (or even 8) seconds isn't a big deal and would increase their DPM. The other main factor lies in the armor values of the opposing ships that these light cruisers would be expected to deal significant damage to (i.e. destroyers and other cruisers). I can see these ships being very much worthwhile for anti-destroyer work even without GRB, their real weakness would be against ships with heavier armor. If I did the math right, a 140mm gun can penetrate 23mm of armor (1/6th of shell diameter = penetration). That is more than enough for any destroyer up to T7. The 152mm guns can penetrate up to 25mm of armor, which should be more than sufficient to send an opposing DD to the locker. Since I don't play cruisers, their armor values are a mystery to me.
  7. Japanese CL line?

    Ah, okay. Quick thought, having dome some speedy research: A 50% decrease in reload time would put the 140mm/50 guns of the Sendai-class down to a 3s reload, or fifteen salvoes in a minute. I've never been entirely certain how to calculate DPM (feels too straightforward), but the numbers I'm coming up with are just stupid. The odd part is that the next two cruisers have bigger guns (152mm vs. 140mm) and a slower reload (10s vs. 6s), with a net result of nine salvoes per minute. Sendai gets 7 guns firing 15 rounds (105 total) while Agano and Kai-Agano get 6 and 8 guns firing 9 rounds each (54 and 72 total), which feels weird.
  8. Japanese CL line?

    I could live with an IJN CL that is very average in comparison to everything else at its tier and weight class. Then again, as a DD player, I'm more than a bit biased. Set the line up for scouting/spotting, with the speed and acceleration necessary to keep pace with the DDs. GRB should give them the boost needed to scare off an opposing CL or CA in a pinch, but their normal RoF should be more than enough to seriously damage a same-tier DD in a few salvoes. Consumables: T5: DC, GRB or Hydro, CF T6: DC, GRB or Hydro, CF T7: DC, GRB or Hydro, CF or TRB T8: DC, Hydro, CF
  9. Japanese CL line?

    Given the traditionally slow RoF for IJN ships, it's not a bad idea. -50% reload time; 30s duration; 120s cooldown standard, 80s premium; 2 charges standard, 3 premium, 4 w/ Superintendent Would make for a good middle ground for a CL line that needs an occasional boost to its firepower.
  10. RN DDs announced by Dev Blog

    Sorry. I use the dark theme. Black doesn't show up well, so I used white.
  11. RN DDs announced by Dev Blog

    None taken. Nobody else had posted the actual stats as put out by WG. Even if they are ST stats, they needed to be put out.
  12. RN DDs announced by Dev Blog

    I didn't see any other threads on these news ... I must have not noticed them.
  13. RN DDs announced by Dev Blog

    The Royal Navy DD line is officially in development. Here are the stats as pulled from the Dev Blog Facebook posts: T2, Medea T3, Valkyrie T4, Wakeful T5, Acasta T6, Icarus Yep, I am very much excited for these!