Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

92 Good

About Enpra

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Enpra

    What Are You Doing WG?

    When did Jingles get added as a commander? The Azur Lane commanders from last year actually have submarine spotted/sunk lines. Those clearly weren't a joke. They were recording lines for submarines well in advance of submarines actually being put in game.
  2. It's been over a fully year since I posted this thread. This still isn't fixed. Seriously, why? I've done all the legwork required to fix this issue. The only difference between now and last year is that the Nelson voice line issue is a theoretical non-issue because it's literally impossible to sink an ally now.
  3. Nobody against this change in this thread has mentioned realism or authenticity. It's not a matter of being "dumbed down" compared to reality. It's dumbed down compared to pre-patch. Previously, it was dumb to launch torpedoes that might hit an ally. Now it is not. Previously dumb behavior is no longer dumb, thus it has been "dumbed down". This means players are free to launch torpedoes in the direction of enemies, regardless of the positions and headings of their allies, since hitting allies isn't at all detrimental to you, your allies, your team, or your chance to win. Not taking a shot that could hit an enemy very well might be detrimental, however, even if a few of those torpedoes hit an ally.
  4. I disagree. There was no reason you should expect torpedoes to come up from literally right behind an enemy ship, unless perhaps they're in a div and coordinating the shot. You could pretty safely assume that they wouldn't be incoming, or if they were, there was at least good chance that they would benefit you more than the opposing team. Furthermore, as I said, now you can take shots you shouldn't take before, because they're no danger to allies. You can save an ally or win the game by doing so. You can be totally careless with torps now, so I assure you torps will be launched more often, since shots that were risky before now hold no risk. The "benefit" of team damage is that it adds complexity to the consideration of if and when you should launch torps. Hence, the removal of team damage is "dumbing down" this consideration. From the viewpoint of someone that torps were being fired at, you could previously use the opposing team as a deterrent against torpedoes being launched, or even bait torpedoes into them if they were launched.
  5. The people that are most affected are the people who would have held fire when there's an opportunity, but an ally could be hit be the torpedoes if that launch opportunity is taken, because the ally/team is no longer in any danger from the launch anymore. You know what I did the first game I played since the patch hit? Loaded up Yoshino with 20 km torps and fired them in the general direction of the enemy at literally every opportunity I had. Hit an ally DD. Didn't matter, another 3 torps from the launch passed the DD and continued through the cap towards the enemy. 4 more torps crept in soon after. The ally DD didn't have to worry about avoiding my literally careless torps, and I didn't have to care that the ally DD might be hit by them. The only people that had to care were the opposing ships that might take damage from them if they try to push in toward my ally DD in cap. Though admittedly none of the torps hit an enemy, but in my defense, they're 20 km torps that are relatively easy to dodge due to their speed and detection characteristics, and the match had 5 DDs, 1 CV, 2 BBs, and 2 cruisers per side. There weren't exactly a lot of targets those torps were likely to ever catch unless I was going to try to charge a BB... in a Yoshino. On the other hand, there were torps pretty much constantly passing through the cap I spawned near. Before this change, the vast majority of those torps never would have been fired in the first place, so it's not like I'm losing anything by firing them now. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, and I'm now free to take way more shots than ever before, because missing is no worse than not ever firing, and hitting an ally isn't a detriment. Before, use of Yoshino's torps was rare, since it was difficult to gauge if they would be a threat to allies due to her sniping playstyle (backline torps were usually a very bad idea before), the relatively low speed of the torps, and the long range. Now it's just a matter of, "Are my torps loaded? Alright then. Here's some fish in the water." At the ranges Yoshino usually plays at, there's very rarely ever going to be a time where you need to save those torpedoes for an obvious opportunity where they'll definitely hit a ship or catch them off guard, because you're too far away, the torps are too slow, and are detected too early. On the other hand, having 16 torpedoes in the water for every 167 seconds of the game is obviously going to make pushing forward somewhat less appealing. They can be used much more often as a denial or deterrent tool now. See smoke in the cap? Launch some torps into the smoke to discourage the opposing ship from sitting in there, or maybe even get lucky and sink a ship that's using the smoke. It doesn't matter than an ally DD may pass between you and the smoke, or even be between you and the smoke now. See an ally BB brawling an enemy BB? Launch some torps into the brawl. You might just save the ally BB's life, or a ton of HP. You can attempt to use the torps to force the opposing BB to either eat torps or turn broadside to the ally BB. The worst that can happen is that you miss now. Before you might have accidentally sunk your ally. Removal of friendly fire damage means you no longer have to consider if your shots might hit an ally. Now it's just a matter of what they might do to the opposing team.
  6. I actually don't agree with this. Part of what I do with Azuma is bait BBs into taking bad shots at me. Getting targeted by a BB doesn't worry me, and I often welcome the incoming fire, as it means they're not shooting my allies, and they're probably keeping themselves lit up for people to rain fire upon. I can kite, dodge, rain fire, heal rapidly, and go dark to disengage. Long-range BB fire is something I can handle. Getting targeted by a BB closer than 15 km worries me, or getting targeted by a BB that I have to show broadside to (because something worse will hit me) worries me, but BBs that aren't too close are no problem. Of note - I run range on Azuma, not fire rate. You'll also notice if you check maplesyrup that Azuma has better survival stats on average than most cruisers at her tier. This includes both potential damage and survival rate. She has a giant citadel and her armor is nothing to write home about, but she's fast and is comfortable operating at long range, where many BBs will have trouble landing good shots. Her repair party helps make up for anything that does manage to land. Repair Party. Not Damage Control Party. She's got the same heal cooldown as Georgia/Massachusetts, which is important since fire damage is 100% repairable. Of course this means she'll probably still burn through heals faster due to increased fire damage, but it's less likely to just outright kill her since she can mitigate it with healing more often than other ships. What, does the HSF movie not count? I actually remember checking her classification on the JP Wikipedia page specifically because I watched the HSF movie about a month ago and was like, "Wait, NOT Large Cruiser???" When they displayed her specs. The specs displayed in that movie match 1:1 with the Japanese Wikipedia page, and it's always possible that they just sourced that page. It's also notable, however, that she's specifically named Azuma, a clear nod to WoWs (since no B-65 was ever constructed or named), and yet her specs displayed were not the ones used in WoWs. It's also noted that the Japanese version of Azur Lane uses 超巡 as her classification symbol which is pretty much "super cruiser" (not quite, it's missing some kanji at the end). That said, in Azur Lane, she introduces herself as a "large cruiser"... though in the teaser trailer for the WoWs collab she's listed as a super armored cruiser despite her saying she's a large cruiser in that very trailer. Also, as fragile as she comes across in WoWs, I'm assuming that's largely because WoWs doesn't exactly have the most realistic damage model. We don't exactly want more heavily armored ships to be practically impervious to cannon fire in game. Also there's the whole thing where she originally had thicker outer armor but Wargaming nerfed her before she was released (much to the chagrin of many players who pretty much immediately declared her "trash" due to her new fragility). This isn't really up for debate unless the wiki is wrong (which, to be fair, it could be... last time I checked it had Azuma's repair party stats wrong on the consumables page). I technically haven't bothered to do the math on her dispersion compared to other cruisers, but assuming the wiki is right (and it probably is), then yes, regular cruisers have better dispersion than the B-65 sisters. Also, normal IJN CAs (so, not Azuma) have DD dispersion. That said, I've played Azuma for over 700 matches. She makes up over a third of my Random battle experience, and my win rate with her is somewhere around 55%. If there's any ship I'm used to aiming with, it's Azuma (and Dunkerque, but that's neither here nor there). Every other cruiser I'm that not complete garbage with (which, to be fair, is not a large number) I have a better hit % while using. More anecdotally, as far as "feel" is concerned, Roon's shell spread certainly feels and looks a lot better than Azuma to me, and my Roon playstyle is directly ripped from my Azuma playstyle. Well, as far as I've heard (could be mistaken), the B-65 design was specifically drawn up to act as an answer to the Alaska-class, which was ironically drawn up because the US thought something like the B-65 was in the works.
  7. Honestly, as someone who mains Azuma, I actually agree with some people that super cruisers were over performing for the most part. That said, the more recent CAs have been keeping up with the super cruisers fairly well, actually out-performing Azuma (which I know, is arguably the worst super cruiser, but she still does better than most of the tech tree). As far as my impressions of the commander rework: Yeah. It's going to hurt. A lot. I build my Azuma commander like a BB commander. She literally uses the same survival build that I use on BBs. That said, the Demoman skill does actually have my interest. Here's the thing about Azuma: An Azuma that gets close to a BB is a dead Azuma. An Azuma that gets into mid range of a BB is a dead Azuma. Azuma is dead if a BB can consistently hit her, and she's a relatively big target, so you have to play at relatively long range. This means that the concealment penalty, while bad, isn't actually all that bad, since you play from long range anyway, and nobody except a DD is probably going to be spotting you without your gun bloom. This also means the skills activated when in detection range are actually useless unless your match has an incoming cyclone, because if they're active, you're probably dead in the next two minutes. The AP skill, while it has its uses, won't see a lot of benefit on Azuma. 310 mm shells can be bounced by most cruisers, so unless enemies are giving you a flat broadside shot, and chances are that they aren't, then you usually don't use AP (partly because of Azuma's good HE performance, as is in-line with IJN cruiser characteristics). Even when you have a broadside, your penetration's not great at the ranges that Azuma generally operates at. Her AP can be used to devastating effect, yes, but you'll probably more often than not go an entire match never switching to AP. That said, depending on how things shake out with Azuma not being able to take survival skills, I might actually end up maining Roon. You can currently play them pretty much exactly the same (but with different builds) to get similar results, and Roon doesn't need the mitigation nearly as badly as Azuma does. I think Azuma will probably be fine, but I'm actually not entirely sure. Four ignition points and full-burn fires are going to hurt quite a bit, but she's probably the CB best equipped to handle this change, as she's the only one that has a 40-second cooldown Repair Party (not even Yoshino has this). Also, I noticed it was mentioned that "Super Cruiser" isn't an actual historical term, but was made up in the context of WoWs. This might be true in English (I don't know the details there), but the B-65 cruiser design (Azuma) is actually classed as a "Super Armored Cruiser" design in Japanese. Just as the Alaska is classed as large cruiser and not a battlecruiser, the B-65 design is for a 超甲型巡洋艦 (super armored cruiser) and not a 巡洋戦艦 (battlecruiser). I'm not 100% sure that's the name used in the original designs, but it's certainly the type classification listed on Wikipedia (JP) ... and in the High School Fleet movie. It's also probably notable that Alaska is listed as a 大型巡洋艦 (large cruiser), and not a super armored cruiser like Azuma, and that Azuma is called a "Super Type A cruiser" on EN Wikipedia, while Alaska is indeed listed as a "Large cruiser". It's also worth noting that Azuma and her sister have improved Large Cruiser dispersion because improved dispersion is a characteristic of Japanese vessels. Just as Japanese CAs and BBs have improved dispersion, so do Japanese CBs. This is a national quirk, and probably shouldn't be considered when trying to figure out what's considered characteristic of a ship type classification. The B-65 sisters are still less accurate than most cruisers are though, just more accurate than most of the other CBs out there.
  8. Well, this still isn't fixed as of 0.9.9, assuming the WoWs Unpacker tool always gets the latest set of files present (Steam gets update files early, even if they're not active). That said, the version number isn't in the mod directory for the more recent releases, so you shouldn't have that in your file path when applying mod/fix I've got posted here. Seriously though, I've literally done all of the work necessary to fix this bug. There's no reason that this should still be a thing. Wargaming could literally copy-paste my mod over the mod.xml they've got in the game's files and it would fix this. Not that they should just incorporate a mod into their game's resources without looking at it, but seriously, what they hell? There is no excuse for this to not be fixed.
  9. Well, okay, so a friend asked me if I could fix this with modding. I did. AL_WoWS_fix.zip You can just drop the folder in there into the current res_mods\<version number> folder and it should fix the voice lines. Including Nelson's, since I opted to reverse her reversed lines in the XML. Nelson's lines will look wrong in the XML, but it should play the correct voice line. Technically I didn't test this exhaustively since I just kind of threw it together. If I notice anything wrong I'll upload a new version. I thought about putting this in the mods subforum, but since it's just a fix rather than full-blown mod, I figured it would be best to not clutter that area. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  10. Nevemind that I said Or that Nelson has had broken lines for two years. I found my old thread, by the way. https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/195474-azur-lane-nelson-lines-are-reversed/ You have to log out to see it. Also, I know it says I haven't tested it in that thread. I have, recently even, in a training room. Her lines are still wrong after 2 years of being broken and at least over a year after being reported. All I'm really getting from this is that whatever dev shop you have experience with isn't responsive to bugs, and lets them fester live in production without addressing or acknowledging them in a timely fashion. 2 lines on 6 commanders (all the Third Wave ones other than Shoukaku), plus 2 more on Nelson. If that's fine to you, that's up to you. It's the fact that they show no sign of response, plus the high price that makes it bad. I paid for a premium product, I expect it to be handled as such. There's no excuse for letting this kind of thing slip through and sit when the price they're selling them for is enough to buy an entire AAA game, and the resources it takes to fix the issue is nearly nil. Jean Bart is great. Also, she (the ship) doesn't have a spotter or fighter in WoWs, so if you're only using her on herself, the issue described in this thread never arises. Unfortunately, the only AL collab that ever let you pick and choose commanders was the first one, two years ago. Bottom right in port. Gear icon just above the ship carousel. Allows you to make some of the less historical camo and commanders appear as normal camo and commanders.
  11. Nevermind the fact that I'm a fully employed, professional, software dev. The fix is literally just flipping the terms "Fighter" and "Scout" in the XML in 6 places, all in the same section. Testing is easy. Just take ships with fighters and spotters on them and intentionally get the planes shot down. As it's a mod.xml specifically for defining the callouts of the AL commanders, you're in no danger of breaking any other part of the game. That said, I would have been fine had the issue at least been acknowledged with a forum post, or been listed in the known issues thread. Neither has happened. Also, Nelson has had her filenames reversed for 2 years. The fix for that is to literally just swap the filenames, and it's been broken for 2 years.
  12. What, because of the price? I'm actually totally fine with how much I spend on Azur Lane, and how much I spent on the Azur Lane content in WoWs. The commanders in WoWs actually have decent amount of voice work behind them, certainly more than the skins you can by in Azur Lane. It's just incredibly annoying that the content I paid for isn't working how it's supposed to work, and the people that sold me the content (Wargaming) haven't even acknowledged the issue. If they were working, I could whole-heartedly recommend the $200 commander pack to an Azur Lane fan by pointing out that you're getting something like 2500-3000 voice lines, covering everything from launching fighters, to shooting, to torpedo warnings, to quick commands, to battle start/end, to doing high damage with shells, to hitting with torpedoes. They're pretty extensive voice sets, and they let the personality of the characters really shine through. You're really getting a decent bang for you buck compared to buying most skins in Azur Lane, if that's something you do. That said, they don't work as intended. It seems like a small thing, as it only really is 14 lines that are wrong (that I've found, though getting your fighters or spotter shot down isn't too uncommon if you use them for close-range scouting), but if you're going to be paying $60-200 for these commanders, they should work. I could buy multiple AAA games with that money. At least take the 5 minutes it would take to fix them. Jeez! Also, on a side note: Azur Lane wasn't even an anime when this collab was originally launched 2 years ago. For the most part, it was just a phone game at that time, though they were kicking off into an anime and console game announcement soon after the WoWs collab.
  13. Don't get me wrong, I actually bought all of the commanders, most of them multiple times over. I have all the AL ships, and all of the AL camo. There's thousands of voice lines associated with the commanders, and that's great. I actually love these commanders. I'm the creator of this guide on Steam. The problem? Some of them are broken. Nelson has had her files for sinking an ally destroyer or cruiser reversed for years. This was fine, because frankly you'll pretty much (or literally) never hear these lines. However, every single one of the Third Wave commanders have their catapult fighter and spotter plane shot down lines reversed (other than Shoukaku, who doesn't have these lines at all). These lines are not uncommon to hear. I reported this issue on July 28th, but evidently that report has been ignored. I also reported the Nelson issue quite some time ago, and that was never fixed either. As such, I'm creating this thread pretty much to vent in a more centralized area where it might get more attention. Having spent literally hundreds of dollars on these commanders (no, that's not an exaggeration in the slightest), and having spent many dozens of hours working on translations, it's frankly kind of insulting that the devs can't take the literally 5 minutes it would take to fix the issue (and no, that's not an exaggeration either, it's an incredibly easy fix). I actually can't find the old Nelson thread, I'm assuming it's tucked away in the bug-reporting sub-forum that I can't access when logged in for some reason (but it's possible to access when logged off), but this is the thread I made about the more recent issue: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/223217-azur-lane-catapult-fighterspotter-plane-shot-down-lines-are-reversed-on-new-commanders/ As you can see, I've identified why the problem is happening. All it would take to fix it is some filename changes (for Nelson) and simple text editing of the XML for the Azur Lane commanders. The fact that this issue hasn't even been acknowledged in the known issues thread updated today, (or just fixed in the latest update, because it's SUPER EASY to fix), kills any confidence that I had that this is ever going to be fixed. Particularly with Nelson still being broken after all this time. As such, I cannot recommend these commanders, as Wargaming evidently just doesn't care enough to fix them, despite them being sold for cash.
  14. This isn't fixed in the latest patch and it's not acknowledged in the list of known issues as of 08/04. This should literally take 5 minutes to fix. Seriously. The entire problem is laid out in this thread, with the cause and how to fix it. These are premium commanders people pay money for. This really should be fixed.
  15. Pretty much as the topic says. If your spotter of fighter gets shot down as one of the new commanders, the wrong line plays. To test, just take Littorio, Roon, Sovetskaya Rossiya, Yat Sen, Jean Bart, or Baltimore out on a ship with a fighter or spotter, and get the plane(s) shot down. Shoukaku doesn't have this issue because she just doesn't have lines for her fighters/spotter being shot down. You can see why this is happening in the mod.xml <Path> <StateList> <State> <Name>CrewName</Name> <Value>Azur_JeanBart</Value> </State> <State> <Name>HelpType</Name> <Value>Scout</Value> </State> </StateList> <FilesList> <File> <Name>JeanBart_Speech_CatFight_Destroyed.wem</Name> </File> </FilesList> </Path> <Path> <StateList> <State> <Name>CrewName</Name> <Value>Azur_JeanBart</Value> </State> <State> <Name>HelpType</Name> <Value>Fighter</Value> </State> </StateList> <FilesList> <File> <Name>JeanBart_Speech_Corr_Destroyed.wem</Name> </File> </FilesList> </Path> <Path> <StateList> <State> <Name>CrewName</Name> <Value>Azur_Littorio</Value> </State> <State> <Name>HelpType</Name> <Value>Scout</Value> </State> </StateList> <FilesList> <File> <Name>Littorio_Speech_CatFight_Destroyed.wem</Name> </File> </FilesList> </Path> <Path> <StateList> <State> <Name>CrewName</Name> <Value>Azur_Littorio</Value> </State> <State> <Name>HelpType</Name> <Value>Fighter</Value> </State> </StateList> <FilesList> <File> <Name>Littorio_Speech_Corr_Destroyed.wem</Name> </File> </FilesList> </Path> <Path> <StateList> <State> <Name>CrewName</Name> <Value>Azur_Itsen</Value> </State> <State> <Name>HelpType</Name> <Value>Scout</Value> </State> </StateList> <FilesList> <File> <Name>Itsen_Speech_CatFight_Destroyed.wem</Name> </File> </FilesList> </Path> <Path> <StateList> <State> <Name>CrewName</Name> <Value>Azur_Itsen</Value> </State> <State> <Name>HelpType</Name> <Value>Fighter</Value> </State> </StateList> <FilesList> <File> <Name>Itsen_Speech_Corr_Destroyed.wem</Name> </File> </FilesList> </Path> <Path> <StateList> <State> <Name>CrewName</Name> <Value>Azur_SovRussia</Value> </State> <State> <Name>HelpType</Name> <Value>Scout</Value> </State> </StateList> <FilesList> <File> <Name>SovRussia_Speech_CatFight_Destroyed.wem</Name> </File> </FilesList> </Path> <Path> <StateList> <State> <Name>CrewName</Name> <Value>Azur_SovRussia</Value> </State> <State> <Name>HelpType</Name> <Value>Fighter</Value> </State> </StateList> <FilesList> <File> <Name>SovRussia_Speech_Corr_Destroyed.wem</Name> </File> </FilesList> </Path> <Path> <StateList> <State> <Name>CrewName</Name> <Value>Azur_Baltimore</Value> </State> <State> <Name>HelpType</Name> <Value>Scout</Value> </State> </StateList> <FilesList> <File> <Name>Baltimore_Speech_CatFight_Destroyed.wem</Name> </File> </FilesList> </Path> <Path> <StateList> <State> <Name>CrewName</Name> <Value>Azur_Baltimore</Value> </State> <State> <Name>HelpType</Name> <Value>Fighter</Value> </State> </StateList> <FilesList> <File> <Name>Baltimore_Speech_Corr_Destroyed.wem</Name> </File> </FilesList> </Path> <Path> <StateList> <State> <Name>CrewName</Name> <Value>Azur_Shokaku</Value> </State> <State> <Name>HelpType</Name> <Value>Scout</Value> </State> </StateList> <FilesList> <File> <Name>TISHINA.wem</Name> </File> </FilesList> </Path> <Path> <StateList> <State> <Name>CrewName</Name> <Value>Azur_Shokaku</Value> </State> <State> <Name>HelpType</Name> <Value>Fighter</Value> </State> </StateList> <FilesList> <File> <Name>TISHINA.wem</Name> </File> </FilesList> </Path> <Path> <StateList> <State> <Name>CrewName</Name> <Value>Azur_Roon</Value> </State> <State> <Name>HelpType</Name> <Value>Scout</Value> </State> </StateList> <FilesList> <File> <Name>Roon_Speech_CatFight_Destroyed.wem</Name> </File> </FilesList> </Path> <Path> <StateList> <State> <Name>CrewName</Name> <Value>Azur_Roon</Value> </State> <State> <Name>HelpType</Name> <Value>Fighter</Value> </State> </StateList> <FilesList> <File> <Name>Roon_Speech_Corr_Destroyed.wem</Name> </File> </FilesList> </Path> As you can see, when the Value is "Fighter", the line being used it the "Corr_Destroyed" line, while when the Value is "Scout" the "CatFight_Destroyed" line is being used. These are reversed. "CatFIght" is the Catapult Fighter, while "Corr" is the Spotter. Also, the files for Nelson sinking an allied cruiser or destroyer are still reversed (they look fine in the XML, the file names themselves are reversed), and I reported this issue quite some time ago. This means she says the wrong ship type when sinking an allied cruiser or destroyer. Nelson_Speech_Destroy_Ally_Destroyer.mp3 Nelson_Speech_Destroy_Ally_Cruiser.mp3 "Kuchikukan" is destroyer. "Junyoukan" is cruiser.